Stunning Government Efficiency or “How traffic enforcement cameras operate by way of legal loopholes.”

I have what some might call a serious lack of general confidence in government. I just don’t trust the efficiency, accuracy, or ethical motivation in governmental ‘administrative’ work, especially the more local the government. Perhaps what I’m about to describe vindicates this attitude. Perhaps it doesn’t. Judge for yourself.

  • A traffic infraction is caught on camera, but the citation is never received.
  • A past-due notice is received, with a threat to be sent to collections.
  • Though a rebuttal letter is sent in response to the postcard, a request for written statement is hence received - or choose to appear in person at court.
  • However, the notices indicates that if a written statement is made, one waves any right to appeal. (?!)
  • Even though a defense of “denial of due process” is reasonable, the case is dismissed because there are two vehicles on the road with the same license plates.

NOTE: because it appears to me the super-majority of world population are gullible idiots, I warn you what is stated here following is my personal experience. You would be the ridiculous idiot if you attempt to use any of what is written here as a legal defense for yourself in any charge made against you.

Government efficiency.

I return home and collect the mail one day to find a simple postcard. On it is a simple statement:

RE: Case BEP xxxxxx
You owe: $159.00

This was actually a bit of a surprise as the original citation was never received. Because the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right of “due process”, which includes clear information on the nature and cause of any charges” - this would be a simple case of “piss-off”. However, this means a ‘no-contact’ would have the due charges sent to a collection agency, then everything gets all mucked-up. It is better to avoid this scenario.

Read More

>

News Redux (or How News Media Are Total Fail)

Andy Rutledge:

Digital news is broken. Actually, news itself is broken. Almost all news organizations have abandoned reporting in favor of editorial; have cultivated reader opinion in place of responsibility; and have traded ethical standards for misdirection and whatever consensus defines as forgivable. And this is before you even lay eyes on what passes for news design on a monitor or device screen these days.

This.

Yes, this.

But it’s not only the “digital news” as Andy writes about (definitely an awesome read, by the way - click the title of this post to go there). News media in general is hosed. Especially on television and I mean all of them.

I remember growing-up and my dad would watch Walter Cronkite every. single. night. without fail. But news reporting in those days was different: it was actually reporting and it was actually news. It was the same with newspapers.

In those days, headlines were never a question as they are today. There where never “teasers” to get you to tune-in or continue reading the story.

In those days, a headline was a summary of the news story. You could read the headline and you had the entire gist of the story. Full stop. To read the story was only to get the details.

News reporting these days is full of garbage. Not just the “article” but the chaff surrounding it: television new casts are filled with way too much flashy eye-candy graphics and cut-scenes and lower-third titles and whiz-bang cartoon shows. It’s near impossible to focus on what is actually being reported about. Then there are way too many commercials and they always tease the most useless “news” near the beginning of the broadcast and report it at the end - and it’s always totally disappointing compared to the “build-up” they’ve been doing during the previous half-hour.

And to shift gears just a bit: there’s the ridiculous bald-faced agendas being spewed-forth. Like Andy says above:

…abandoned reporting in favor of editorial…

“Editorial” always comes down to the expression of opinion. More and more “news reports” are really just editorial: opinions intended to influence you toward the reporter/editor’s agenda; especially in political events.

Real example: have you noticed how the “main stream news media” are now discretely pushing (by questioning) how all “Christians” are terrible people because the alleged Oslo attacker proclaims himself a Christian? No, they aren’t proclaiming this directly or openly, but it’s definitely a constant overriding subject lately, isn’t it? Or have you actually not even noticed this (in which case: shame on you)? It’s akin to proclaiming all vegetarians are evil because Hitler was a vegetarian.

Agenda.
Pushing.

It’s what they do best.

You might utterly hate MSNBC or FOX News, but if you’re smart, you’ll watch both of them. It is the only possible way to get the “full picture” as each will give you only one side. If you only stick with those who report what you agree with, you are the fool because it is really you agreeing with (being influenced by) them.

Then, when you have the full picture, you’ll see how vitriolic each are on their respective sides of the aisle. Then, and only then are you able to take a genuinely objective look at what’s going on and actually make an educated decision on things.

Until then: you are just an idiot sheep and the news media you follow are the herders, cultivating their flock.

Some world statistics you probably don’t want to see. This is an interactive map that helps you feel even worse about yourself after the initial shock. (via National Geographic Magazine)

Some world statistics you probably don’t want to see. This is an interactive map that helps you feel even worse about yourself after the initial shock.

(via National Geographic Magazine)

>

"PROTECT IP" indicates Government Liberals are just this side of Fascists

“The Act would allow courts to order any Internet service to stop recognizing [a] site even on a temporary restraining order… issued the same day the complaint is filed,” [law professors] write. Such a restraining order, which they describe as “the equivalent of an Internet death penalty,” raises serious constitutional questions.

The Supreme Court has held that it’s unconstitutional to suppress speech without an “adversary proceeding.” That is, a speaker must, at a minimum, be given the opportunity to tell his side of the story to a judge before his speech can be suppressed.

Yet under PIPA, a judge decides whether to block a domain after hearing only from the government.

[clicking title of this post will take you to the full story]