This weekend I heard a quote on a movie that sticks in my mind. it went womething like this:
"humans are the only creatures that profess a god, and the only one that acts like it doesn't have one, using up the world as if its all theirs."
Coincidentally, a new book has been published that provides a more reasoned description of our behavior. In "Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty", authors Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson present the idea that a country's power structure is designed to extract resources from its masses.
Why stop with natural resources? Why not squeeze me and my neighbors for as much as you can too? Uhmm, let's see: I pay 8% in sales tax, 28% in federal income tax, another 4% in local income tax, 3% in gross profits/business privilege tax, and 2% in county earned income tax. Additionally, each year I pay $6000+ in licensing fees and business registration fees, $5995 in professional (E&O) insurance (required by the laws of the states I practice in), and $7000+ in health insurance (also required by my home state). Let's see, the gas I purchase to get from job to job includes anywhere from 30 to 60 cents per gallon in taxes. The one most private spot on the face of this earth, my home, is subject to $4550 property tax per year, and "the church" and the cops have invaded it at least a dozen times in the last year, each time under the false/fictitious claim that I owe them even a minute of my time, or that they can enter upon my property whenever THEY see fit, or that this most private sanctuary of mine is their backyard through-route to a neighbor's house or their religious preaching place.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Lillian Hellman
A Difficult Woman: The Challenging Life and Times of Lillian Hellman, by Alice Kessler-Harris
Hellman made some interesting arguments, like arguing that America's repression of communism was more insidious than its actual threat. Its also interesting that she took action to "guide" her reputation, like destroying letters and suppressing documents. I don't really she how her "self-promotion" is self-destructive self-righteousness instead of just confidence and intelligence with a vagina in a cluture and time that approves of that in men, but not in women.
Hellman made some interesting arguments, like arguing that America's repression of communism was more insidious than its actual threat. Its also interesting that she took action to "guide" her reputation, like destroying letters and suppressing documents. I don't really she how her "self-promotion" is self-destructive self-righteousness instead of just confidence and intelligence with a vagina in a cluture and time that approves of that in men, but not in women.
Identity Theft
Mari Frank, an attorney AND a victim of identity theft, experienced first hand how difficult our society has made it for the little person to fight the big companies: it took her a year almost just to show that someone else stole her identity to obtain a loan. Since then, she has created many resources to assist victims of ID theft. Check out this site:
http://www.identitytheft.org/
http://www.identitytheft.org/
Confronting public officials misconduct
For information about prosecutorial misconduct, check out this link at
http://news.change.org/prosecutorial-misconduct
You can also bring misconduct to the public through this website:
https://gripevine.com/node/add/gripevine
CNN Money also provides info about people who the mag calls "heroes" for, perhaps, getting new, protective laws passed or for providing opportunites to reveal and publish misconduct:
http://money.cnn.com/pf/money-heroes/
I will add more links to this as time goes by.
http://news.change.org/prosecutorial-misconduct
You can also bring misconduct to the public through this website:
https://gripevine.com/node/add/gripevine
CNN Money also provides info about people who the mag calls "heroes" for, perhaps, getting new, protective laws passed or for providing opportunites to reveal and publish misconduct:
http://money.cnn.com/pf/money-heroes/
I will add more links to this as time goes by.
Pickpocket offers advice to travellers
The Arnos have done something brilliant. They have taken a unique and creative approach to an age-old profession and were apparently able to make a great living and a fun life from it. They have filmed, interviewed, and taught themselves the art of things like pickpocketing and turned these into comedy routines, books, security briefings to police, tourists, etc. I have often thought that the same things could be done with other topics. That a fun and interesting living may be had from showing people how your insurance company forges your signature or magically creates waivers and selection forms that youhave never seen before, or how attorneys, judges, and cops fake documents, and ways to protect yourself against such shenanigans.
Check out their website at:
http://bobarno.com/thiefhunters/theft-thwarter-tips/
Check out their website at:
http://bobarno.com/thiefhunters/theft-thwarter-tips/
More on why lawyer disciplinary review boards fail
Unless your complained-of attorney crashes and burns in a very public manner, you will find it very difficult to have a board censure him/her to any degree of satisfaction--your satisfaction.
Second, if your attorney did do something so egregious--and easy for you to prove, then you probably should just initiate a civil action against that licensed professional. Why? Well, for starters, filing a professional complaint will only serve to provide that attorney with notice of what may be to come and to destroy-or erode, the strength of your evidence. Also, think about the financial position that a successful professional complaint, or even a succesful criminal prosecution puts the errant lawyer in: in order for you to maximize your recovery from his/her injuries to you, you want the attorney still licensed, still earning money, and out of jail. You do not want his/her assets diminished by having to pay his/her own defense attorney(s) or by losing his/her license and ability to make money.
Third, the disciplinary complaint process is, effectually, a blood-filled tick-like redundancy that really serves to dissuade victims from filing the civil (and criminal) complaints that these errant legal professionals should really be subjected to and held responsible for.
Second, if your attorney did do something so egregious--and easy for you to prove, then you probably should just initiate a civil action against that licensed professional. Why? Well, for starters, filing a professional complaint will only serve to provide that attorney with notice of what may be to come and to destroy-or erode, the strength of your evidence. Also, think about the financial position that a successful professional complaint, or even a succesful criminal prosecution puts the errant lawyer in: in order for you to maximize your recovery from his/her injuries to you, you want the attorney still licensed, still earning money, and out of jail. You do not want his/her assets diminished by having to pay his/her own defense attorney(s) or by losing his/her license and ability to make money.
Third, the disciplinary complaint process is, effectually, a blood-filled tick-like redundancy that really serves to dissuade victims from filing the civil (and criminal) complaints that these errant legal professionals should really be subjected to and held responsible for.
Attorney Disciplinary Review Boards: Really just partners in crime?
After having researched several states disciplinary review systems (for judges and attorneys), I have learned that the several consistencies throughout demonstrate where these entities' true motives and goals lie.
Although all publish that they are established and work to cull out and discipline errant legal professionals in order so that the public may maintain trust in the profession, several of their methods seriously contradict this position.
For example, let's discuss the mandated confidentiality requirement imposed on complainants...The reason(s) given as justification for this requirement are specious. The possibility of false accusations being submitted as a method of harassing or defaming a licensed professional may exist, but such false accusations are highly unlikely, for several reasons. First, one's successful defense against such accusations, when provided to the public, provide the public with the entire "story." Second, the false complainant can be sued under many legal theories for simply filing the false complaint. Third, and most importantly, there are always "evidentiary" thresholds that need to be met before an investigation is begun. When a complainant can bring forth enough evidence to meet that threshold, then the specious and harassing claims are functionally weeded out, and no further protection is needed.
Indeed, no further protection is logical, if the board's purpose is to maintain the public's trust inthe profession. A thick comprehensive "pre-shield" between the public, established facts, and the truth suggests that the entity really dose NOT want the public to know what is very important for the public to know. Unless, of course, what these boards mean when they tout trust as their goal is that they really mean that they want to create the appearance of trustworthiness, and not actual trustworthiness.
The very real impact of mandated confidentiality from the complainant, from my experience and research, is that it allows a fabric of misdeeds and failing professional standards. It allows lying, stealing, and corrupt judges and lawyers to continue their behavior and hide behind the very entity that professes to cull out and discipline such failures. It is not a matter of an esoteric conflict of ethics. It is straight up lies, theft, and use of the legal system to carry out maliciousness and malfeasance.
If you have a real-life story that demonstrates the failures described above, I would live to post it. Remember, most of these boards are quasi government entities--especially where they report to a court or "discipline" public officials like judges. these boards serve us, the citizenry. Let's make it so.
Although all publish that they are established and work to cull out and discipline errant legal professionals in order so that the public may maintain trust in the profession, several of their methods seriously contradict this position.
For example, let's discuss the mandated confidentiality requirement imposed on complainants...The reason(s) given as justification for this requirement are specious. The possibility of false accusations being submitted as a method of harassing or defaming a licensed professional may exist, but such false accusations are highly unlikely, for several reasons. First, one's successful defense against such accusations, when provided to the public, provide the public with the entire "story." Second, the false complainant can be sued under many legal theories for simply filing the false complaint. Third, and most importantly, there are always "evidentiary" thresholds that need to be met before an investigation is begun. When a complainant can bring forth enough evidence to meet that threshold, then the specious and harassing claims are functionally weeded out, and no further protection is needed.
Indeed, no further protection is logical, if the board's purpose is to maintain the public's trust inthe profession. A thick comprehensive "pre-shield" between the public, established facts, and the truth suggests that the entity really dose NOT want the public to know what is very important for the public to know. Unless, of course, what these boards mean when they tout trust as their goal is that they really mean that they want to create the appearance of trustworthiness, and not actual trustworthiness.
The very real impact of mandated confidentiality from the complainant, from my experience and research, is that it allows a fabric of misdeeds and failing professional standards. It allows lying, stealing, and corrupt judges and lawyers to continue their behavior and hide behind the very entity that professes to cull out and discipline such failures. It is not a matter of an esoteric conflict of ethics. It is straight up lies, theft, and use of the legal system to carry out maliciousness and malfeasance.
If you have a real-life story that demonstrates the failures described above, I would live to post it. Remember, most of these boards are quasi government entities--especially where they report to a court or "discipline" public officials like judges. these boards serve us, the citizenry. Let's make it so.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Those thieving cops
Yea, so not only do we have to deal with our local cops treatingus all like terrorists now, check out how they have been stealing our stuff:
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/looting-of-america.html
http://fear.org/
Our first place status in the game of democracy has dropped so far as to suggest that the world is questioning our society. See
http://www.economist.com/node/21552137
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/looting-of-america.html
http://fear.org/
Our first place status in the game of democracy has dropped so far as to suggest that the world is questioning our society. See
http://www.economist.com/node/21552137
Friday, April 13, 2012
LEED: potential sustainability, certain exploitation?
I have decided to let my LEED AP certification lapse.
It seems egregiously unethical to commoditize sustainability principles. Its like selling good parenting skills, or loyalty, or honesty.
It seems egregiously unethical to commoditize sustainability principles. Its like selling good parenting skills, or loyalty, or honesty.
Original Sin
This weekend, I read about the Aztec and the Mayan story about a goddess that was in charge of a beautiful and bountiful garden. She partook of one of the red fruits of the garden and was banished, by the creator of the garden, to live with the humans. Sound familiar?
Its coincidental that I learned of historic original sin stories during the easter holiday, when I also learned that there is an historic ressurection story. In other words, its not surprising to think that monotheism's "Great Stories" are really just plagiarisms.
Its also not far-fetched to restate the intended meaning behind these stories. For example, banishment to live among the human animals for an act of consumption makes a lot more sense, especially to persons living 3000 years ago, when the moral of the story is "Nature provides for you, but don't overdo the consuming of it."
Some "rules" are easy to agree exist and to live by. The sun comes up in the east, it sets in the west. Humans can't breathe immersed in water. Trees make good shade. Birds can fly long distances. Humans can't fly at all. It seems that we have no need to revamp the stories educating us about those facts of existence.
But, with the more complicated or esoteric rules, human's early stories survived the centuries as they continued to prove useful to new peoples, to demonstrate rules that had difficult meaning to teach our youth. There is little doubt that Aztecs and Mayans and Jews had found ways to provide their vessels with nutrition. Techniques, tools, and rituals to provide and to give thanks were apparent. It could not have been that difficult to agree that overconsumption or rampant consumption, or just plain unthoughtful consumption, would prove to be incompatible or unsustainable. So, how to press that point? You remind your people that this nature is a garden of abundance and beauty and that consumption of it must be thoughtful, at a minimum. Some types of consumption are sustainable and are compatible with natural processes, some types are not. Therefore, some types of consumption of nature are allowed, and some types are not.
And what is the consequence of violating this rule? Well, its the old "you get what you ask for" dilemma: if you treat nature as if its all a commodity or consumable, that's what you'll get. You will get a living situation that is more like a market than a natural environment. You will get a place where abundance and beauty is foregone, threatened, etc. Thus, the punishment of banishment from the beauty and abundance to live with the humans is the demonstration of the creation of and immersion in a community or environment in which suffering and struggle--the fight against the failure of abundance and beauty, is the theme.
This historic story has little, if anything, to do with the concept of original sin and the alleged need for us all, as individuals, to repent, to be reborn, or to recognize that any other human has sacrificed himself for any of us. It is a creative reminder that we are but one type of animal in a complicated but satisfying beauty that has the power to deny us a satisfying existence.
Its coincidental that I learned of historic original sin stories during the easter holiday, when I also learned that there is an historic ressurection story. In other words, its not surprising to think that monotheism's "Great Stories" are really just plagiarisms.
Its also not far-fetched to restate the intended meaning behind these stories. For example, banishment to live among the human animals for an act of consumption makes a lot more sense, especially to persons living 3000 years ago, when the moral of the story is "Nature provides for you, but don't overdo the consuming of it."
Some "rules" are easy to agree exist and to live by. The sun comes up in the east, it sets in the west. Humans can't breathe immersed in water. Trees make good shade. Birds can fly long distances. Humans can't fly at all. It seems that we have no need to revamp the stories educating us about those facts of existence.
But, with the more complicated or esoteric rules, human's early stories survived the centuries as they continued to prove useful to new peoples, to demonstrate rules that had difficult meaning to teach our youth. There is little doubt that Aztecs and Mayans and Jews had found ways to provide their vessels with nutrition. Techniques, tools, and rituals to provide and to give thanks were apparent. It could not have been that difficult to agree that overconsumption or rampant consumption, or just plain unthoughtful consumption, would prove to be incompatible or unsustainable. So, how to press that point? You remind your people that this nature is a garden of abundance and beauty and that consumption of it must be thoughtful, at a minimum. Some types of consumption are sustainable and are compatible with natural processes, some types are not. Therefore, some types of consumption of nature are allowed, and some types are not.
And what is the consequence of violating this rule? Well, its the old "you get what you ask for" dilemma: if you treat nature as if its all a commodity or consumable, that's what you'll get. You will get a living situation that is more like a market than a natural environment. You will get a place where abundance and beauty is foregone, threatened, etc. Thus, the punishment of banishment from the beauty and abundance to live with the humans is the demonstration of the creation of and immersion in a community or environment in which suffering and struggle--the fight against the failure of abundance and beauty, is the theme.
This historic story has little, if anything, to do with the concept of original sin and the alleged need for us all, as individuals, to repent, to be reborn, or to recognize that any other human has sacrificed himself for any of us. It is a creative reminder that we are but one type of animal in a complicated but satisfying beauty that has the power to deny us a satisfying existence.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
INperialism
Today I woke up clouded by the irrationality of millions of people claiming to follow the tenents of a desert man who allegedly lived thousands of years ago and never published a thing of what he spoke or thought.
Are we to think that absolutely no one else during this time frame had anything else of value to say?
And why choose him over all the others? Or, why limit living your lives to "follow" one person's tips on morality and community?
I am beginning to think that today's religious "faithful" are really just modern imperialists--albeit, practicing their craft on an individual level rather than on a national level. The totality of today's expressions of religious faith is really just a policy of extending an individual’s authority by economic, social/cultural, and political means over other individuals and doing so in the name of religion.
Are we to think that absolutely no one else during this time frame had anything else of value to say?
And why choose him over all the others? Or, why limit living your lives to "follow" one person's tips on morality and community?
I am beginning to think that today's religious "faithful" are really just modern imperialists--albeit, practicing their craft on an individual level rather than on a national level. The totality of today's expressions of religious faith is really just a policy of extending an individual’s authority by economic, social/cultural, and political means over other individuals and doing so in the name of religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)