So here it comes again. The Democrats nominate a "moderate" guaranteed to allow no change and support the rich. Their candidate will fail to prosecute criminals on Wall Street, any change to the economy will be minimal. (Editor's note: Michael is just blowing off steam again).
Saturday, March 7, 2020
So Here It Comes Again
draft
So here it comes again. The Democrats nominate a "moderate" guaranteed to allow no change and support the rich. Their candidate will fail to prosecute criminals on Wall Street, any change to the economy will be minimal. (Editor's note: Michael is just blowing off steam again).
So here it comes again. The Democrats nominate a "moderate" guaranteed to allow no change and support the rich. Their candidate will fail to prosecute criminals on Wall Street, any change to the economy will be minimal. (Editor's note: Michael is just blowing off steam again).
So Its All Over
draft
The country failed and armed revolution is the only solution. Not aware of any argument against this. (Editor's note: Yes he is.) Its too bad. Also I tried as a citizen to find a way to participate but failed. No one had any ideas and I sure didnt. (Editor's note: Yes he did.)
The country failed and armed revolution is the only solution. Not aware of any argument against this. (Editor's note: Yes he is.) Its too bad. Also I tried as a citizen to find a way to participate but failed. No one had any ideas and I sure didnt. (Editor's note: Yes he did.)
Monday, February 10, 2020
Is It Wrong to Accuse Someone of Violating a Law That Does Not Exist?
draft
I asked a friend the following hypothetical question:
And my friend the Harvard-trained entertainment attorney replied:
To which I said:
I asked a friend the following hypothetical question:
Imagine the following. Person A is an official of our government charged with, among other things, the responsibility to abide by and enforce the law. In the course of normal politics, Person A accuses his/her enemy, Person B who is also an official of the goverment, of a crime. Lets say that Person A accuses Person B of putting pesto sauce on his kale on Fridays. "Thats outrageous, its against the law!". But as far as anyone knows, the laws about kale make no mention of pesto sauce, nor has there been any case about pesto sauce and kale in all of recorded history, and it is reasonable to expect Person A to know this. In other words (a) the issue is not at all subtle, and (b) Person A is responsible in some sense of that word in his official capacity, to understand, in broad strokes, the state of the law about kale and pesto sauce (and if he was confused, he could go ask somebody). The question is, has Person A, in accusing Person B of violating the law, in fact violated the law himself?
And my friend the Harvard-trained entertainment attorney replied:
You are right that there is an idea that people in office are supposed to understand and respect the law, but mostly it’s just aspirational, not a legal standard to which they are held. It’s probably not a crime for a public official to make outrageous statements claiming violations of the law that he knows are not violations at all. If you and I (i.e someone not protected by making a statement relating to duties in a public office) did the same thing, it might be defamation because it is defamatory to wrongfully state that someone committed a crime, though maybe not because if he really did put pesto on his kale and the only falsehood in my statement is that in doing so he committed crime, it is possible that might not be considered defamation, because defamation usually goes to the truth of the underlying act not to its characterization as good/bad or legal/illegal. In making the statement in his official capacity and even in wrongfully prosecuting a case for violation of a law that he knows that he is making up, he is probably immune from prosecution under several different theories, but it could be grounds for removal from office.
To which I said:
We must thank our friends the Russians for their help in improving Democracy by stress testing it. It wont be possible to indulge this kind of behavior going forward now that we have endured Trump. Sadly, even lawyers, and particularly lawyers in positions of trust, must now be held to a higher standard. But that does not necessarily mean an orange onesie learning new skills, it may merely mean they are not permitted to be Attorney General or POTUS.
Thursday, February 6, 2020
Guidelines for Crossing Into Canada for a Conference
draft
This is what I learned from being unable to cross the border into Canada to attend an academic conference. I probably did everything wrong. You can learn from my mistakes.
The guiding principle is to avoid the appearance of someone who is going to cross into Canada and then become a "problem", someone who intends to stay in Canada and who may need financial assistance or try to get or take a job from a more deserving Canadian citizen. In order to sniff out these potential miscreants, the border officials have certain things that they look for and I managed to get a perfect score, I think.
To that desired end of convincing the nice people at the border to let you through, the following guidelines are suggested: 1. Fly directly, do not use the bus from Seattle to Vancouver. I attempted to cross the border via the regular bus shuttle from Seattle because I thought it would allow me to be more flexible and save money. A false economy, I think. Had I flown directly to Vancouver, I think I would have appeared to have more financial means and to put more value on my time which is the sort of thing they look for when separating the wheat from the chaff. 2. You should have booked a return ticket and be able to prove it on paper without any hesitation. I did have a return ticket, but it was from Seattle to Santa Barbara, my plan was to return by bus to Seattle and did not make a reservation since I was not completely sure when I wanted to return. Definitely a mistake. 3. Have documentation for where you plan to stay. Avoid the appearance of improvisation. Have your hotel reservation confirmed and carry paper documentation. 4. Carry lots of cash on you. These days most of us rely on getting cash on demand from an ATM. They want to see plenty of financial responsibility in overt ways. $1,000 in cash and maybe $1,000 in travellers checks would not be out of place. 5. Dress like you are going to the bank for a loan. 6. Do not carry your dinner and think you are going to take it over the border with you. 7. Have documentation about the conference you are going to attend. In this case, that would mean a piece of paper that demonstrates that you have preregistered for SIGGRAPH (and spent your $1,000 US in Canada, already). And, finally, 8. When they ask you if you are employed, do not tell them the truth, that computer animation has failed to provide steady employment for so many people, but say that you are self-employed.
Beyond that, it would have been nice if SIGGRAPH had perhaps a volunteer with a car who could escort people from the border to the conference center, as once you are held back for further review, the logistics of getting into the city are non-trivial even if they do let you through.
To recap, the Canadian border officials want to have some confidence that you are not planning to come to Canada to stay, but will come only briefly, spend money, be respectable and go home.
This is what I learned from being unable to cross the border into Canada to attend an academic conference. I probably did everything wrong. You can learn from my mistakes.
The guiding principle is to avoid the appearance of someone who is going to cross into Canada and then become a "problem", someone who intends to stay in Canada and who may need financial assistance or try to get or take a job from a more deserving Canadian citizen. In order to sniff out these potential miscreants, the border officials have certain things that they look for and I managed to get a perfect score, I think.
To that desired end of convincing the nice people at the border to let you through, the following guidelines are suggested: 1. Fly directly, do not use the bus from Seattle to Vancouver. I attempted to cross the border via the regular bus shuttle from Seattle because I thought it would allow me to be more flexible and save money. A false economy, I think. Had I flown directly to Vancouver, I think I would have appeared to have more financial means and to put more value on my time which is the sort of thing they look for when separating the wheat from the chaff. 2. You should have booked a return ticket and be able to prove it on paper without any hesitation. I did have a return ticket, but it was from Seattle to Santa Barbara, my plan was to return by bus to Seattle and did not make a reservation since I was not completely sure when I wanted to return. Definitely a mistake. 3. Have documentation for where you plan to stay. Avoid the appearance of improvisation. Have your hotel reservation confirmed and carry paper documentation. 4. Carry lots of cash on you. These days most of us rely on getting cash on demand from an ATM. They want to see plenty of financial responsibility in overt ways. $1,000 in cash and maybe $1,000 in travellers checks would not be out of place. 5. Dress like you are going to the bank for a loan. 6. Do not carry your dinner and think you are going to take it over the border with you. 7. Have documentation about the conference you are going to attend. In this case, that would mean a piece of paper that demonstrates that you have preregistered for SIGGRAPH (and spent your $1,000 US in Canada, already). And, finally, 8. When they ask you if you are employed, do not tell them the truth, that computer animation has failed to provide steady employment for so many people, but say that you are self-employed.
Beyond that, it would have been nice if SIGGRAPH had perhaps a volunteer with a car who could escort people from the border to the conference center, as once you are held back for further review, the logistics of getting into the city are non-trivial even if they do let you through.
To recap, the Canadian border officials want to have some confidence that you are not planning to come to Canada to stay, but will come only briefly, spend money, be respectable and go home.
Sunday, February 2, 2020
Some Ideas Beyond Voting
draft
Since democracy has failed in the USA, by which I mean the will of the majority of people in this country is ignored, I am collecting ideas for what to do about it. Short of armed rebellion (which I personally think wouldnt work), two other ideas are to (a) move people into states where the Republicans are working to purge voters from the rolls in order to add a few hundred or thousand votes on the side of righteousness and (b) buy a politician or two (how much do they cost? I really dont know). None of these would be enough to restore democracy (see for example the problem of the right wing nuts in the judiciary), so I freely admit these ideas are half baked but nevertheless submit them here in the hope it may stimulate ideas. I wonder if they sell politicians on the dark web?
Since democracy has failed in the USA, by which I mean the will of the majority of people in this country is ignored, I am collecting ideas for what to do about it. Short of armed rebellion (which I personally think wouldnt work), two other ideas are to (a) move people into states where the Republicans are working to purge voters from the rolls in order to add a few hundred or thousand votes on the side of righteousness and (b) buy a politician or two (how much do they cost? I really dont know). None of these would be enough to restore democracy (see for example the problem of the right wing nuts in the judiciary), so I freely admit these ideas are half baked but nevertheless submit them here in the hope it may stimulate ideas. I wonder if they sell politicians on the dark web?
Voting is Not a Solution
draft
Whenever someone tells me to "Vote!" as a solution to the current right wing dictatorship in this country, I have the following comments. 1. For one reason or another I have voted Democrat in all major elections since and including 1972 (I have missed some midterm elections), 2. In one election, 2000, my vote was ignored when the Supreme Court made their right wing stoodge, W. Bush, president over the wishes of the people, 3. In another election, 2016, Russian interference and the insane electoral college (which should have been fixed long ago) was used to put the moron king into power, again my vote was ignored, 4. The supreme court has enshrined Citizens United and destroyed the Voting Rights Act. Without these being reversed and enforced in law and in the field, there can be no reason to think that an election has been fair. 5. By allowing Republicans to put their right wing tools in the judiciary, you can count on any legislative or executive action to restore freedom will be reversed. Therefore any plan to restore freedom has to include a way to get these right wing nuts (like Kavanaugh, Thomas and Gorsuch just to name three) out of the judiciary and review and reverse any decisions they have made. Those three are just the tip of the iceberg. 6. Therefore, any plan you have that does not deal with these issues, the electoral college, citizens united, the voting rights act and the right wing judiciary is just wishful thinking. 7. I will be happy to vote but it is a sucker game as far as I am concerned. 8. Enjoy your dictatorship. I was in Washington protesting the right wing coup d'etat in November, 2000. Where were you?
Whenever someone tells me to "Vote!" as a solution to the current right wing dictatorship in this country, I have the following comments. 1. For one reason or another I have voted Democrat in all major elections since and including 1972 (I have missed some midterm elections), 2. In one election, 2000, my vote was ignored when the Supreme Court made their right wing stoodge, W. Bush, president over the wishes of the people, 3. In another election, 2016, Russian interference and the insane electoral college (which should have been fixed long ago) was used to put the moron king into power, again my vote was ignored, 4. The supreme court has enshrined Citizens United and destroyed the Voting Rights Act. Without these being reversed and enforced in law and in the field, there can be no reason to think that an election has been fair. 5. By allowing Republicans to put their right wing tools in the judiciary, you can count on any legislative or executive action to restore freedom will be reversed. Therefore any plan to restore freedom has to include a way to get these right wing nuts (like Kavanaugh, Thomas and Gorsuch just to name three) out of the judiciary and review and reverse any decisions they have made. Those three are just the tip of the iceberg. 6. Therefore, any plan you have that does not deal with these issues, the electoral college, citizens united, the voting rights act and the right wing judiciary is just wishful thinking. 7. I will be happy to vote but it is a sucker game as far as I am concerned. 8. Enjoy your dictatorship. I was in Washington protesting the right wing coup d'etat in November, 2000. Where were you?
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Script for Video (People I Worked With at Abel's)
draft
As part of an application to an MFA program, I am supposed to include a 60-90 second video of me explaining or describing some event that was important to my development as an "artist" or something like that. I plan to describe some of the people I worked with when I went to Abel's. For that video, I have prepared a list of some of the people. Some of these were full-time, some were project based, some were clients. The list could easily be twice as long. In this list we have at least 5 academy awards (between three people) and probably more than I realize.
Bob Abel,
Clark Anderson,
Richard "Doc" Baily,
Tom Barron,
Steve Cooney,
Rod Davis,
Allen Debovoise,
Richard Hollander,
John Hughes,
Judy Kaiser,
Pat Kenly,
Bill Kovacs,
Rob Legato,
Tandy Martin,
Kenny Mirman,
John Nelson,
Con Pederson,
Randy Roberts,
Terry Schwartz,
Jim Shaw,
Richard Taylor (client on Tron),
Frank Vitz,
John Wash
As part of an application to an MFA program, I am supposed to include a 60-90 second video of me explaining or describing some event that was important to my development as an "artist" or something like that. I plan to describe some of the people I worked with when I went to Abel's. For that video, I have prepared a list of some of the people. Some of these were full-time, some were project based, some were clients. The list could easily be twice as long. In this list we have at least 5 academy awards (between three people) and probably more than I realize.
Bob Abel,
Clark Anderson,
Richard "Doc" Baily,
Tom Barron,
Steve Cooney,
Rod Davis,
Allen Debovoise,
Richard Hollander,
John Hughes,
Judy Kaiser,
Pat Kenly,
Bill Kovacs,
Rob Legato,
Tandy Martin,
Kenny Mirman,
John Nelson,
Con Pederson,
Randy Roberts,
Terry Schwartz,
Jim Shaw,
Richard Taylor (client on Tron),
Frank Vitz,
John Wash
A Package Gets Mislaid and I Know Why
draft
A package got mislaid on its way to me and I know why, but no one will listen even though I have been doing this for a few years now. It goes like this: if the package is important for any reason, and there is any cheapness (e.g. sending it in a non-trackable way) then it will get lost or delayed.
Every time.
But no one listens.
A package got mislaid on its way to me and I know why, but no one will listen even though I have been doing this for a few years now. It goes like this: if the package is important for any reason, and there is any cheapness (e.g. sending it in a non-trackable way) then it will get lost or delayed.
Every time.
But no one listens.
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Should We Obey the Law in Trump's America
draft
A friend who is charming and completely reckless (but doesnt appear to be on the surface) endangers peoples lives in ways that he understands is a direct violation of law, in order to enable a client of his to run parties in a wildly non-code space. The fire department has come down hard on him but he is ignoring them. The Oakland tragedy of a year or so ago means nothing to him, because he makes a few thousand every time they hold a party.
At first I told him "stop doing this, this is crazy, you know its a mistake" but then I thought, hmmm, what would our president do? Would he violate the law in order to make a few bucks? Isnt that the New American Way? Shoddy, cheap, stupid, dangerous, get the money?
So I told him, he should follow the lead of our Great President who will lead us to Paradise via the imminent Rapture, rebuilding of the Temple and the arrival of the Savior to send sinners to the last judgement and thus to hell. If he makes a few bucks by violating fire code after being cited for his crimes many times, but it helps bring the Savior and punish sinners like those who oppose our Great President, who am I to stand in the way?
A friend who is charming and completely reckless (but doesnt appear to be on the surface) endangers peoples lives in ways that he understands is a direct violation of law, in order to enable a client of his to run parties in a wildly non-code space. The fire department has come down hard on him but he is ignoring them. The Oakland tragedy of a year or so ago means nothing to him, because he makes a few thousand every time they hold a party.
At first I told him "stop doing this, this is crazy, you know its a mistake" but then I thought, hmmm, what would our president do? Would he violate the law in order to make a few bucks? Isnt that the New American Way? Shoddy, cheap, stupid, dangerous, get the money?
So I told him, he should follow the lead of our Great President who will lead us to Paradise via the imminent Rapture, rebuilding of the Temple and the arrival of the Savior to send sinners to the last judgement and thus to hell. If he makes a few bucks by violating fire code after being cited for his crimes many times, but it helps bring the Savior and punish sinners like those who oppose our Great President, who am I to stand in the way?
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Paul Rother & Mark Sylvester
draft
At a birthday party for a friend, I ran into Paul Rother (he recognized me!) and Mark Sylvester. I havent seen Paul for a very long time.
There was a company there called MirMir all set up to take pictures with funny glasses (which are a clue). Mark and Paul look shorter than me because they had to sortof kneel to fit into the picture.
At the party, one of the event photographers was named Madison and although she was shooting digital (of course) revealed that she had attended Brooks here in Santa Barbara and owned a Contax 645 medium format (film!) camera. Thats just remarkable.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)