Motorcycle Traffic

I ended up heading home at an unusual (for me) time the other day and found myself caught in afternoon work traffic.  I keep unusual hours and rarely have to deal with the normal daily commuter traffic.  This day, however, I ended up with an extra 30 minutes on my commute and had the pleasure of sitting in the Southern California afternoon heat on very little sleep (stayed up late writing a paper the night before).  One thing that was different about sitting in traffic from my normal ride was the motorcycles zooming between me in the fast lane and the cars in the number 2 lane.

In the half hour I was stuck in stop in go traffic, I counted 16 motorcycles that passed.  Since I was in the fast lane, I would pull over a few feet into the center divide as a courtesy to the bikers that passed by.  I was able to move for 15 of the 16 bikes, I didn't see one coming and he had passed before I could do anything.  Of the 15 bikers that I moved for 9 of them gave me a quick peace sign as they passed acknowledging my courtesy.  This is how it should be.  I'm not saying that they all need to do this, if they aren't comfortable taking a hand off the handle because the gap ahead of them is tight, then it would be crazy for me to expect them to do so.  But in a perfect world, cars would move out of the way as a courtesy and bikers would acknowledge it and we would all go on our own way.

Bikers have a bad rap.  Usually people associate bikers with scruffy Hells Angels types or young irresponsible and reckless riders.  I have to say, between the two I prefer the Hells Angels type, they are much more likely to appreciate my courtesy, plus I like the cruiser bikes better.  Besides, they tend not ride around like madmen putting their own safety and that of other motorists on the line.  What is the point of my moving out of the way when they pass or double checking before I change lanes if they're just going to speed away doing a wheelie?  The young bucks that speed down the road swerving across all the lanes really bring down the whole group of riders.  Even so, considering how dangerous motorcycle crashed can be, we all have a responsibility to avoid collisions at all costs, even if they show disregard for their own lives.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with someone who was pissed about bikers splitting lanes in traffic.  First of all I should note that this is legal in California (where I live).  He was annoyed that they were able to pass and didn't have to sit in traffic like the rest of us, which he assumed made traffic worse for cars.  This is not true.  Even though the bikes that pass you while you are sitting in traffic don't make your commute any faster, they don't slow it down either.  The bikes that didn't have to sit in front of you because they split lanes actually made your commute faster.  Think of it this way, having bikes split lanes means that more vehicles can move through traffic in the same amount of time; you just never saw the bikes that saved you time because they were always in front of you.  If your concern is about fairness, buy a bike yourself and same us all a little time.

Have we learned nothing in 238 years?

I never understood why someone would try to make an argument by pointing to the founding fathers.  For starters, this implies an assumption that they were all in agreement. They were not, they fought each other with the same level of intensity (and sometimes more) then even the most heated debates today.  But this is only tangential to the point I would like to make here.

Pointing to the founding fathers to try to make an argument also implies that they were smarter than we are today.  This is quite obviously not true.  I'm not trying to say that they were dumb, only that we have come a long way in developing our scientific knowledge.  I have neither the time nor the energy to go through and list all of the things we have learned since our country was founded, luckily though wikipedia does.  Check out this page and look for dates after 1776, these are all things our founding fathers couldn't have possibly known about.  Even this list is hardly exhaustive, it only talks about hard sciences and makes no mention of the progress we've made in social sciences.

Consider this: George Washington was known to engage in blood letting as a medical cure for his ailments.  Perhaps we should subject those who defend their positions by pointing to the founding fathers to the same medical treatments in use during the 1800's.  I'd say we should prevent them from getting immunizations, but it seems like they are willingly pursuing that option already.  Maybe we could burn them for being witches or tar and feather them for their legal violations.  I don't know what we can do to show them that we are so much better and smarter than civilization in 1776.  I would say that we could take away all of their rights unless they are rich white men, but it seems like most of these people are rich white men.

Did I mention that most of these people were atheists who didn't support maintaining standing armies?  Come to think of it, maybe these guys are smarter than us...

Jon Stewart's Epic Rant About Campaign Finance

I just caught up with the Daily Show and was delighted to see Jon Stewarts epic rant about the Supreme Court's decision in McCutcheon.  For those of you who are unfamiliar with the case, he does a fairly decent job of explaining it.  Essentially, the court struck down the aggregate total of money that a person could spend during an election cycle while leaving the cap on how much you can give to any individual candidate.  This means that you can still only give $5,200 to a candidate for each election ($2,600 for the primary and another $2,600 for the general election) but now you can support every candidate running for office in the country.  This means that rich people can't donate $1 million dollars to a single candidate, but they can spread $1 million dollars around to 200 candidates.

As much as I like Jon Stewart and love to see him when he gets really riled up and as much as I agree with the sentiment behind his frustration, I don't think this is as dramatic of an attack on democracy as he makes it out to be.  Certainly it is nowhere near as bad as the Citizens United case that unleashed the floodgates of special interest donations towards super pacs.  He does point out that it is ridiculous to defend this law by pointing to one that is much worse; but there may be something to the idea that it has to get worse before it can get any better.

Let me begin my explanation by pointing out the Jon and I presumably want the same thing.  I assume that he, like I, would like to see public financing for all elections so that we can eliminate the wealth favoritism and potential for bribery and cronyism.  I don't like that the Supreme Court decided that money was speech, and allowed corporations and wealthy individuals to donate unlimited amounts of money to political super pacs.  They aren't supposed to coordinate with the candidates they support, but come on, how stupid do you think we are?  This decision was a double whammy because it not only gave unprecedented political access to the wealthiest people (at the cost of the rest of us) but it also means that the candidates themselves are no longer even accountable for the messages they produce.  The influx of money and the lack of transparency has led to some of the nastiest attack ads and most brutal campaigns.  I would be willing to bet that there is a statistically significant drop in our countries mental health during campaign season, it just can't be good for us to listen to and hear so much negativity.  There is no doubt that these are terrible laws.

Still, there is something to be said for letting wealthy donors contribute directly to campaigns instead of shuffling it through anonymous super pacs.  If we can at least have transparency and accountability we could make an improvement on what we are currently dealing with.  Plus, if the Supreme Court keeps breaking up the dam's that are holding back the cash, maybe things will get so bad that the people wake up and do something about it.  The only real chance we have to get public financing is through corruption.  It's a risky game we're playing, but i've always been a gambling man.

Racist Restaurants

I've worked in a variety of restaurants and in almost every position over the last 9 1/2 years.  People gave the NFL a bad wrap for the "locker room culture" but  seem to have no idea just how bad it is in restaurants.  Racism and sexism run amuck and from some of the people you'd least expect it.  It's not even hidden from view: have you noticed that all the waiters are white, all the hostesses are attractive young women, all the bus boys are black and all the line cooks are Mexican?  This is an industry that is dominated by young people, and yet it is one of the most intolerant and inhospitable working environments imaginable.

I actually work for a rather open minded company (comparatively) without the same degree of overt racial job classification; but that doesn't do much to change the culture among their employees.  I should be careful to note that this isn't a blanket accusation, it is merely a reflection of a general trend.  I'm proud to say that I work with a man who not only doesn't subscribe to this nastiness, but who also calls other people out when their behavior crosses the line.  His example inspired me to do the same.

Aside from the obvious demographic separation that keeps certain groups working certain jobs, there is a more flagrant racism that runs rampant.  Servers judge the tables they have to take before they even talk to them, and assume that their tip will reflect as much.  If you are Black, Latino, Indian, Native American, Asian American, foreign (with accent especially), young, old, or you look poor, then your server is probably pissed you just sat at their table.  Surprisingly, they don't even like rich people; black Amex card holders are notoriously poor tippers (at least in casual dining).  This doesn't just apply to white servers, I've heard black people use the "N word" and latinos say "wetbacks."  You just can't make this stuff up.  I've heard the "N word" so many time that it is no longer a shock to me anymore; that is both terrifying and saddening.  While I will never find this type of behavior justifiable, to a certain extent, it is actually understandable.

I would be lying if I said that over my nine years in the business I didn't notice discrepancies among different races and ethnicities in the tip percentage left for the server.  Even so, I think this effect is magnified because there is an expectation for it, and servers go around holding up the credit slip saying "See, see! I told you so" every time it happens.  A servers biggest resource is his time, often we are over burdened with more tables that we can actually take care of; this is when racism is most notable. If you have 8 tables and two of them are black families, you tend to give them the worst service because you don't think they were going to tip you well anyway.  Servers aren't rich people and it only makes sense that they would seek to maximize their profits on every given night.

This, of course, leads to a problem of causality.  Even if we accept the notion that certain ethnicities and races tip worse than others we don't know if it is because they are cheap or because they got worse service.  Besides, if you were a black family with a teenage child who couldn't find any work, then you went out to eat and all 25 servers working were white, would you feel compelled to leave a big tip?

I want to leave you with a true story about one of my more positive restaurant experiences, hopefully you'll see that we aren't all so bad.  I was waiting on a large family of Indians (from India not Native Americans) towards the end of one of my serving shifts.  Another server told me they were terrible tippers so my expectations weren't that great.  I wasn't terribly busy since it was the end of the night so I did my best to give them great service (I would have tried anyway, I always try to give great service so that I earn the right to complain about bad tips).  I figured, even if I bumped the tip from 5% to 10%, that that would be double the amount I would have made otherwise (not rocket science).  Their bill ended up being around $150 dollars and the father came up to me and handed me two $100 bills.  In perfect English he told me, "You are the first person who didn't judge us and gave us great service, thank you.  Please, keep the change."

I am under no illusion that that is the norm, I've had my fair share of bad tips (or no tips) even when everything was perfect.  But it does go to show, you never know.  Either way, I need to feel like a good person, often in spite of "restaurant culture."

Liberals Set Scary Precedent

In case you haven't heard about this story, I'll give you the 30 second elevator version.  In 2008 Brendan Eich made a $1,000 donation towards the California ballot initiative Proposition 8.  This proposition would ban Gay marriage in the state and actually passed before being reversed in the courts.  A week and a half ago this guy, one of Mozilla's original founders, was named CEO and there was an immediate outcry.  Eventually the cries built into a crescendo and Eich "resigned."

I really don't know how I'm supposed to feel here.  On the one hand I feel like it is a victory for those of us who favor marriage equality, but I'm also not comfortable with the idea that a 6 year old political contribution could force someone from a job in an unrelated field.  Make no mistake, I am a vehement supporter of gay rights but I don't think I can support the lefties here.  It would be one thing if he came out and made an anti-gay statement as the acting CEO of a company, but all he did was make a contribution to a cause he believes in, and it occurred six years ago.  As a blogger with obviously controversial ideas I am terrified.

Clearly I need to be writing under a pseudonym.  Maybe I should shut this whole thing down.  Maybe I should duct tape my mouth and not pull it off until I retire.  Maybe I should only write about little kittens, or lollypops or rainbows; but then I'd probably piss off all the dog people.  There is no way that anyone can please everyone, but that doesn't mean that we all need to keep our mouth shut if we have any aspirations in life.  

Writing for MSNBC Adam Serwer writes, "Eich had a First Amendment right to give money to the Proposition 8 campaign.  His critics had the same right not to use Mozilla's products, or to criticize them for choosing Eich as CEO.  Supporters of Eich now have the right to attack Mozilla over his resignation.  This is, in part, how the marketplace of ideas functions."  It is true that all of these people do have these constitutional rights, but there is a difference between your rights and being right.  Are these liberals seriously going to stalk this Eich guy for the rest of his life because he's backwards on marriage equality?  Are we seriously prepared to boycott any company that is led by someone that doesn't share the same ideological beliefs as us? Does the hyper partisanship of Washington need to cross over into the business world, and every other facet of our lives?  This is ridiculous people, they're a freakin' internet browser company, and this guy was totally qualified to lead it.  

I'm so ashamed.  The second that liberals get a taste of power, get a sliver of public support on their side they need to ram it down the throats of all those that don't agree with them.  If we stopped to look in the mirror, would we see anything different than that which we have been criticizing for so long?  We should be better than this, we should be better than them.  And shame on Mozilla, they actually had some courage for all of 3-4 days.  It obviously wasn't a very popular decision to defend him, but the precedent you've set here by letting him go is rather horrifying.  I don't want to have to shop in a liberal grocery store, buying liberal groceries, and driving home in my liberal car (Whole Foods, Organic, and Prius Hybrid) only to have to return because I accidentally got the Red cola (Coke) instead of the Blue (Pepsi).  I don't want to live in fear that the words I write today will keep me from a job I deserve tomorrow.  I don't want to have to sensor myself because a bunch of art majors think I'm a prick.  I don't want to live in Soviet Russia!  

If the thousands of people who complained about Eich's promotion really wanted to make a difference, they could have all donated $1 towards marriage equality and trumped his measly $1k donation anyway.  Come on people, this is America.

Why So Hard On The Republicans?

It's now 23 days into my blog and i've got 23 posts written (24 when this one is finished) and I just crossed the 1,000 page view mark.  That's better than 40 views per blog and 40 views per day, with much of the heavy lifting coming in just the last week alone.  I am both happy and humbled by the reaction and support and looking forward to doing so much more.  I've got a real website coming out soon and it should give the professional look to my writing that will help me expand my reach.  Looking back over the last few weeks I've noticed that much (though not all) of my writing has been rather critical of Republicans, and that these posts seem to gain the most traction.

President Obama has repeatedly said that he doesn't think that Democrats have a monopoly on good ideas, similarly, I don't think Republicans have a monopoly on bad ideas.  Why, then, has my criticism focused almost exclusively on Republicans?  Let's explore that idea a bit further.

1) It's Much Easier: Even if Republicans do have some good ideas (remember that Obamacare was originally a Republican response to the Democratic push for a single payer system) they certainly seem to keep pushing the worst ones.  If Republicans had their way medicaid would be a block grant, medicare would be vouchered, food stamps would be eliminated, major corporate tax breaks would be expanded, the wealthiest tax rates would be cut, we'd have a flat tax or no income tax at all, the EPA would be eliminated, so would HUD, same with the FED and most other federal agencies, we'd spend more on building weapons and bombs, we'd be at war with dozens of countries, we'd end all foreign assistance (except maybe for Israel), we'd take away insurance for millions of people (more if you count their medicaid and medicare ideas), we'd have no regulation over food safety or air/water pollution, we'd have millionaires deciding all election, and on and on and on.  Also, women would have to carry every pregnancy, even those caused by rape, to full term; and all black people would be thrown in jail or shot.  Ok, that might be a bit of a hyperbole, but did I mention that they shut down the government and threatened to default on our debt?  If you really want to know why I bash the Republicans, it's because they make it so easy for me.

2) I'm a Democrat: Why does everyone in Wisconsin root for the Packers?  It's only natural that you would be more inclined to criticize the other guys when it is a head to head competition.  If there was a viable third party (proportional representation anyone?) then I'd be more likely to bash the Democrats too, but as it is I'd usually prefer the worst Democrat over the best Republican.  Politics is almost always a zero-sum game.  When you hurt Republicans it helps Democrats and vice-versa, I may not always agree with Democrats (since they usually just run on a "look how bad the other guy is" platform) but I almost never agree with Republicans.

3) I Know My Audience:  Right now I'm just a small time blogger.  In order to find my blog you have to be trolling around the internet looking for random blogs from nobodies.  If the only people that my words are reaching are stoned college students, which party should I appeal to?  A lot of Republicans have jobs (good for them), they have families and hunting to get to; they don't have time for my crap.  Why would I alienate the only people that show up to read this in order to please the people that will never read this and couldn't care less about what I have to say?

By the way, readers, you just missed 4:20 but go ahead and take a break now... I won't tell anybody.  Just come on back when you're finished and read my new favorite post.  My plan to win the Republican presidential nomination.  You won't be disappointed.

My plan to win the Republican presidential nomination

When I was young my parents and my teachers told me that I could do anything I put my mind to, even become President of the United States.  Since I'm a white man I actually believed them.  As I got older I realized it wasn't so easy... you also need to be rich.  I'd really like to be president but I'm not rich, luckily I have a plan.  For starters I definitely need to run as a Republican, I'm not really interested in having good ideas or caring about America plus I'm a white man so I assume I'll fit right in.  Anyway, without further ado here is my plan to win the Republican presidential nomination for 2016.

1) Get Some Money:  I'm broke, that doesn't bode well for a Presidential run.  I'm going to need to raise some serious cash, so clearly I need to crowd fund this thing.  The first thing I need to do is make sure that people think I'm a viable candidate.  All I need to do is make it clear that I'm running as a Republican and BLAMO, problem solved.  But I still need to make money, lots of small contributions are ok, but if being a Republican has taught me anything it's that I should really only care about people with LOTS of money.  I'm thinking $1 Million per ambassadorship to all the Caribbean nations should do the trick.  I'm also definitely willing to sell the vice presidency, think I can get a cool $10 mil for that?

2) Spend All the Money:  Getting on the ballot in all 50 states is actually a costly and tricky endeavor.  They each have their own requirements and you need to get enough signatures in each state.  The easiest way to get people to sign a petition to get you on the ballot when they don't have a clue who you are, is to bribe them.  I'm thinking a box of bullets in the red states and a bag of pot cookies in the blue states and I'll have more signatures than I know what to do with.  I'll spend the rest of the money on commercials with me petting kittens and plaster them all over the internet.  I can already smell the oval office...

3) Shut Up and Don't Blow It:  This is the tricky part.  Watching the 2012 GOP nomination process I realized that it is actually rather easy to become the frontrunner in a pack of paraplegics.  That's not really fair to the disabled community, but if they get mad I'll just assume I can outrun them.  Oh yes, it feels so good to be a Republican, if anyone calls me politically incorrect I can just pull out a gun and tell them to say it to my face (not realizing, of course, that they did just say it to my face).  Anyway, this is the kind of thing I won't do as a potential Republican presidential nominee.  I'm pretty sure that all I have to do is nothing, assuming I can keep my mouth shut for 6 months everyone else will have done something so outrageous that I'll be the only credible candidate left.  When voters go to the polls, it'll be a bunch of candidates they know are un-electable and me.  I'm liking my chances.

That's it.  Seem's like a pretty foolproof plan to me.  Of course, being a Republican now I'll actually get to test whether or not it is truly foolproof...

List It: The 5 Biggest Winners From Marijuana Prohibition (Part 3)

As promised I am finishing my 3 part series on the biggest losers and winners of marijuana prohibition here.  You can read the first part of the series here or the second part here, please do- it'll put this post into context.

Of course most of politics is a zero-sum game, where someone loses another stands to gain.  Here is my list of the five groups that benefit the most from marijuana prohibition.

1)  Dealers/ Gangs/ Cartels:  Ironically these are the people that this policy was supposed to hurt the most, yet somehow they came out on top.  Admittedly, this is a dangerous lifestyle with the risk of death, injury and incarceration this profession is not for the faint of heart.  But for those who manage the risks wisely and avoid detection the payoffs can be huge.  The really powerful dealers know better than to sell to any actual users, there is just too much risk in that.  Luckily there are hundreds of thousands of poor young American's willing to step up and take the risk for just a small piece of the action.  The money that should be going to legal regulated business and taxed to help fund our government is instead funneled to dangerous gangs and drug cartels funding their brutal and illegal activities.  You know the law is in shambles when the very people that we were going after ended up being the ones who benefitted the most.

2) The Incarceration Industry:  This actually covers a lot of different groups of people from the private prison industry (who have pumped millions into inflating prison sentences for non-violent offenders), to the prosecutors and defense attorneys, to the corrections officers, to prison guards, and even to the judicial system itself (marijuana plea deals provide a substantial sum of money, since no one is willing to fight the charges they actually make more money than they spend in prosecution).  Of all the things we have decided to privatize over the last few decades, prisons has got to be the worst.  Profiting off human misery is disgusting to say the least, plus it incentivizes unreasonably long prison sentences for convicts.  Have these people never heard of the 8th amendment?

3) The Pharmaceutical Industry:  These guys are among the first to push for marijuana prohibition in the first place.  Why would Americans spend billions on pain relievers if they could grow their own legally and nearly free.  They say that marijuana is not medicine (I beg to differ) because it isn't regulated or consistent.  Apparently medicine only comes in perfectly manufactured little pills that kill hundreds of thousands of people every year.  Never mind the fact that marijuana has never contributed to a fatal overdose in all of recorded history, its a plant so it can't be safe.  Please forget that we have been selectively breeding this plant for thousands of years to alleviate our most common ailments, if it can't be monetized it must be illegal.  These people are the financial backers who continue to push for prohibition, they have their hands in all the politicians pockets because they fear the worst (which would actually be best for the rest of us).

4)  Politicians:  Speaking of politicians, they have been successfully running on "tough on crime" platforms for decades.  Not only do they get paid off by all the businesses that profit from the status quo, they also pick up the MADD soccer mom vote who react with passion over anything crime related.  Of course we've had to be careful to only arrest young black men over drug crimes, wouldn't want to upset suburbia now would we?  Even though it is clear that marijuana prohibition is bad for the country, it is equally clear that it is good for politicians.  Until we can change that we won't be able to see commonsense drug laws become more widespread.  We need to support the courageous few who have risked their careers taking honest opinions, and punish those too cowardly to stand up for what is right.  There is a lot going on in this Novembers election, its high time we took a stand.

5) That's It:  I actually can't think of anyone else who wins here.  Everyone else loses from this horrible policy.  For a look at the biggest losers, follow the links at the top of the page.  

Thanks for reading, feel free to comment below or share this post with your friends (or at least that stoner nephew of yours who might appreciate it).