"If I, were KING, of the FOR-RESSSSSSST..."

A commenter on another (the other) blog included a story about someone who recently got a $50 million dollar award from Phillip Morris tobacco company. As the guy already died, it’s his widow who’s getting it now.

AGGHHHHHHH… I can’t stand it! EVERYTHING just HAS to be GOOD vs. EVIL, doesn’t it? Everything has to be so extreme! [obviously that includes my response… oh well…]

Here’s what I’ve noticed… monetary awards went thru the roof because lawyers need jobs too, so they make SURE they get ‘em. Judges are just as responsible for skewed lawsuits being tried in the first place, never mind won, and because juries are made up of usually conscientious (they showed up, didn’t’ they?) but just as frustrated regular folks, they can’t HELP but enjoy sticking it to ‘the Man’ when they can. (can’t blame ‘em there – not right perhaps, but can’t blame ‘em)

One of the reasons I think so many mega-lawsuits happen is because corporate entities are allowed to perpetually gorge themselves on other businesses as well as on taxpayers’ money, while they’ve got their customers (aka TAXPAYERS) by the scruff, shaking every last dime outta them that they can get. In the meantime, the smaller and small businesses are overburdened with taxes, laws, licenses and fees that hamstring their hoped for success, never mind starting up in the first place, which in turn maintains a shortage of jobs that occurred because another B.A.I. ‘globalized’ its workforce, while at the same time, keeps the price out of range for regular people over here, who probably no longer have jobs anyways, because B.A.I. globalized its workforce!

HEY! HERE’S and idea! How about instead of taxpayer support for helping huge corporations like freakin’ McDonald’s play in the global market place, we use those funds to help people who actually can use it? So that those of us too poor to have a cookie jar in some offshore bank still have a chance to build a business, regardless of how small, to be more globally marketable! How’s THAT for a concept?

WHAT’s that you say? That might challenge our other global players? TOUGH. If it’s a free market, than put MY tax money where your rhetoric is. Use your own, damn cash to fund the B.A.I lobbyists constantly clawing at the underbelly of our national treasury.

Now while that nonsense is happening on the national economic level, on the social level, the only viable option for change is passing another law? In particular, against ONE more thing that individuals may or may not want to do but the very choice is being erased anyways because someone else disagrees with it, and claims its "tearing away at the fabric of society" or some such happy horsesh*t. It then becomes outlawed, further deteriorating the idea of tolerance, never mind a MYO-damn-B kind of attitude, because someone decided it wasn’t good for ‘the public’ if so-and-so gets to do this-or-that for her or his OWN life!

What crap!

Every law we pass ‘protecting’ the citizenry from ‘themselves’ and especially based on some sense of morality, encourages us to be that much less responsible for ourselves! In the meantime though, B.A.I. gets to stick it to us, to our economy, to our environment, then gets off the hook for one reason or another but usually with the excuse “but we HAVE to do this to grow as a business, how else are we going to create more JOBS??? WAH-WAH-WAH” while in the meantime those ‘jobs’ go oversees ANYways, which in turn drives the individuals to get lawyers, who convince judges and juries to stick it to ‘the Man’ and… (see previous paragraph for the rest).

It’s this constant kind of bullsh*t that kicks my megalomania into overdrive and one more time, I want to ‘Take over the World’! (I wish you foolish mortals would finally just bow down to me as your Benevolent Overlord, but *sigh*, I guess I’ll just continue to wait)

I’d flap it out like a dusty rug, hang it on a clothesline, beat the sh*t out of it, fluff it out again, leave it hung up for whatever amount of time it would take night and day air to freshen it, let the sun finish drying it up, and then bring it in to lay atop a newly cleaned floor. Then I’d make sure it’d be kept up by regular vacuuming to keep the parasites from re-infesting it!

Hmmmm.

I just realized that my metaphor would probable be more useful to me if I took it literally upon my own abode – BUT THAT’S NOT THE POINT!!!

Here’s how it would be in ANNETTE-WORLD:

First off, I would be THE DICTATOR - BIG CAPs all the way! Because what I have in mind would definitely get anyone into lawsuit-lotto to try to go after me, and OH-no-no-no-no-NO! I’m not having it. It’s my way or it’s a one-way ticket to the gulag of my choice.

I would put an immediate moratorium on all lawsuits. For the next 6 months to a year judges on all levels would be hearing trials only for criminal law. In order to cut that case load back, all drugs would now be legal, or should I say, no longer illegal? I’d grab back all the funds and manpower from the DEA and set ‘em out on the streets of this country to be OUR cops. And then, what you do to get your groove on is purely YOUR business. But if something happens while you're grooving, then your ass is the LAW’s.

Next, ALL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR ALL CORPORATE ENTITIES WOULD STOP! Welcome to the REAL free market. ALL MEGA CORPS that had been sucking on the Government teat would now be immediately OFF the TIT! No doubt, they’ll need to lay-off their work force in order to regroup, but they would have to start from the TOP, and weed their way down if they choose to do so. In terms of any kind of complete-ass bankruptcy, they would have, AS THEIR PRIMARY DUTY, to pay off their employees from the bottom up first until they get to the shareholders’ level, who would come second and THEN they can worry about paying off chief executives (if there’s anything left).

That might sound like punishment, but balancing an extreme situation often does. Ask anyone who just got blindsided by loosing their job!

In terms of the general population, Public Health would now have only three missions; a) to monitor and become pro-active regarding any kind of contagion, flu/virus/bacteria, what have you by informing the public as well as keeping track of epidemic response and effectiveness; b) when there’s not that kind of emergency to attend to, it would monitor and report on the quantity, quality and overall effectiveness of all medical care and its tools, especially pharmaceuticals; c) lastly, education and awareness of all the kinds of things that we want to do, already do, but may be better off not doing, but it would NOT be allowed to lobby, nor align itself with any special interest group looking to lobby for some kind of change in ANNETTE-WORLD. All entities would have to their availability all the same information and can argue each other blue in the face, but if it’s regarding limiting someone else’s choice of how to live, it BETTER be pretty damn convincing, or don’t waste the Benevolent Overlord’s (aka Me) time!

All places that are public, as in taxpayer supported, buildings, especially governing ones, would be the most comfortable for the most amount of people possible. Easily accessed, good ventilation, smoking allowed in certain areas, mood lighting, whatever! The idea would be the greatest number of people to be under the same roof at the same time to get the most amount of civic involvement outta them. After all this dictating, I’m gonna want a VACATION, damn it! How the hell can I take a few weeks off if you fools are perpetually at each other’s throats!

Violations to said public building ordinances would be attended to either by fine or removal from said building at that time, your choice. You can dig up the cash; or go home, clean up and come back. And whether it’s in a public owned building or a private business, if you have your own office (four walls, roof and a door) and you have some kind of ventilation, yes you get to smoke. (Rank should have some privileges) Those of us out on the rest of the work floor, sorry, but there would be outdoor and indoor seating available.

Essentially, I would have one law – you cheat, you get beat, no matter WHAT the situation. For instance, did you just swindle someone out of their savings? Guess what! You’re gonna be working for that person or persons until you pay that freaking amount OFF. If you wish, you can liquidate all assets to try to gain some ground on what you owe (you know, like the LITTLE people do) but until it’s paid, YOU pay, living on a basic stipend until it’s done.

How about if you rob someone like an honest crook, but happen to break your leg, loose a finger, get killed, whatever? TOUGH! Enough of this babysh*t. Don’t do it if you don’t want to risk the consequences. Of course, if you’re the intended victim and/or the one who actively did the killing/maiming to spare an intended victim, rest assured that there would be a very intense investigation into the matter. If it turns out you were justified in your actions, you’ll be reimbursed for loss of pay, lawyer’s fees, ammo, and any damage done to yourself or property, but forget about ‘pain and suffering’. And of course, that would come out of the perpetrators assets unless there aren’t any. In that case, I’ll be happy to twist the arm of the company managing your home owner’s insurance to pay for it, seeing as you’ve had to suffer nosebleeds to pay for it anyways.

If you have kids, guess what! They are now once again, YOUR responsibility.
If your kid did it YOU pay for it. Teachers would no longer be responsible for disciplining kids other than to send them home as fast as a kick sends them. Your pup mouths off, the little s.o.b. gets sent home and YOU take care of it. Spanking would no longer be illegal. HOWEVER, I mean SPANKING; not beating. A rap on the ass with a wooden spoon or a belt is a far cry from a slap in the head or broken ribs. If a parent were to abuse his or her child in such a matter, the parent would be removed from the home instead of the other way around, and sent to live with someone bigger and meaner than s/he to get the same treatment for the same length of time the child had to suffer it.

Child molesters of ANY type would have a choice of castration or jail time. Unless it involved extra-brutality beyond that of molestation. In that case, I’m not going to describe the consequences. Just rest assured that they would be there, and that they would be very unpleasant. It would be justice, but it would be unpleasant.

Murderers would not automatically face a death sentence unless the crime fits one of two criteria; how many victims and/or what was done. Anything that involved 2 or more victims – automatic death penalty is what you’re looking at. Anything that was particularly heinous, the same. And let both sides of the aisle be VERY thorough because heaven help the prosecutor who worked on emotion rather than facts to get a judgment.

There would be no more than five years to attempt an appeal. If it doesn’t happen, the sentence gets carried out. Should it be found out at some latter point that an innocent person did get the death penalty, then both sides of the legal aisle would be held accountable though the side that was more at fault would bear the brunt of the sentence, whatever that might be according to the situation.

In civil lawsuits, lawyers would get no more than 5% beyond the client’s due share of any kind of award or payment won, and the client would get paid first. Judgments in favour of the plaintiff would be focused on TANGIBLE damage done and any needs as a result of said damage. If the defendant wins, judgment will favour the less wealthy of the two. Sounds unfair, doesn’t it? TOO BAD. If you got the cash to get an overpriced lawyer to get your butt out of sling, you shouldn’t be crying anyways.

Smoking would be regulated like alcohol, and all types of recreational drug use would carry labels that described ingredients and their amounts, and the FDA’s function in that regard would only to be make sure those labels were accurate and easily read by anyone at a 6th grade reading level. I say that not to insult, but to make sure that if a kid tries sneaking something identified as ‘adult fun’, s/he would have a good idea what they’re about to expose themselves to and think twice if it’s worth a strap to her/his ass.

All private businesses would be able to choose for themselves whether or not to permit smoking, but if so, adequate ventilation must be provided, especially if they wish to cater to both groups.

Behaviour around recreational drug use would be a little more restricted than guidelines set for alcohol and tobacco. Yeah, I know that’s slanted, so what? I’M the dictator remember? You don’t get a contact high like you do with pot, and if someone wishes to shoot up that’s too much of a health risk in any setting that may be private but still caters to the public.

But again, remember, REGARDLESS OF DRUG, REGARDLESS OF ANYONE ELSE SERVING YOU OR IN SOME WAY INTERACTING WITH YOU, YOU ARE THE ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS AROUND YOUR DRUG-OF-CHOICE USE, AND WHILE UNDER IT’S EFFECTS. No addiction arguments, no daddy-didn’t-love-me arguments. You choose to use, you take responsibility for it.

*WHEW*

Ok, okay, I know, I know. Time to get back to real life. Believe me, I’ve got even more ideas on this matter, but I’m finally vented out enough to stop going on about it.

But tell the truth. Don’t you think I’d make a damn good Benevolent Overlord? Get those petitions going right away, folks!

In the meantime, I’ll go finish my business on the ‘throne’.

An Inverse of the Adverse

I think many people are aware of the saying about knowing a person by what kind of company s/he keeps. My mother’s version was “You show me where you live, I’ll tell you who you are”. Of course, she loved throwing that one at me because I tend towards being a bit messy.

Oh, all right, I’m a SLOB, okay?

Not all the time and not in all ways, but yeah, I can feel right at home with a can of W-D 40 next to a roll of duct tape on the kitchen table, and jeans and socks strewn like huge, sloppy petals all about the floor.

Well I recently had another realization. Personally speaking, one can’t judge me very well by the kinds of people I’ve made friends with, as there have been so many kinds of them. I’ve been close with intelligent, good looking, charming people, and I’ve been friends with those who aren’t.

I was a guest at a Palladian villa just outside of Venice with authentic Renaissance murals on the walls, antique furniture, a glass of cognac in one hand and an English cigarette in the other. Yet one of my favourite nightspots back home was a bar in the next town over that overlooked a small harbour. The fisherman could practically step off their fishing/lobstering/oyster boats and go right inside (and basically did). The floor was so slanted you felt like you were already drunk and barrel-chested, burly guys with names like ‘Rosie’ and ‘Tiny’ were regulars.

These days, I tend to be by myself a lot more. Sometimes I miss interacting with the variety of folks that I used to, but for now, I seem to be more content by myself. Although, considering the amount of time I spend online writing people all over the place or talking with them on the phone, I’m not sure I’m all that alone.

After reading today’s entry at The Rest of the Story, it occurred to me; what if it isn’t the company one keeps, but the enemies one makes that is a more effective means of assessing ourselves? If adversity strengthens the character, then our enemies give us an idea of who we are by whom and how we fight, as well as what we are fighting for.

Of course, in my case, I can piss anyone off; but I think that just proves I’m versatile!

Civil Liberties vs Public Health *ding-g-g*...

In THIS caw-NAAAHR…
Weighing in at 230 years, the People’s Favourite, Civil “I-Wanna-Keep-‘Em” Liberteezzz!

In the opposing caw-nahr…
Weighted with political and corporate interest, THE Cha-Len-jherrrr, Public “We-Gotta-Save-‘Em” Health!

Okay, the reader may have already noticed a slightly prejudiced tone from the writer. Better believe it. I’ll do my best to stay fair, but I can’t make any promises.

Here’s a pattern I notice – everyone, anyone, who’s ever had an idea that something was ‘wrong’ somehow, develops a cause, sometimes gets momentum behind it, gets some (usually good) changes done, and then wants to stay in the game because there’s always more to do. Either that or the game’s been so much fun that the ones that started it don’t want it to stop. In fact, there are often other players who’ve joined that don’t want it to stop either. Everyone’s having too good of a time to let it go! Well, that is of course, for the side that was originally challenged.

The challenged side may eventually take a whooping, or at least got a lesson taught it, but then at some point just wants to call it a day and go home. “Oh NO!” cry the new winners. “You can’t leave now! We’re not done with you yet!”

They beaten side at this point acknowledges (however hesitantly) that it’s lost the game and so now wants to go on about its business. “But that’s just IT!” cry the new winners. “If you go off about your business, you could come back and challenge us. Better you should stay here in this yard, continuing playing this game and trust us, you’ll like it better this way!”

I came up with a saying that’s not exactly true, but it gets my point across; 'the last time I believed the words "trust me" I lost my virginity.'

So now here’s a concept, very much related to my previous post on the concept of Pro-Choice as a political party. Our laws should be focused on preserving the civil liberties of every individual, especially in the face of ANY entity that insists it is doing something that benefits the public good.

A somewhat recent (and in my opinion, particularly bullsh*t) piece of legislation regarding ‘public good gone bad’ is with the issue of Eminent Domain. In New London, Connecticut (Connecticut! one of the original 13 no less), it was ruled just peachy to clear out some neighborhoods to allow private developers access to it because it would generate income and improve the economy of the city, enhancing the *public* good. Go to CT General Assembly and search for Eminent Domain 2005 (tried to link to it, but it wouldn't let me; hmm)

Uh; huh. Would you like fries with that bridge I just sold you?

Let’s be honest now people, do you really trust the government, any government, to act in your best interest? Do you believe that any kind of entity larger than your neighbourhood deli, hardware store or public library really has your best interest in mind?

No, nor should it. Corporations have their own interests to take care of. Government is supposed to represent the will of the people, yet if the only ‘people’ they hear from are corporate or special interests, why should you be surprised that legislation is continuously passed in their favour? Especially if you thought that any interest or entity you had a part in promoting was going to ‘take care of you’ somehow. Hell, that’s one of the reasons some of our founders weren’t too keen on a big centralized government, or political parties for that matter.

Recently, one of the regular commenters from The Rest of the Story blog provided this link to an article on Reason Online regarding “Eroding the distinction between public and private health”.

Scary reading - and I think important.

Sometimes I write things in the comments on that blog the things I mean to write in here. I’m including the following comment of mine in full as I give myself permission to do so. I’ll get this latest entry up quicker that way...

"First, thanks for the description of the air flow in plane cabins. I find that the easier someone can explain something complicated, the better that person knows it. (I have yet to get to that level) Obviously you know your sh*t pretty damn well.

Second, bravo with the letter! Well done. I was LMAO. Something else occurred to me while reading it. One of the things people seem to always forget is that the things we consider ridiculous or oppressive now were originally the only hope a population had.
It never happened in a vacuum.

In brief terms:
Communism/Socialism was the resistance to Imperialism (whatever form it took)
Unions were the resistance to Capitalism.
Liberalism was/is the resistance to Conservatism.

The inverse can be said of all those as well. Yet, whether you turn left or right on any issue, push hard enough and you wind up where you were again. For instance, once we broke up huge monopolies, now we call it 'globalization'. Hence the saying about 'good intentions'. It appears that good intentions don't know where to stop!

Something else people tend to miss - no matter how much we prepare for it, we cannot escape life. We keep thinking we're eradicating disease and then disease comes back stronger.

It’s one of the reasons I prefer organizations like LiveStrong (Lance Armstrong's charity) or Planned Parenthood (which is NOT about 'abortion' btw). They do not advocate for one policy or another. They do not function (so far) to police or direct people's choices.They provide services to people who are living in and struggling thru the today. They stay the hell away from politics as much as possible to keep their missions focused. Their service isn't in telling people what to do; it's about supporting people to live their own lives the best they can.

You know, like what this country's founding principles supposedly originally were."

Pro-Choice - I wish it were a Political Party

It’s been a while since I’ve posted on my own blog. Some of it was because of laziness, most of it because of being busy or distracted. Or busily distracted, in particular on another blog where I've been making new [insert wisecrack-look here] friends.

At a friend’s suggestion, I was going to post about pro-choice in terms of reproductive rights. I began to but my thoughts wouldn’t jell. I realized that part of that is because of all the focus and interest I’ve been applying to pro-choice in terms of tobacco use. But that seems to pale against the importance of Roe vs Wade coming up before a more conservative (read that damn-near-fascist) US Supreme Court.

And now I wonder – isn’t it the same issue applied to different circumstances? What are civil liberties, really? For that matter, what is ‘the rule of law’?

In my opinion, both law and civil liberties are abstracts, regardless of how precious the forgers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights held them, and all the philosophies they drew on to support their vision. More than anything, they can be called ‘understandings between parties’ but please note, understanding in that context doesn’t mean compassion or acceptance. I use it more in terms of common awareness and active recognition.

For instance, it’s understood that if someone has a gun pointed at me, I am definitely not in charge. I can make my own decisions regarding that situation but it’s the one with the most compelling influence who’s calling the shots (pun intended). My own choices are a) surrender b) rush for the gun c) risk getting shot either way.

Here's my own take on both those things utilizing the following definitions;

‘Civil liberty’ - function: noun: freedom from arbitrary governmental interference (as with the right of free speech) specifically by denial of governmental power and in the U.S. especially as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights -- usually used in plural*

‘Law’ - 1 a (1): a binding custom or practice of a community: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2): the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules*

Notice “customs, practices and rules”. Such a thing as a 'law' does not exist in a tangible sense. It’s a concept, delineated in the written word with accompanying actions and followed to a certain degree but other than that, it's just a custom, a practice, a set of rules established and (hopefully) agreed upon by any general or particular society. So, if law does not exist, neither does civil liberties.

Scary, huh? Don’t get nervous though. Hold my hand and follow me a little longer.

In breaking down the phrase of civil liberties and starting with ‘civil’ - 1 a: of or relating to citizens b: of or relating to the state or its citizenry*

Now let's go to ‘liberties’ - 1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice.*

Any grouping of people, no matter how small or large, is really a crowd unless there is some kind of mutual understanding between them. It doesn’t become a community until shared interests or pursuits are involved. It doesn’t become a state unless laws are created.

But why would laws be created in the first place? So that we can continue acting on and enjoying our shared interests without getting in each other’s way (too much) with our un-shared interests.

Regardless of all the groupings that we can classify ourselves in (or not) there is still one bottom line foundation to the concept of ‘society’; it is based on individuals attempting to co-exist for mutual safety, support and company.

Each one of us is an individual, and each one of us are somehow connected to the rest of society including, paradoxically, by being distanced by it.

Each time we marginalize an individual’s choices we marginalize a group or subgroup. We are eliminating a possible strength and creating a possible discontent which can grow into an opposing community or group.

Yet each time we insist that our individual choices are the only things that matter, and that the rest of society needs to make its own way around it, we distance ourselves from that society. We engender a negative response from it and compromise the very thing that helps us to survive.

Somewhere in between those two extremes is the society that our founders intended and the government to maintain it; but not for the sake of a government, nor for the sake of a particular society, per se – but for the sake of the individual.

That’s why I wish there was a Pro-Choice party.

Or another way to phrase it; I do not exist for the government nor for the dictates of any corporate or social entity. If anything, they exist because of and for me as well as for every other individual involved.

As I have a right to my life as well as responsibility for it, that means I also have rights regarding those entities…
which includes a “love tap” upside the head when they get too full of themselves and overstep their boundaries into my life.

* Merriam-Webster Online

Visual Commentary - 'The Innocent'

aka 'The Big 3'

A lil somin-somin' I drew in response to the Danish cartoon mess in particular and as a comment on religiosity in general. Please note, I said 'religiosity' not 'religion'.

When Good Intentions go Bad or...

They can pave the Road to Hell but They can’t fix the Damn Highway!

For the last century or so tobacco use was considered a given, the type of thing that people did regardless of where they were at. Restaurants, moving picture houses, courtrooms, wherever. Pipe, cigar, cigarettes, even chewing tobacco and snuff were simply the norm. Of course, those who found it offensive would occasionally ask (or tell) someone not to use their tobacco product around them but then they might hear something like "It’s a free country" or, "If you don’t like it, you can leave!" Or they may have even gotten a smack to the head! (One can fantasize, can't one?)

So there you go; way back when tobacco users were already sowing the seeds of discontent among those who did not choose to partake. Interesting how what goes around…

When the tobacco industry finally got the spotlight shown on it, it was about damn time. Not only had Big T gotten arrogant about its acceptance in society, it had fostered ever more toxic advertising practices as well as chemically altering the product to ensure a healthy and ever expanding profit margin.

Well, okay, so those last two things are what ‘all the other kids do’ as well but that’s not the point. My beef is why the hell did Big T have to do all the chemical crap to it? And when is enough profit enough? Apparently, the respective answers are “because we can” and “never”.

You know, like all the other industries (kids) do.

Then what makes Big T so much more evil in the eyes of the non-tobacco using world? Probably because of the simplest reason – it reminds us how sloppy, imperfect and perfectly mortal we are. Tobacco is looked down upon as a habit, an addiction, an unnecessary luxury and/or indulgence. Of course, so is alcohol, ice cream, chocolate, SUV’s, coffee, sugar, music, art, and everything else that has either been declared bad for you, could be bad for you, make someone else look bad or "make" someone feel bad.

Censorship and other tyrannies concerning people's behaviours are nothing new. They have always existed and force fed to anyone within spitting range of a religious or a political pulpit, as well as from ever-evolving social mores.

Yet, it also seems that when some ‘bad’ thing becomes outlawed long enough it comes back as a rebellion, then a cause, then once again as an accepted norm until it’s time for it to be ‘bad’ again.

I think that’s because we don’t cope well with the concept that as imaginative, creative, clever, productive, ingenious, whatever as we can be, we are still destined to wind up as worm bait. Who truly wants to see their faults and vulnerabilities? I mean, I don’t have any to face myself but if I did, I’m sure I wouldn’t want to deal with it.

So, if we cannot escape or accept our own sloppy selves what can we do? We do what we can to reform everyone else, that’s what. Once all the evils that those 'Others' engage in have been vanquished, THEN we'll be able to live happily, well and forever!

Personally, I think that sounds a little exhausting. I’d rather continue to learn how to put up with people who inhabit this planet with me and hope they choose to learn to do the same.

OH, how I hope they choose to learn to do the same. Otherwise, we could wind up on the same seesaw together and I’m not sure I could resist jumping off my end while they’re up in the air on theirs.

Hmmm. Then again, that could be fun!