We must cease this senseless war on marijuana and this unconscionable undermining of marriage law. The opposition (primarily) comes from the religious sector who attempts to make the morality argument. In both cases the proposal set forth is that both activities are moral evils and as such any measure to prevent (including willful law breaking not civil disobedience) them is considered heroic. The fault lies in that the arguments are based on appeals to emotion and authority, not logically rational discussion. Indeed on these issues it would appear that there are gross gaps and severe lacking of any rational reason for prohibition and mountains of impartial evidence on why both activities, under the social contract theory law is based on, should be permitted. It is the willingness of the populace to buy into the fallacies of the prohibitionists and the willful blindness of the consequences inherent in allowing those arguments to hold sway at the ballot box. We must, to progress socially and individually, see past these scam arguments to the facts and reason and carry that into the voting booth. Thoughts or comments?
Category Archives: Poor
The Neighbors
So to create art I just need to do what, in the writing world, would amount to at best plagiarism and at worst/most current series (i.e. random photos in black and white and the infamous “The Neighbors” series) lacking in any semblance of creativity, method (apart from post-production apologies), or even remote interest (apart from those who would call anything “art” without distinguishing Rembrandt from an amateur photographer who learned photoshop and random camera settings and got lucky enough to find an attorney who believes ALL photos are speech, presumably even child pornography). Not everything is art, not everyone with a camera is an artist, and even if he had produced either, not all art or any type of speech is supposed to be protected without some common sense restrictions (which unfortunately the court failed to provide).
Thus no crying “FIRE” in a crowded theater or producing work that is neither original or ethically created (e.g. he could have easily walked across the road and asked for permission, the fact that he avoided even thinking this way, i.e. that his “subjects” were people with their own rights and that he was surprised there was controversy over a man peeping through his window to take photos without so much as the common decency to talk to these Neighbors he was purportedly so “fascinated” by, is indicative of his knowledge that he could not get permission so he would just take what he wanted and call it art, AKA theft with a nice big loophole). Even his most “creative” series, “Faggots”, is inconsistent with his thought process in that he DID feel the need to get permission for these photos but not from the families of the criminals he reproduced (presumably a delightful experience for them to have this family history republished in the digital age, so it can now be accessible to all).
In short, when you can be easily classified as a peeping tom, your most labor intensive work is photographing what other people actually DID create (i.e. photographing other people’s forensic work, which were it possible to copyright such work would be illegal plagiarism; as it stands it is simply clearly plagiarized work) or even photographing men in suits (save the money, Walmart will do the same thing cheaper), you are surprised people objected to you doing what you had the courtesy to do in a couple of previous works that were relevant, and you have the remarkable ability to convince people that third rate amateur photography of things that require no special skills, equipment (using a $20 camera I was able to produce a black and white photo of a man in a suit that gave more clarity than his displayed work, in under 10 seconds), conveys no meaning at all on its face (look at “Madonna and Child” and the meaning is clear instantly), or are even interesting until you are told why you SHOULD be impressed, you are indeed an artist. A Con Artist.
An Aside- The attorney and her arguments in court for Svenson are as equally artistic as his work (i.e. she weaseled her way around he law by solely utilizing the loophole of a lack of a clear definition of what “art” is and ensuring her arguments relied solely on the letter, not both the letter and spirit of the law, AKA she got paid quite a bit to fight against those who desire some at least partial privacy, misconstrued words in both case law where she was losing due to the Supreme Court’s rulings against most of her arguments, and statutory tort law which is so ambiguous as to be laughable, a practical joke can be considered a tort). Come on people, not EVERYTHING is art and photography has to be pretty unique to ever qualify as art (the viewer interprets, the artist should never have to explain beyond basic principles of what style used, not meaning. No sane person would fathom a world where the artist, not the participant, defines what is and what isn’t art. The alternative is to equate the people that produce child pornography, this article (cute how the interview gives little in way of useful information, is extremely biased, and requires the reader to investigate every swath of this man’s work), and the poems of every 3rd grader as art, just as meaningful and artistic as Michelangelo, John Locke, and Robert Frost.
“hdc77494” you are absolutely right. Street Photography CAN be artistic; his work was neither Street Photography nor could any rational person (“Faggots” apparently was an amateur and vastly useless, unless producing the Sears or JCPenny catalogue, piece of sociological pseudo-experiment which he was neither qualified to perform or draw ANY conclusions from) think he is an artist unless they have been swayed by his claims and his attorney’s assertion that he really is an artist, so he should be allowed to take pictures which any corporation would have mountains of paperwork to fill out just to look at regular people, with no restrictions, no retractions, no apologies, not even a nod that he had done anything wrong by doing “Neighbors”, just a well-funded lawyer against a family that, because they don’t print pictures of random objects and have no flowery words to describe it as “art” when they photograph other people’s work (in black and white, and for some reason it’s art?) while reaping the monetary benefits thereof, are only modestly represented. Clean and simple, this is not art, it took no skill (by his own admission), it violated privacy unnecessarily and continued to do so, most of it is plagiarism, and his hiring of an attorney who doesn’t have the legal knowledge to make a statement that doesn’t patently say, “I support any photography as art, even highly unethical and/or illegal photography. Oh, and by the way I intend to use this case to make no distinction between Picasso and John Wayne Gayce’s work.” to the press and all of America. So good show both of you, you have taken freedom of speech and turned it into an absolute right, no matter who it infringes upon or who it hurts! By the way, a decent artist would have gotten permission from his NEIGHBORS or at least removed the photos when he found out that his unethical action was causing severe distress due not to morality, but a common set of decent human standards.
Addendum- the argument has been raised that no identifiable faces were shown. The entire exhibit does show profile faces but faces aren’t the ONLY way we identify people. Clothing, the clear picture of the dog, the general knowledge of Svenson’s apartment location, the photos of the particular style of apartment, precedence (Supreme Court ruled numerous times that what happens in one’s own apartment/house/trailer is afforded to the occupant and that invasion by any means, without probable cause or a warrant, is a violation of one’s right to privacy. Reading through the court documents, it is clear that Svenson could afford a more well known and better quality attorney due to his higher income. In other words, the “Neighbors” never really stood a chance against him, thus no further appeal, they cost money!), furnishings, actions commonly performed and the familiarity of the neighborhood (apart from Svenson), and many other factors can easily identify without a face. The names of the neighbors are also a matter of public record due to the suit (minor) and the Svenson generated media attention (major source). Besides, reason would say that one should never capture another’s image, voice, writing, etc. without permission. ALL of that is Intellectual Property and just as one would not want their car used without permission (physical property) and it is a crime to do so; so to would someone want to protect what they and they alone can produce (Intellectual Property). The difference is the laws governing Intellectual property and modern technology are several decades behind the laws governing physical property.
Ref: Svenson Interview
The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly
These past few weeks have been rather eventful though hardly novel. Â A quick review of the best and worst moments might add a little perspective to the pulse of the United States and the world.
The Good: Â Not unexpectedly the good comes from a change to once dearly treasured (though not backed by solid research) traditions. Â Oregon, that great trail of a state (sorry, couldn’t resist the old game reference), has elected a bisexual woman to the highest office of the state, Governor. Â Though the election has long since past, this woman is preparing to enter her first term as the Honorable Governor of the State of Oregon. Â Whether this is her only term is debatable, but one thing is sure, she is the first person to open up to the press about this highly personal issue (odd how heterosexual people don’t have to justify their qualifications for office with detailed descriptions of their bedroom activities) and to stand behind her clear beliefs (her platform is well-defined, somewhat partisan though no more than anyone else, and was well enumerated to the people prior to the election on numerous occasions). Â She is the first lawfully elected Governor that has stated she is bisexual and unabashedly stands behind it. Â (Before I get a note, here is an addendum:Â Though she was elected as Secretary of State, she assumes her office lawfully and can thus be considered to be elected to the position of Governor, should the Governor resign, die, etc. as part of the Constitution of Oregon which the people retain.)
Why it’s good: Â In the LGBTQIQ (Political correctness for the recognized orientations- Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersexed, and Questioning- Intersex includes things like hermaphroditism, gender dysphoria, and other conditions in which the “parts” as it were are not matching up to the gender a person identifies with. Â The 2 “Q’s” are best left to the experts(PFLAG) to explain.) bisexualism is seen as the “black sheep” as it were of the community. Â Gays typically view them as closeted homosexuals and heterosexuals view them as simply promiscuous. Â A cursory search of the social networks can easily confirm this. Â Currently the United States seems to vacillate between approving and disapproving of these classifications, but that has nothing to do with the good here. Â The good is that, for once, the system worked precisely as it should: Â a candidate expressed her viewpoints and plan of action clearly and concisely during the campaign and started her term as Governor with what appears to be an honest and open administration, the people elected her and soon she will assume office, despite the hemming and hawing of the Right wingers across the nation whose argument against her is only her bisexuality (her platform would have been an easier target since it does all the things they don’t want done, but hey, I’m not their strategist). Â Her being bisexual is something that shows promise for that state, not because of the orientation issue, but because she was honest about her life (as far as is possible for us to know) and was willing to run with a label that has never been widely approved of attached to her. Â She did not run away, hide an affair (Gay Governor of New Jersey resigned for this), or try to make it look like anything more than what it is nor did she apologize for her being her. Â This is the good, hope that politicians might see this and take heed, and that we have a Governor willing to run as she is.
The Bad: Â The bad is probably readily apparent, but with all the terrible things going on it may have gotten lost in the woodwork: Â Obama’s War Powers Proposal and Congress’s Response. Â Essentially it seems that the only way Congress will cross Party boundaries is with their desire to do absolutely nothing. Â The whole story amazed me but can be broken down quite simply: Â Boehner and other Hawks in Congress requested Obama do something about ISIS (because using their ability to declare war would require work and would inch them closer to the Constitutional powers they are given). Â Obama, in a bid to have a moderate strategy came up with a vague but more potent version of 2001’s war powers. Â Republicans and Hawk Democrats complained it was too mild. Â Democrats and Dove republicans claimed it was too strong. Â Both agreed to decline the powers and did NOTHING more. Â They are the only branch that can declare war but for 14 years they have relied on Executive Orders authorizing military action (the Executive’s version of war-in essence it’s all the death of war, but doesn’t pay our soldiers wartime pay, which is substantially larger than current pay and can be roughly equated to hazardous duty pay or overtime, albeit VERY roughly, and as a bonus it doesn’t require Congress to do their job or put their own necks on the chopping block as it were) and the good old-fashioned, tried and true method of “blame someone else so I can get elected again”.
Why it’s bad: Â Why its bad should be a little evident already and requires little explanation: 1)Congress declares war and there’s a reason for that- the people are represented in Congress (ideally) and since military action of any kind involves ALL of America, the people should at least be consulted prior to sending their sons and daughters to die. Â 2)War pays more both in the life and death of a soldier as is commensurate with the dangers and risks inherent in war (or ANY military action beyond EXTREMELY limited engagements-2 weeks tops) and the trauma to entire communities when they lose loved ones. Â It also provides more supplies to our troops and comes with international restrictions like the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Convention that protect our troops and engender world support (and that we are not currently observing). Â 3)MILITARY ENGAGEMENTS ARE WAR- excepting in certain circumstances (limited engagements that limit exposure). Â A famous line from Shakespeare says it all, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” or my version, “You can call a turd a life-vest but if you do, I’m never sailing with you!” Â Take your pick. Â finally 4)The three branches of government should all work together, checked by their equals through the Constitution, NOT bickering like children, NOT expanding their own powers beyond what they are lawfully or even ethically entitled to, and NOT IGNORING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! Â It amazes me how Congress didn’t think to go back to their districts, ask the voters what they want (war or not war) and then return to Washington to REPRESENT their constituents. Â They didn’t even look at the polls, just their own desires. Â Tho I will not argue it here in full, if a government (which governs by consent of the governed) is ignoring the very people it is duty-bound to protect, it loses its authority to govern.
AND NOW THE UGLY:
The Ugly is a picture everyone should be familiar with, and ashamed of. Â Vote by your convictions, not Red/Blue, Dems/Reps, N/S or any other reason.
How far we’ve come or “Welcome Back McCarthy”
A little background information: Â John McCain on CodePink
First a little background information (for those of you who passed 5th grade civics class I apologize for the review; it’s more for our illustrious representatives): Â The opening to the founding document and the highest law in the land begins with “We the People,” includes numerations of rights assured to the people (including Freedom of Speech and Expression), and has been interpreted by one of our greatest Presidents as meaning a nation, “for the People, by the People, and of the People.” Â Even our Declaration of Independence describes the fundamental principles on which liberty is founded and includes, in part, a description of legitimate government as being, “Government by consent of the governed,” and assures us of the right to alter or abolish any unjust government that has become so oppressive as to be tyrannical in nature and practice. Â Above all though, these documents make it clear that the entire purpose of the legislature (state and/or federal) is to listen to the constituency and act according to what the people want (while protecting the minority from abuse).
Now the current way things work: Â The legislature is elected by infusing commercials with misinformation and relying on the comparatively tiny amount of voters that participate. Â Once in office, the majority of them rely on “Campaign Contributions” from special interest groups while conveniently ignoring the pleas of their people (or at least the ones without money).
All of this leads me to the group CodePink, a women’s anti-war group that frequents congressional hearings (their right as citizens) and are routinely thrown out for “disruptions” no different than Republican disruptions in a Democratic congress and vice versa.  A good deal of them are Mr. McCain’s constituents, yet because of their unpopular opinion, he calls them scum.  Sen. Feinstein (D) threw them out of a CIA confirmation hearing because of less than audible disruptions: Audio of Hearing and no Congress or Executive has given credence to this large movement (a very poignant fallback to the difficulties of the Suffragettes).
If the problem is not evident by now, let me spell it out. Â While I may agree with CodePink and what they are trying to do, that point is irrelevant. Â I disagree with Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, and many other bigoted groups, but they still have the right to express their opinions (so long as they do not interfere with others self-same rights) and should be heard in the context of their overall populace representation. Â That is what Freedom of Speech means! Â I may not like what you say (or I may support it on different levels) but everyone has the right to be heard. Â Government employees at every level are duty bound to hear and give credence to their citizenry. Â If they feel it is interrupting their important “business” (you know, bilking the public and so forth), their responsibility would be to offer truly public hearings that would allow those voters to express themselves and give the legislature (Executives and Justices as well) the full picture, regardless of personal opinions.
So let CodePink speak, at the very least, with equal opportunity as the wealthy special interest groups.  Their message is sound and agreed with by 66% of American (27% Approve): American Current War Support. And their message is not in least bit unsound:  CodePink.  Yet the opinions of the citizens (unless they pander and flatter to those with money and/or power) are ignored even though Congress works far less than anyone in any country (not counting their “vacation” which come out of your taxes).  To verify, follow this link (the blue days are work days and Congress is paid even when they don’t work):  Congress work days and what they spent their time on (bear in mind some activities overlap and were done at the same Time:  Congressional Breakdown.  This is the President’s priorities (golf is more important than poverty apparently): Presidential time.  Finally, the Supreme Court works 5 hours per day(End of October to beginning of June, excluding  federal holidays, can choose which cases to accept, recesses frequently and takes an enormous amount of time to be even heard and thus works a maximum of 143 days or 715 total hours:  Work days Supreme Court Calculator.  The point being that no elected official works enough to even logically say they can’t listen to their constituency.
CodePink deserves to be heard and McCain’s comments are indicative of how Congress feels and by extension how the government feels about our populace. Â They are so disconnected sitting in their golden mansions an deaf ears that they use the guise of democracy (which we have none nor are we headed towards it again) and placate the people with plenty of gadgets, games, and make sure no one notices the clear violations of the social contract (for example, several wars that are killing our young people in droves but few efforts are being made to change things because as long as we have “Candy Crush” we can ignore our attempt to occupy the world and keep our populace ignorant by reducing education, science, etc.). Â If we were to educate our young and old people we might understand CodePink, and at least have rational debates on the many viewpoints out there.
I fear, however, that we have past this point. Â The income divide is too great and the people too indolent to make the changes necessary. Â I encourage CodePink and any of those who share the beliefs of a free, peaceful, and united nation to join together in arms to set up and defend a nation founded and sealed on truth, justice, liberty, equality, and brotherhood (sisterhood, etc.). We have been oppressed and insulted by the wealthy rulers long enough, Â We must join together and exercise our right to revolt: Declaration of Independence. Â If a new and better nation that listens and addresses your complaints, concerns, ideas, etc. sounds like a place you would want to be a part of, feel free to contact me. Â If you believe we can save this current United States, please contact me for a rational discourse. Â I am always looking for new ways of looking at things.
Foundational Documents:
The Bare Minimum
What is the job of the state? Â Ultimately it breaks down to (according to social contract theory) a responsibility to protect and provide for its citizens what they either can not provide for themselves or are in need of protection from. Â The job of capitalism is to make the most money with the least cost. Â Usually this eventually leads to paying the employee the least amount they have to pay. Â Without the intervention of the state, this amount will gradually approach 0. Â The state is needed to protect the worker from abuses that are inherent in a free market system. Â All of this is, of course, very basic but appears to be a concept that we have forgotten. Â Currently the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. Â Let us assume that the rare miracle of a full time job pops up (a quick aside, when employers can’t decrease pay they will invariably decrease hours). Â Let us also assume that taxes will only decrease that wage by $0.25 per hour. Â Now we have a person that has the following income monthly: $1,120, which turns out to be $13,440 per year. Â Bear in mind that this person will pay on average $949 in rent alone per month (http://www.myapartmentmap.com/rental_data/) amd thus really makes around $200 per month for food, clothing, car affairs (gas, tax, registration, maintenance, etc.), and all the other trappings of life.
For some strange reason, no one has a problem with this. Â Those that do, manage only to increase the wage in their state to a few pennies more. Â Meanwhile, our paymasters in congress, the Supreme Court, and the executive are sitting on large salaries, multiple perks (pool, spa, vacations, only work about half a year but still get housing, etc.), and a complete disconnect from the plight of those who can’t even afford to see D.C. much less have a voice there. Â All of this is acceptable to the American Public it would seem. Â While those who work their fingers to the bone can barely survive, those who can’t even be bothered to lay aside their own wants for others unless its a press shoot, relax comfortably in their expensive offices, grumble at the “help”, and get drunk on the misery and misfortune they don’t even acknowledge exists.
What is the point of all this? Â Our government has been tasked with ensuring justice and liberty for all. Â It has failed. Â For over a decade now the people have cried out for an increase in wages to make ends meet. Â The government has shown it is deaf to those cries. Â Though it has the means and knowledge of how much is required to live with dignity, it has deliberately failed to put that to any use. Â We must choose to either accept things as they are and allow the injustice to continue, or claim our right to a government that cares and rise up against those who are apparently trying to starve their own citizens. Â Unfortunately the pleas of the people and the current system has failed to produce results. Â It is our duty, therefor, to get a living wage for all, whatever the means.
How the Judiciary Failed us today both in Utah and in the Supreme Court
It is curious how the Mormons, whose educational system is less than reputable, and who still maintain a doctrine of polygamy could be so sly. Calling upon one of the few Justices whose ignorance is only outweighed by her inappropriate mixing of her religious beliefs with civil law, the State of Utah (one could hardly argue that it is anything less than a state whose official, but unofficial, religion is Mormonism. A story, by the way that’s good for a laugh if one is up to it, but I digress.) asked Justice Sotomayor for an emergency stay halting all gay marriages until the District Court of Appeals rules whether Gay marriage is constitutional. She, being the ever prudent jurist (who has apparently forgotten that the Court has already ruled that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional) decided to grant the stay until the Appeals court decides. Thankfully, the Appeals Court judge actually was paying attention when the DOMA decision was handed down (I believe Ms. Sotomayor was having a mild stroke that month and just signed the dissent to satisfy her HEAVILY religious and conservative lobbyists-follow her paper trail and it reads like Jerry Falwell’s memoirs) placed the ruling under a sort of Fast-Track. So what can we draw from this? The Judicial system was created for one purpose and one purpose alone, to handle disputes when the law is unclear or outright broken. Contrary to Ms. Sotomayor and several other judges’ opinions, it was NOT created to impede the progress of law (until AFTER an initial ruling and then it should not interfere until it reverses that ruling), not to create laws, and certainly not to stop something that has stood numerous appeals and affects only one group of people (gays) in a positive way. Judges, and especially Justices, continue to build their power, issuing their own “executive orders” as it were (stays, injunctions, etc.) and issuing them based only on personal preference, not any educated interpretation of the law. We have seen this happen time and again in famous cases like Brown v. The Board of Education (Stays on the decision to integrate were issued until the Supreme Court could get their grubby mits on it, depriving blacks of what was their right at the time of the stays, as an appeals court had ruled). What is worse is that if we dislike the President and his executive orders, we can impeach him. We cannot impeach sitting Judges, even when they are so old and senile that their decisions are ignored by the others at best, but still become part of case law. We can only wait until they all die and then elect a President to place competent jurists on the bench, and elect a senate that will confirm them.
In short, doesn’t it seem that rather than protecting liberty and allowing the courts to rule in their jurisdiction (Ms. Sotomayor’s decision was WELL outside of the powers enumerated in the US Constitution), our courts have become places where the richer your lawyer, the better your chances, and the more you belong to whatever sociological group the judge does, the better your chances of winning? Does justice rule in our courts? What do you think?
Guess who’s back
After a couple of injuries and a bout with the flu, I am glad to be back. Rather than leave off where we did, I am going to lay some foundations. The previous Executive structure was only really understood as a necessity by a few. To show this necessity, I want to show HOW the current system has failed with a few examples and hopefully some discussion.
As it is pertinent to me I will discuss our current entitlement programs (social programs especially Social Security Disability). We, in America, believe to some extent that we have a responsibility to care for those in our society who cannot care for themselves. Our belief in this however, is expressed in the creation of an agency that exists not to facilitate this (even when it has already been paid for by the claimant as is the case that happens when a person claims after years of work) but rather exists to hinder this. The initial evaluations of Social Security are made by PhD’s with no medical experience and who make recommendations of work a claimant either can not perform or can never find. Multiple impairments are not considered until the Administrative Law Judge Stage which can and often does take years to get to. In the meantime, those who can claim and try to receive benefits are unable to work but often have ever mounting medical and other bills that exhaust the finances of the claimant and (if they are fortunate enough to have them) family/friends.
This, it would seem, is the opposite of the original goal society expressed. Yet it is not just Social Security, our care of the poor, elderly, and disabled is designed not to help, but rather it would seem to hinder and keep people in the neverending cycle of, at best, debt; and in the worst case (especially disability) progressively worsening health and possibly death.
Does this not seem a failure of our system and a failure of our representatives/senators to exercise our goals and desires? On the social scale is this what we want? Comments?
James Bianco, Valeyard
The Valeyard 