Everything is Shit

Recently a group called 10:10 put out a video that was perceived by many as a threat — or at least an insight into the minds of this group, if not of ecological activists generally. The makers of the video said it was satire and supposed to be funny, and I could see that except for one small event. In the 1990s I was working at a hotel as a shuttle driver, taking guests from the hotel to the airport and back. That fall the hotel hosted an environmental convention. Ferrying these people was like attending a Mensa convention, the attendees fell (or rather spoke) over each other in their efforts to show that each was the brightest mind in the room (or at least the shuttle bus.)

One topic they couldn’t talk about enough was how to get rid of “excess persons” (yep, that’s the phrase they kept using.) Viruses were big on the Discovery Channel at the time so of course all these ninnies were experts on various bugs, and how to use them to get rid of all those pesky humans. They were blunt  and open about it — loudmouthed even. One guest in particular boasted that he had been to several working groups with various scientists to find the most efficient way it could be done.

I watched this boastful peacock in my rear view mirror, trying to get my mind around what he was saying, when one of the other guests nervously stopped him and motioned towards me. The boaster irritably asked, “What?” and the second guest whispered loudly, “He’s listening!” The boaster replied dismissively, “He’s a peasant!”, and went back to his boasting.

Several years ago I served on a jury and during voir dire the judge asked the question, “Is there anyone who thinks the jury has the right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case?” One man raised his hand and the judge said “You are excused sir.” The man left and that was the end of it. At the time I had no opinion on the matter because I had never encountered the issue before, but the question intrigued me. I’ve studied the matter since that time and now have reached what I call my “beyond the Internet” phase, that is, the point where I stop reading about an issue on the Internet and restrict my research to a good university library, in the hope of finding something more credible than the global writ of common wisdom.

I’ve yet to embark on said research, so I’ve yet to develop a cogent opinion on the matter, but even before I do I have a question:

Why do juries need to rely on jury nullification when they can examine the evidence, provided the evidence includes the testimony of the officers of the court?

What I mean to say is that the testimony of the judges and prosecutors is evidence, and the jury is free to judge it; ergo, if the officers of the court try to tell a jury that they must convict someone for breaking a law — or an interpretation of a law — that is clearly insane, can the jury not judge the credibility of those same officers (and thus their evidence and testimony) with a jaundiced eye?

For example, let’s pretend that Texas passes a law that says slavery is back in style, and we are going back to the good old days. They also pass a law that says it is illegal to help a slave escape to New Mexico. You are on the jury that is tasked with judging a man who was caught helping a slave escape, admits it, is proud of it, and states loudly that he will do it again.

The judge tells you that you are not allowed to judge the law, only the facts of the case, which turns you into the rubber stamp of a slave state: that is, you must convict, or attempt jury nullification, which is almost impossible to justify because the defendant admitted guilt.

My question is why does a jury need to resort to nullification in such a scenario when the officers of the court — the judge and prosecutors — are enforcing an unconstitutional law that clearly disqualifies them from any reasonable standard of credibility?

In such a case it seems that the jury simply can simply say, “The officers of the court have no credibility because they choose to enforce an unconstitutional law; therefore, their testimony and the other evidence they have presented is also suspect (for example, the defendant could have been forced to confess to his ‘crime’.) Because the jury does not find the officers of the court — and therefore the evidence they present — to be credible, the jury finds the defendant to be not guilty.”

The above question is not just an academic question, but one with practical significance for at least five reasons:

1) Torture is now, courtesy of Unitary Executive Theory and the Bybee Memos, (and assisted by the Patriot Act ), allowed to be used to extract information and thus, confessions, and not just of terrorism but of other crimes (to quote section 802 of the Patriot Act,  ”involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State”.) That breathtakingly broad statement includes pretty much anything, right down to speeding tickets.

2) Unconstitutional laws that facilitate torture and slavery are now being passed almost without public comment or notice (study the Military Commissions Act sometime.)

3) Juries that rely on jury nullification are increasingly being questioned after their decision not only by judges and prosecutors but even by the media, and their answers are being used to imprison them for perjury.

4) Laws are increasingly being applied in ways they were never intended to be applied, with the result that juries are being forced to convict people of acts that were never meant to be crimes under the law when it was passed.

5) The judge claims the right to judge the law. If a judge then allows such a blatantly unconstitutional (if not insane) law to  be used to convict anyone, how can any juror who takes his task seriously regard the entire court under that judges control as anything other than not credible?

By approaching the problem as I have above, the jury avoids any question of rule breaking, and at the same time sends the message to the court that they will not be trifled with as they seem to be today (I say “seem to be” because I still have not decided one way or the other on this issue, and refuse to do so based on Internet ravings by either conspiracy nuts or clones of Judge Bork.)

A couple of years ago my brother and I were driving our aged, battered SUVs across the desert southwest when, low on coolant, we stopped into the Firestone in El Paso, Texas,  at 4224 North Mesa Drive. We stopped there because we were in a hurry and because I knew where it was (I was forced to stop there six months before when I was passing through going the other way. They told me I needed a new carburetor, and charged me a fortune for it.)

I knew something was amiss when they told me I needed a new carburetor. I told them that they installed a new one only six months before and they said the warrantee on it was only for ninety days.

Then they told my brother that he needed a new master cylinder for his brakes. He said he didn’t, so they showed him (it was covered with new, bright red brake fluid.)

He said “Give me my keys.” and we left, and neither of us has had problems with either our brakes or carburetors since.

You’ve been warned.

My older brother recently told me that you know you are getting old when you realize there are no ugly girls under eighteen. So . . . what does it mean when there are no ugly girls under forty five?

People often ask me why I became a truck driver after I got a degree. I’ve tried various answers but in truth the reason is freedom: Freedom to make my own schedule; freedom to travel and see new things; the chance to actually work in other languages (I do a lot of work on the US-Mexico border and in Quebec and could not do my job without a working knowledge of French and Spanish.)

Most significant is the freedom from that most horrid of people, the manager — that professional make work busybody, that same idealess,  average I.Q. lawn NAZI who dreams of little beyond orgasms and a good morning shit, that sometimes bully who has only enough passion to get angry at the people who stand up to him.

If I learned anything about life from trucking it was how little managers are needed. Seriously, take a good truck driver, give him some bad info about a load that needs to be delivered across the country within a certain amount of time and forget about it. This is a person who needs no supervision to accomplish a task. Someone who does need supervision cannot do the job, so the answer is simple: fire them.

So why have some trucking companies decided to try “the driver manager concept”? I’m working for one of these companies — for the moment — and it is amazing how effective managers are at destroying everything that made this job worthwhile: the freedom, the self reliance, the pride that came from knowing that you could be trusted to do a hard job well with no supervision, and the fact that there was no one breathing down your neck, justifying their existence by making you explain your actions to them hourly.

Best of all was the complete and total divorce from office politics, from the knife-in-your-back relationships with coworkers, and all the horribleness of that environment. All that mattered was job performance and how you dealt with the customers (just a little hint: usually I am respectful, but sometimes I have to give them a bloody nose. Its a rough job.)

Now I have all the disadvantages of life on the road and all the horrors of of life in an office cubical. These people offer no advantages to us  — none — and are experts at making it impossible for us to do anything other than obey and whine. Truckers are being transformed from tough minded, self starting, independent adults who never needed to be told what to do, into just another bunch of wage slaves who find themselves being treated like children. I’ve actually found myself acting like a kid, finding ways to sabotage the system not only because its often the only way to get the job done, but out of spite as well.

There must be an advantage for the company to form entirely new divisions, offices, and job categories and then employ, insure and equip them (and then hire managers to do the managing of them), but I can’t see it. Is it really such a threat to a company to have employees who don’t need to be told what to do? I’m not just asking this question to be a smart ass, I’m really curious. I would really like to know how any company is threatened by competent employees.

The worst part is the way these groups form little territories within a company and defend them against other departments, often working against each other in defense of their petty holdings, the greater fate of their employer be damned. The Chinese had a group of people like that once: the Mandarins (you know, those Chinese guys in the old pictures with the long creepy fingernails?) While there was no single cause for China’s inability to deal with the Europeans who sailed into Canton Harbor and demanded tribute, the Mandarins were almost certainly the most important. Now that I think about, the “driver managers” I’ve met actually have long, creepy fingernails — even some of the men!

Well, I suppose I shouldn’t complain, a lot of people these days don’t have any work at all. On the other hand, there is always that 5K per week job I was offered out of Hong Kong fighting pirates in the South China Sea. All expenses paid, including burial if needed!

A few years ago I took my taxes to H & R Block, thinking my tax forms were a simple exercise that I just didn’t have time for. I was told as much, and promised that the whole thing would be wrapped up within two weeks, for the price of $80. I was also  assured I would get several thousand back.

I stopped by after two weeks and was told my tax preparer was not there at the moment but would call me that evening. Two weeks and several phone calls later — none of which were returned — I finally made a call where I was put on hold and was told “she will be with you shortly.” She wasn’t, so I hung up, got in my car and drove to their office, where I was told to sit and wait. I did, for over an hour. When I finally got to speak with my preparer I was told not only that I owed the I.R.S. several thousand dollars, but that H & R’s bill was — so far (they were still not done) — over $800.

I looked at this woman and asked what happened to the original quote. I don’t think I’ve been talked down to that badly since boot camp. I listened, then asked for my paperwork. I was told no, that I owed her and she would not return my paperwork until I paid her. I asked her why I owed her when I never agreed to the new terms and she ordered me out of her office. I left, without a years worth of receipts, records and other papers I needed to file my taxes.

You’ve been warned.

I decided to check everything is shit.com to see if the owner made any changes and found out the domain was available . . . so now that domain points HERE.

HA! I just stumbled upon the first season of Starhunter on YouTube! Unfortunately its only fifteen episodes, but here they are just the same.

Just started watching Starhunter, a scifi show from the early part of this decade that was (naturally) killed before it had a chance to grow into something more. Anyway I’m still watching it after eight episodes. Here is a link to the show on YouTube: Starhunter 2003

The google ads (which don’t seem to appear when I use linux) crank the volume *way* up, so the best thing to do is turn the volume down, push the slider to the right until you get to each ad — the ads are marked by short vertical lines — and play them. Then turn the volume back up, push the slider back to the beginning and watch the whole show ad free.

There is supposed to be a season prior to the season at the above link, but I haven’t found it yet.

This is a link to the closing theme music (by Peter Gabriel): Darker Star Reprise

Today this blog is one year old, which is ironic considering I haven’t written for quite a while, which hasn’t been fair to my three readers (and after they stuck with me all this time too!) I’ve been sick, unfortunately, for most of this year. The good news is the Veterans Administration found out about me and wanted to know where their missing disabled veteran had been since 1986 (ok, it wasn’t exactly like that, but close enough.) So, now I have medical care, I’m slowly getting well, and I may have a chance at finishing grad school, so all is not lost.

While I was sick (at least sicker than I am now) I got so wrapped up in my own problems that I sort of left the internet. I did a few things here and there, wrote a review on Amazon, but I didn’t check my email (or for that matter my snail mail) for two months. Yes, it cost me some money, but it also cost the feelings of a friend of mine who lives overseas: he thought I had ended the friendship for some unknown reason. I was just so self absorbed with my own fears that I forgot about everyone else. I did a lot of apologizing over it but I was lucky he is one of those people who truly forgive and forget, and do so quickly.

My Google rankings have resolved themselves: If you google “Everything is Shit” you will find this blog on page one of the search, and its been that way for a couple of months, so I guess they decided I’m not affiliated with that Nigerian Prince that keeps trying to give me all that money. Perhaps I was wrong about Google, and they are not shit after all.

In the meantime I made some new friends this year, and they are a riot:  a group of Native American Harley riding Trekkies who dress as Klingons and ride around looking ferocious (they are actually some of the sweetest people I’ve met in decades.) I think they want me to to join them in their escapades, but I’m not sure that’s me — I just enjoy their company.