GLOBAL LABOR MARKET?

Today, as I was driving in pursuit of my professional duties and listening to the traffic station of record, WTOP, I was forced to listen to one of their advertisements (infomercial?). A woman was encouraging listeners to prepare themselves for tomorrow's global labor market. What is she saying? Who are the people behind this march to global work force? Are we being craftily advised that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is at hand? Can the federal government be one of the driving forces toward achievement of a "global labor force?" Is the invasion of America by people ostensibly seeking work, which work America's global corporations are rapidly deploying elsewhere, some sort of signal that "Uncle Sam" may as well be given a grave site at Arlington National Cemetery?

As a man of the law, I am trained in reasoning. I ask myself: If the world is experiencing a growing fuel crisis, is it wise to utilize expensive, diminishing fuel stocks to shuttle workers back and forth around the globe? How are ordinary workers expected to deploy themselves? Will enormous global corporations pay a building maintenance man's way to China to labor at one of its buildings there? And doesn't anyone stay home anymore?

Or does the expression "global labor market" only apply to people trained at the best universities in business management and in debt mongering? The remaining "serfs" would naturally be attached to one of the looming latifundia, none of which are going anywhere (and neither are they).

Ordinary Americans, at this time, have a narrowing window of opportunity to halt the deconstruction of America and restore those guiding principles and rules of law and procedure which oversaw this people's rise to greatness. This opportunity will certainly fail if they continue to elect members in good standing of the Resident Evil which presently issues the diabolical policies and decisions which are killing our sovereign--we ourselves!--symbolized by Uncle Sam.

Do you want to get laid? In Arlington National Cemetery with Uncle Sam?

ANTICARISM AND THE MISRULE OF LAW III

The Washington, D.C., metropolitan area is arguably the leading area of organized antagonism toward the automobile in general and car commuters particularly. There are frequent occasions in the District of Columbia, in particular, for overt hostility to be displayed by pedestrians and bicycle riders, both of whom show signs of disdain toward the lowly car commuters, as well as most any automobile driver. Glaring and verbal assaults are common weapons used by Green Revolutionaries and their fellow travellers against the harried car driver. Could hurled stones be far away? Spray-paint terrorism?

The "traffic and news" station of record in the area is WTOP. This is an organization which features such issues as pedestrians struck by vehicles, whether buses, trucks, and cars. The manner by which the reports are presented tend to point the finger of blame at the automobile driver, whatever its form.

From my experience the District of Columbia does have more than its share of "heavy-footed" drivers. Running red-lights is hardly infrequent.

There is never anything approaching enough free parking, nor is there any nominal payment parking (what general labor can afford to pay), probably because these people aren't desired in the increasingly gentrified D.C. anyway and under any circumstance, other than as less-than-minimum-wage servants.

Hence, "double parking" in two-lane roadways is common. This occlusion of the roadway tends to induce faster traffic, much as the occlusion of a waterway tends to make for faster-travelling water. However, the double-parked vehicles also tend to obstruct vision of both drivers and pedestrians.

In the District the nature of pedestrians is such that they will, due to some mysterious force, find the heightened danger of such situations compelling "reason" to cross at precisely that point in the road. Perhaps they reason that the double-parked vehicle will shield them.

Yet, the pedestrians are known to cross at any point in the road at any time. Further, the crossings are commonly done with multiple "jaywalkers," many not even looking for cars. As for the bicyclists, they recognize no rules of the road other than "me-first." Only the fragility of their vehicles ultimately makes them "back down." Many wait just a bit too long and get "gored" or worse.

There are plenty of occasions when the automobile driver will encounter people walking right across the roadway in the District, looking with a laughing arrogance, as if to say: If you hit me, I'll sue you and the District government will put your ass in jail for a long stretch to boot. All this in utter violation of the signal light applicable at the time. Few people want to run over anyone anyway. Yet, when you suddenly stop for such "jaywalking," you make yourself endangered by an increased chance of a rear-end collision from the vehicle following your vehicle, who is, perhaps, unaware that pedestrians have boldly walked right in front of the vehicle ahead of them.

There are few nocturnal pedestrians who seem aware that black or dark clothing will make them difficult to see. It is absolutely common to drive almost upon these "shadows" before just recognizing that they are humans and pulling one's automobile aside. Are they intoxicated? Frankly, that often is the problem, for not only are dark clothes worn but poor judgment exhibited by such pedestrians struck by a car. Unfortunately, the police are not too vigilant, when it comes to "walking while intoxicated" ("WWI") pedestrians. In effect these WWIs lurch, like deer, into the pathway of oncoming cars and get struck.

Often, when that happens, the driver keeps on going. My guess is that they are "heavy-footed" drivers, who don't figure they have a good excuse for hitting "Pedro." If caught, they'll serve a fairly heavy sentence. It is the truly blameless automobile driver who stops. Yet, he will still be blamed. Remember: In the District cardrivers are the enemy.

I used the expression "Pedro" advisedly, because many of those who are struck by cars seem to be Latinos and other immigrants. They do not seem to have experience with pedestrian-automobile "peaceful coexistence." There is no awareness of "rules of the road." They simply "ford" the roadway whenever and wherever whim instructs. Again, one is reminded of deer or, indeed, opossum.

Much mayhem can develop between car operator and bicyclist. The fault here may be recklessness by either party. However, increasingly under the sway of the misguided, Greenies' propaganda, The bicyclist may convince himself that there is a paramount issue of principle involved. He may feel that equality of modes of movement demand that he peddle his bike right in the center of a lane of roadway specifically constructed for cars. It is a new day, he may think. But the "big" tend to devour the "little," and so it goes with any confrontation between the two modes of movement.

Regardless of any reasoned peril, the Greenie proceeds truculently, glaring and mouthing insults at the automobile driver.

As a VRE (Virginia Railway Express) commercial goes on WTOP, car "bad! Railroad "good!"

ANTICARISM AND THE RULE OF MISLAW II

I can't speak knowledgeably about other cities, but in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area there is considerable hostility toward automobiles. The automobile is the new "fall guy" for everything despised by the Green Revolutionaries. These people are both political and "soft-core" terroristic in their approach to the dread enemy, the car commuter. There are now many politicians and high government workers listening to their issues with cars. These propagandists are represented on the large "tax-free" foundations, such as the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations, and many others as well. They inhabit "think tanks." Folks, there is a movement! If you drive, you are likely to be a target.

The automobile owner is considered virtually a "war criminal." The fumes exhausted from the combustion engine of the car are viewed as categorically akin to missiles, bombs, poisonous gas, or germ warfare. Folks, the Greenies think that we car drivers are trying to kill them. They are demanding legal help. The want legislation passed protecting them and the world from fumes. If Congress won't do the job, then the Supreme Court must step into the fray and exact punishment.

This is not to say that they limit their political efforts to the exalted federal levels. No, state and local governments are lobbied too. They undoubtedly have representatives lobbying the United Nations and forming global alliances with other Greenies in Europe and elsewhere. They want action, now!

There is a growing suspicion among the leading elements within the legal profession that the Greenies are poised to file a class action suit against automobile commuters. I have mixed emotions. Should I not stand against the absurdity? Or maybe I should try to get my "cut" from a suit of this sort. We all have to eat.

The political aspect is one that I can support in principle. However, when violence and terror are raised as legitimate modes of political expression, then I have to demure. Unless, of course, in doing so I infringe upon my rights as an ambulance chaser. Like I said: A man's gotta eat.

ANTI-CARISM AND THE RULE OF MISLAW

As a devoted chaser of vehicles which are probative ventures in professional endowment, I have come to resent the increasingly hostile attitude toward automobiles. This attitude is fostered by government.

All drivers are aware of the extensive red-tape associated with possession and usage of any form of road vehicle. The expression "DMV" has become a stock element in comedic commentary. True, it can't compete with "sex" and, therefore, doesn't come up as often in the jokes, but the main issue is that all know this means frustratingly long lines and waits.

Politicians in government have for a long time worked hand-in-glove with property owners to make the parking of one's vehicle either lucrative for the companies specializing in renting space by the hour, day, week, or month, or lucrative for the city by means of parking tickets revenue. By being generous campaign supporters parking lot companies (and their owners) can count on a protected racket. The politicians create and protect SCARCITY.

There are never enough parking spots allocated by the city relative to the demand. Metered spots are eagerly sought by short-term visitors in cars. Sometimes disputes erupt as two drivers seek to park in the same spot--one frontward and the other backward. These spots are valued, but they do not necessarily protect a driver from a ticket. On occasion the meter is broken. The driver assumes the hordes of "meter people" out checking for violations will note that a meter is broken and spare the car. However, a driver may get a ticket anyway. One theory for this is that the "meter people" have job performance parameters based on quantities of vehicles ticketed. They are threatened with "ticket or perish."

According to this theory, the politicians have concluded that hardly anyone will take a day off from work, losing all that money, to sit around a government building waiting to plea a defense against the issuance of the ticket. Indeed, who would, as you are still likely to lose the case. A magistrate may diminish it a bit, but for such "mercy" is it worth losing a day's working income?

Few think so.

Therefore, theoreticians conclude that it is a strategy that should bring in some desired revenue, which the politicians may then spend wisely or unwisely. It seems to be a "win-win" strategy for them. Parking tickets are a disguised tax.