That Was, Like, Not Totally Awesome, Dude!
The social weight on the shoulders of the 80's generation may be complete with leg warmers being "in fashion" rather than the practical application they have always held and beauty shop hair clips making it also into the mainstream and despite pictures still being used as a source of proof that "Hey look at this schmucko! Can you believe what they were wearing decades ago? Quick! Lose them before they let their poor taste loose once again," even pasta sauce is getting into this slice and dice opportunity by asserting that unless you choose their sauce, your judgment is severely flawed and worthy of repeated reminders of just how "foolish" someone looked the last time they went ahead and made a judgment call.
Absent are the names of those who were promoting the fashion, nor can choice of clothing be so defining that even baggy pants laws continue to lurk amongst a group of politicians who believe the only way to control crime in their area is to outlaw a list of clothing, complete with measurements of how such clothing should hang.
Now although my own dress is certainly stalled in that particular era while living squarely in 2012 (not the mini-skirt side!), even Corporate Whatever Nation carries forth dress codes and policies, complete with measurements, guidelines and repercussions if one does not measure up to the expectations set forth in corporate policy.
Over the years, I have often wondered how many families and once-friends remain entirely detached from one another due to a social divide created by clothing and hair cuts. I also know that a nice suit and tie cannot disguise characteristics far more distasteful than that of any material laying upon the skin of a human.
I grew up during a time period where things were reeling and dealing their way through mountains upon mountains of data so incalculable, calculations still cannot be made as to the distance these decisions trees still travel forth and more especially, none can promise their numbers are any more "proprietary" or "accurate" other than the "throw the spaghetti on the wall and see if it sticks" test to see if anything can withstand this time-tested tradition and then reporting on the results.
Of course, those who know how long to cook a piece of pasta long enough to make it stick is virtually guaranteed credit for stickability of their contribution, but even I can lay claim that barring any major event preventing otherwise, the sun will rise in the east and set in the west from where I am on the globe. Should I get a pat on the back for such a connection? Perhaps. If someone was willing to bet me that such an event would not happen, I could certainly reflect on the profit potential with less uncertainty, but I'm talking about people literally betting on how many times the word "penis" or even "politician" will be broadcast at any given moment and trading on such a gamble at rates faster than lightening.
One of the larger collections of data to filter into the mental accounting of the many was content classified as part of the Mental Health Profession. Make no mistake that this data does not stay proprietary within a licensed community setting, rather it is a skill set that can be drawn upon in a wide variety of job titles, including those who are unemployed such as myself. Illinois was home to a handful of questionable facilities over the years utilizing knowledge procurred under even more questionable circumstances, such as the release of materials surrounding the Edgewood Arsenal, let alone notes and notations from more notorious acts such as human skin being found used as lamp shade covers less than 80 years ago and put there by people wearing badges of government and military. All of this knowledge was wrapped up in glossy brochures and polished by professionals with clear intent to attract a customer base...which is nothing new in terms or process or architecture, but these new sources of statistics went into supporting or opposing a position in virtually every aspect of our lives, including but not limited to the creation and implementation of law.
The truest point of origin for knowledge of any kind or shape is a constant variable, all reliant on hind-sight to provide the glance or glimpse at such a moment already passed and solely dependant upon time invested in such exploration. Learning from history is an admirable marketing campaign, but what brand name is currently carrying the most certified collection of who's history has always played a significant stressor within the process of publishing.
Winding and long-winded as these paragraphs are, I remain hopeful they helped me set the stage for a new introduction to the 1st Tab of The 2012 V Decision Tree.
I have been helping with research on a new project dealing with municipal meeting minutes and municipal code books (http://themeetingminutesindex.wordpress.com and http://thecodebookindex.blogspot.com) and part of the research is attending a public meeting to observe for myself the process and content of the meeting and that once the meeting minutes are approved, I have to go back and compare my notes and observations with the text in front of me and then turn them in to the publisher for consideration.
I had already gleaned a sense of personality issues from a variety of news reports, most seeming to display a need for constant conflict and complaint in as public of a forum as what can be mustered up at any given time and most being insisted by the Mayor that it is Every Other Person Boogey Person (trying to be PC here!) who is causing the friction for his municipality.
I still shake my head that even I did not speak out loud and demand the Mayor to stop, but perhaps more profoundly, no one on the Board attempted to censor or reprimand the Mayor for his behaviors...apparently for years, I might add.
The 80's was all about straight forward conversation being key and while the mountains of data continues to grow, apparently so does the tolerance for hostile and outright abusive verbal assault by a government official towards a citizen during the Public Participation portion of a meeting.
If this exchange witnessed by some had happened in a courtroom, a judge would have slammed the gavel to bring the tirade to an end after the first two sentences out of the Mayor's mouth.
If this exchange had transpired under the governance of a mental health professional, the Mayor would have been rebuked, reprimanded and reminded that although it's okay to be angry about something, it is not acceptable to take it out on others, especially when they are expressing their opinions.
Now granted I do not possess an actual audio recording of the meeting to support my two statements above, however I certainly saw multiple digital recorders sitting in front of the Mayor and the Clerk so rather than take this any further, feel free to FOIA request a copy of this audio record and discover for yourself the demeanor of those you encounter during the requet process.
In the meantime, it's actually The Water Guy that still has me the most intrigued. While the Mayor hung his head with a scowl on his face, his hired hand took over the microphone and spent a good chunk of time filling the room with fluff and stuff and complete with a charisma cherished by only a few. His sales pitch was that if the citizens did not want to save a couple hundred bucks on their water bills, then they are absolutely foolish and fiscally irresponsible.
Exactly like those who portray fashion choices from the 80's to be a fatal character flaw...complete with the "and here's the evidence to prove it" pile of data.
So while this is the same Mayor who's municipality is still quite non-compliant with transparency laws, I can't wait to see if the same level of transcription service provided to the speeches made by Mayor Patrick Kitching end up being the same distance and detail as that of this Water Guy, who put forth a far more extensive effort to give at least a few details before slipping in the "...but I can't tell you how exactly we do it because it is proprietary information" puff of the chest before moving onward. I have no theoretical problem with the "proprietary" stuff being absent, but if he gets but a few sentence summary...?
Yeah.
Not gnarly and awesome, but gag me with a spoon level behaviors having no place in our modern day political scape while so many continue to be pushed in and out of these types of public forum scored mental health factories that ignore all factors going into points of origin and dismiss any possibility and potential that the one reacting to the circumstances is only trying to protect themselves from otherwise outrageous and entirely unacceptable behaviors.
So while this particular citizen who endured the Kitching onslaught held his own quite well, the idea that even I stayed silent is perhaps the more uncool portion of the meeting, but I still think it is the job of the government to publicly reprimand itself every now and again...even if its a board member voicing opposition to the hostility being put on display in exchange for nothing more or less than a paycheck.
Just like everyone else who receives a paycheck for work performed.
I also said nothing when the Water Guy was portraying the program as a free-will program in which you're stupid if you can't see the savings.
Yeah.
I can't wait to see the public documentation for this particular meeting. Too bad there will be no audio with it...
Friday, November 23, 2012
Sunday, August 5, 2012
One glass of iced tea (with ice) and one stick pushing an accelerator = Anger
I was reading a fiction book at the beginning of this week that took the reader through a suggested life experience of the daughter of a rock 'n roll star and it was towards the end of the book to where I found a phrase I had to copy out of the book.
"...often screams out questions because the answers are always changing."
Without any context provided by the setting provided in the book, it is a phrase that possesses a wide field of assessment as to questions such as who often screams out questions, let alone it being withing the reasoning of answers constantly changing that motivates such shouting tendencies...
Could it be the hand of a child in a classroom being reprimanded for raising their hands too much...not enough...calling out answers that the original author was speaking to. Score cards abound by laws crafted by the hands of man to ascertain rank and filing of observations that might explain somewhere down the road why someone was coming across as someone who "often screams out questions."
Is not the process of questioning something the process of feeding internal growth for a purpose? A reason? A clear explanation as to how any particular scenario becomes a fading element through "it is what it is, now move on" directives and missives embedded within volumes and volumes of books bound by far more than any physical binding method to keep the pages in some semblance of order?
Logic can easily dismiss emotional guidance through this type of summation process as to why things happen the way that they do. Irrationality and counter-productive content being produced and stamped as static revelations provides insight tantamount to inspection before fact and only after the fact has happened is such material available.
Circular as this last paragraph appears, it is within examinations designed to poke and prod at someone's ability to arrive at an either logical or illogical conclusion when presented with a series of circumstances. More pointededly, it falls in a university-level scope of debate as to what could, if anything, constitute that of an avoidable circumstance, most especially in the eyes of the law as it relates to assigning accountability for a circumstance, should such accountability need to be designated.
Since the initial call to assign an accountability determination is subjective to the circumstances being contemplated by the mind of a woman (or man), what constitutes a measure of justice as it relates to one man using one machine and steering with only one hand and another man using another machine and accelerating with an apparatus other than a human foot?
The continued presentation to the world that online conversation is best and most effective to keep communications 300 characters or less betrays someone adding an in-depth explanation of what is behind a moment of claimed anger summed up for at-a-glance purposes.
So allow me to first explain some of what is behind my own anger from time to time when I try to revisit for lesson purposes.
One machine in operation was a bicycle and the other was a car. The driver of the bicycle was apparently holding a glass of iced tea around the time of impact. The driver of the car was impaired on multiple levels. Some of the impairments of the driver of the car are considered protected by disability rights while others
are classified as illegal activity.
With the driver of the car having been faced with a clipboard and a checklist covering chemical compounds that reportedly were in this person's system, it is of equal aggravation to try to sort through one alternate outcomes, which would have been still remaining angry at him, but grateful he was alive.
Instead, I sometimes become stuck being angry at him and pissed he's dead and the first alternative isn't an option.
Now just because that one sentence is of quick assumption of a display of mass confusion, and yet it is within the contemplation of alternate paths when attempting to reconstruct an event from just a threads worth of details as to an effort to acquire a better understanding of just how a death resulted from personal choices.
Was it an actual glass, like the kind you find in a kitchen cupboard or more of the plastic bottle direction many cyclists are seen consuming while riding? (reports cite a "glass of iced tea")
Was there anywhere on the bike for the drink to be set down or put away?
Is there ever a reason for a cyclist to be cited as irresponsible for not steering with both hands during a certain stretch of the travels?
These are not necessarily the types of questions that once raged through the consciousness of those most greatly impacted by the loss of life in this particular circumstance, rather questions surrounding why the driver of the car was given such a light jail sentence in light of the loss of life.
If this particular driver had not been on the road that particular day, decision trees and hierarchies certainly provide ample room for statistical probability to be adopted as relative fact that the cyclist would not have lost his life at the hands of the driver of the car. Logic demands inclusion of such a fact to be present when attempting to ascertain any real measure of responsibility above and beyond multi-dimensional self-evident truths. In essence, if the driver of the car had not been driving the car that particular day, the cyclist would not have lost his life at the very moment he lost his life to damages generated from a collision with the driver.
The converse can also be stated that had the cyclist chosen to not go for a ride on the bicycle, he would have subsequently avoided the collision with the car that eventually led to his death.
Instead, both individuals made personal choices as to what they wanted their biology to be experiencing for whatever reasons and the result of such freedom of individual choice was the cyclist eventually unable to control the bicycle and the car eventually taking over control of both the bicycle and the driver of said bicycle.
So one screaming question goes towards whether or not either party showed poor judgment with their choice to walk out their door and follow some concrete to another location. If the cyclist really did have a glass of iced tea in his hand just prior to impact, rules of the road as determined through vehicular-designated laws may suggest some lack of judgment, but what of the surface area the cycle was being ridden over? Was it of enough consistency to take on a balancing act of drinking and driving, let alone lacking of traffic?
There were others on the ride. Was he distracted while talking with any of them? Could one of the other bikes gently nudged into him, thereby setting his balance off-kilter and thereby creating the wobbly effect as cited by those who claim to have been there
To the more casual reader, this particular circumstance seems pretty analog and flat in analysis, but what if there had been camera footage of the circumstance? We have satellite photographs available for public review, so if more detailed records were available surrounding the event, would there be a difference in reaction to the loss? A satellite photograph cannot tell if someone has been drinking alcohol or if someone is under the influence of any number of legal and/or illegal substances, but protocol demands search for a number of substances when there is a loss of life, no matter who was forced to let go of their life as they knew it.
Therefore, some of the anger comes from seeing just a few snippets of reports stating the driver of the car was in a chemically altered state. Flat as such an emotional statement may appear in tonality, it disproportionately suggests that only the driver of the car should be held accountable for the event, especially if the cyclist was distracted in some manner.
The short of the long of this is that the driver of the vehicle that dragged this cyclist to his death was sentenced to a 3 month time period in jail. The long of this short is that the driver was once again a participant in a faulty judgment circumstance in which other people were injured.
So when there are shootings that appear to initially appear to come out of virtually nowhere, the process of retracing the timeline with a name in mind becomes an emotional paradox for some, while others decide they will not rest until they find something that can resemble an imminent failure point that needs addressing so that some aspect of the event can be wrapped up and shipped out into the recesses of our minds. It seems to remain a lot simpler to have someone attach a reason or explanation to something than to simply absorb it on faith alone and I still ponder upon what could have possibly been going through both of these people's minds that eventually led them to that particular GPS point at exactly that precise time on that particular day...
So when I saw the "answers are always changing" portion in my initial statement, I saw it as sort of a comfort food for my intellect to chew upon, especially since it was someone offering up a suggestion as to what is in a musician that motivates them to behave the way that they do.
Artistry often screams out questions because the answers are always changing.
Music often screams out questions because the answers are always changing.
Photography often screams out questions because the answers are always changing.
Poetry often screams out questions because the answers are always changing.
See what I mean? It's a flexible contemplation that pushes consideration into a facet of frequently instinctive human behaviors that otherwise are accepted as universal truth and there is sometimes no human-crafted logic instilled into an event that belongs in the tragic side of history and it explains why I don't need a doctor to explain to me how to civilize my own interpretation of the events.
If the reports are accurate, both were making bad calls as to how they should spend their time. But only one continues to bear the burdens of still being alive after such a collision during a pursuit of happiness...
With questions of remorse abound as to whether or not the driver has ever comprehended the gravity of the circumstances his own choices etched upon the record-books to be that of fact. The driver's vehicle dragged the cyclist almost two blocks before the vehicle disengaged from the both the cyclist and the bicycle. That is an achy enough consideration, but what actually would constitute a sufficient measure of Justice to be put down in response to this one single, specific event? More jail time for the driver? Loss of driving privileges?
What else could possibly address the perceived latitude displayed in the final disposition of this particular case?
Lawsuits often scream out answers because questions are always changing.
As I said.
A flexible contemplation.
"...often screams out questions because the answers are always changing."
Without any context provided by the setting provided in the book, it is a phrase that possesses a wide field of assessment as to questions such as who often screams out questions, let alone it being withing the reasoning of answers constantly changing that motivates such shouting tendencies...
Could it be the hand of a child in a classroom being reprimanded for raising their hands too much...not enough...calling out answers that the original author was speaking to. Score cards abound by laws crafted by the hands of man to ascertain rank and filing of observations that might explain somewhere down the road why someone was coming across as someone who "often screams out questions."
Is not the process of questioning something the process of feeding internal growth for a purpose? A reason? A clear explanation as to how any particular scenario becomes a fading element through "it is what it is, now move on" directives and missives embedded within volumes and volumes of books bound by far more than any physical binding method to keep the pages in some semblance of order?
Logic can easily dismiss emotional guidance through this type of summation process as to why things happen the way that they do. Irrationality and counter-productive content being produced and stamped as static revelations provides insight tantamount to inspection before fact and only after the fact has happened is such material available.
Circular as this last paragraph appears, it is within examinations designed to poke and prod at someone's ability to arrive at an either logical or illogical conclusion when presented with a series of circumstances. More pointededly, it falls in a university-level scope of debate as to what could, if anything, constitute that of an avoidable circumstance, most especially in the eyes of the law as it relates to assigning accountability for a circumstance, should such accountability need to be designated.
Since the initial call to assign an accountability determination is subjective to the circumstances being contemplated by the mind of a woman (or man), what constitutes a measure of justice as it relates to one man using one machine and steering with only one hand and another man using another machine and accelerating with an apparatus other than a human foot?
The continued presentation to the world that online conversation is best and most effective to keep communications 300 characters or less betrays someone adding an in-depth explanation of what is behind a moment of claimed anger summed up for at-a-glance purposes.
So allow me to first explain some of what is behind my own anger from time to time when I try to revisit for lesson purposes.
One machine in operation was a bicycle and the other was a car. The driver of the bicycle was apparently holding a glass of iced tea around the time of impact. The driver of the car was impaired on multiple levels. Some of the impairments of the driver of the car are considered protected by disability rights while others
are classified as illegal activity.
With the driver of the car having been faced with a clipboard and a checklist covering chemical compounds that reportedly were in this person's system, it is of equal aggravation to try to sort through one alternate outcomes, which would have been still remaining angry at him, but grateful he was alive.
Instead, I sometimes become stuck being angry at him and pissed he's dead and the first alternative isn't an option.
Now just because that one sentence is of quick assumption of a display of mass confusion, and yet it is within the contemplation of alternate paths when attempting to reconstruct an event from just a threads worth of details as to an effort to acquire a better understanding of just how a death resulted from personal choices.
Was it an actual glass, like the kind you find in a kitchen cupboard or more of the plastic bottle direction many cyclists are seen consuming while riding? (reports cite a "glass of iced tea")
Was there anywhere on the bike for the drink to be set down or put away?
Is there ever a reason for a cyclist to be cited as irresponsible for not steering with both hands during a certain stretch of the travels?
These are not necessarily the types of questions that once raged through the consciousness of those most greatly impacted by the loss of life in this particular circumstance, rather questions surrounding why the driver of the car was given such a light jail sentence in light of the loss of life.
If this particular driver had not been on the road that particular day, decision trees and hierarchies certainly provide ample room for statistical probability to be adopted as relative fact that the cyclist would not have lost his life at the hands of the driver of the car. Logic demands inclusion of such a fact to be present when attempting to ascertain any real measure of responsibility above and beyond multi-dimensional self-evident truths. In essence, if the driver of the car had not been driving the car that particular day, the cyclist would not have lost his life at the very moment he lost his life to damages generated from a collision with the driver.
The converse can also be stated that had the cyclist chosen to not go for a ride on the bicycle, he would have subsequently avoided the collision with the car that eventually led to his death.
Instead, both individuals made personal choices as to what they wanted their biology to be experiencing for whatever reasons and the result of such freedom of individual choice was the cyclist eventually unable to control the bicycle and the car eventually taking over control of both the bicycle and the driver of said bicycle.
So one screaming question goes towards whether or not either party showed poor judgment with their choice to walk out their door and follow some concrete to another location. If the cyclist really did have a glass of iced tea in his hand just prior to impact, rules of the road as determined through vehicular-designated laws may suggest some lack of judgment, but what of the surface area the cycle was being ridden over? Was it of enough consistency to take on a balancing act of drinking and driving, let alone lacking of traffic?
There were others on the ride. Was he distracted while talking with any of them? Could one of the other bikes gently nudged into him, thereby setting his balance off-kilter and thereby creating the wobbly effect as cited by those who claim to have been there
To the more casual reader, this particular circumstance seems pretty analog and flat in analysis, but what if there had been camera footage of the circumstance? We have satellite photographs available for public review, so if more detailed records were available surrounding the event, would there be a difference in reaction to the loss? A satellite photograph cannot tell if someone has been drinking alcohol or if someone is under the influence of any number of legal and/or illegal substances, but protocol demands search for a number of substances when there is a loss of life, no matter who was forced to let go of their life as they knew it.
Therefore, some of the anger comes from seeing just a few snippets of reports stating the driver of the car was in a chemically altered state. Flat as such an emotional statement may appear in tonality, it disproportionately suggests that only the driver of the car should be held accountable for the event, especially if the cyclist was distracted in some manner.
The short of the long of this is that the driver of the vehicle that dragged this cyclist to his death was sentenced to a 3 month time period in jail. The long of this short is that the driver was once again a participant in a faulty judgment circumstance in which other people were injured.
So when there are shootings that appear to initially appear to come out of virtually nowhere, the process of retracing the timeline with a name in mind becomes an emotional paradox for some, while others decide they will not rest until they find something that can resemble an imminent failure point that needs addressing so that some aspect of the event can be wrapped up and shipped out into the recesses of our minds. It seems to remain a lot simpler to have someone attach a reason or explanation to something than to simply absorb it on faith alone and I still ponder upon what could have possibly been going through both of these people's minds that eventually led them to that particular GPS point at exactly that precise time on that particular day...
So when I saw the "answers are always changing" portion in my initial statement, I saw it as sort of a comfort food for my intellect to chew upon, especially since it was someone offering up a suggestion as to what is in a musician that motivates them to behave the way that they do.
Artistry often screams out questions because the answers are always changing.
Music often screams out questions because the answers are always changing.
Photography often screams out questions because the answers are always changing.
Poetry often screams out questions because the answers are always changing.
See what I mean? It's a flexible contemplation that pushes consideration into a facet of frequently instinctive human behaviors that otherwise are accepted as universal truth and there is sometimes no human-crafted logic instilled into an event that belongs in the tragic side of history and it explains why I don't need a doctor to explain to me how to civilize my own interpretation of the events.
If the reports are accurate, both were making bad calls as to how they should spend their time. But only one continues to bear the burdens of still being alive after such a collision during a pursuit of happiness...
With questions of remorse abound as to whether or not the driver has ever comprehended the gravity of the circumstances his own choices etched upon the record-books to be that of fact. The driver's vehicle dragged the cyclist almost two blocks before the vehicle disengaged from the both the cyclist and the bicycle. That is an achy enough consideration, but what actually would constitute a sufficient measure of Justice to be put down in response to this one single, specific event? More jail time for the driver? Loss of driving privileges?
What else could possibly address the perceived latitude displayed in the final disposition of this particular case?
Lawsuits often scream out answers because questions are always changing.
As I said.
A flexible contemplation.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Why its Worth Putting a Rod Or Two Into the Real World Every Now and Again
In order to survive, the human species has needed to keep its calculations calibrated so that there was some measure of what many generically classify as fear.
For example, if mankind had not feared the elements so greatly, we wouldn't have skyscrapers. Certainly skyscrapers are more of the engineering feat intended to boldly challenge the mind of man, but every construct can have a designation of shelter against the measure of weather conditions at any given moment.
Tolerance is a term not only applied to how much sway a child may hold over a parent when a household rule is broken, but the physical engineering process, let alone research in skeleton formation, relies on a measure of tolerance to be built into an object so that it can withstand a checklist of some form before receiving a "good to go" stamp of release approval. Taller buildings are built to sway. Shorter buildings have added elements of protection, depending on how low to the ground they are.
We also have had to hold a great deal of faith that somehow, somewhere, someway, somehow, at least tomorrow will hold better prospects. Days upon nights of dazed and confused record-keeping, hazy shades of black and white life and death sweeps of statistics all swamp out the idea there is somewhere around 7 billion people on this planet. I have no physical confirmation of this number. I have faith that since I have not been informed of any events severely changing this number, I am pretty accurate at this moment in my relying on such a number playing a role in something so abstract as a discussion about codes and lightning rods.
I had no idea it was possible to track lightning strikes with such precision nowadays. In fact, if I assert another leap of faith that the content I was viewing via a computer screen regarding the topic is at least generically truthful, not only can we track lightning strikes from the top down, with evidence from the bottom, a variety of people can then issue a layer of potential credibility that the markings left upon a structure were possibly left behind due to a bolt of energy dropping from the sky and landing on the spot records are saying it did.
It is when consideration is given to why anyone would even care about any of the tendrils of an otherwise stunning and guaranteed original light show in the sky, it is in the headlines that roll through my news readers telling the toll of a weather event, at least in summary of the event, that an additional feature of the aftermath of the storm is the forward-thinking math being pulled out and plopped onto a variety of desks and let the codification of a new set of forward-thinking math begin...
Now even though I have taken at least a few knocks in the nuts while being chided and chastised for simply not "taking one for the Team USA," it still remains curious for an uneducated woman such as myself how and when weather control instruments will surface and in what context and setting. The passing of the 2008 Beijing Olympics provided a collection of headlines citing ability to create rainfall, let alone shift clouds, but this stuff has been going on for decades now and we still have no section in building code books addressing the issue of lightning and setting forth some measure of standard to be achieved, with the forward-looking objective being a lowering of the number of events irrelevant of the cost of any single lightning strike that actually causes damage.
Yes, we certainly have to carry levels of faith inside of us in order to tamp down on enough instinctive fear so that we can continue attempting to operate in a more civil manner, provided the assumption is that the default instinct of good is not anything more than a preferred ideal to recognize when present and accounted for. Questions of how many people pace back and forth in their homes during a storm relative to the number that can sleep through virtually any storm play a role in reasoning for a severe stepping back from existing building codes and welcome to the wonderment over what building structure was actually hit by lightning and perhaps more importantly, what lightning rod system design would have/could have prevented such an event from occuring seems to be simple enough. Even I can study drawings on the net and shop around for pricing and the pricing suggests means and methods are available to provide at least one level of effort to divert what could otherwise become perhaps a moment of life and death challenge of unknown proportions.
Even with one of my many favorite kicking posts being lovingly battered and bruised (the insurance industry) with my commentary in the past, most let go of their fear of lightning once they are inside a building structure. The lessons of how to react during a storm drips into our existence on an as-it-happens basis, but when one begins to search for answers as to just how much tolerance a structure can handle should lightning occur (I'm thinking the more rods, the greater the energy surge load capacity?), with an awareness that the taller a structure is, the more attractive it is to these electrical events, even the insurance community has feared the consequences of tinkering with the weather for far more than just their balance sheet, but it is exactly their balance sheets that stand to lose the greatest amount of direct wealth while the rest of the communities across the world ooze results from their own weather-related events.
Is it really so crazy to think it's crazy to believe absence of this topic in its entirety in the building code books is some sort of "Oooppss! Sorry! Didn't think of that one! We'll get it in there right away" line of thinking that continues to blockade any inclusion of this topic in the minds of thousands of people scribbling away at drawings for new buildings, fixing old ones, building new ones
The Grandfather clause has always been posed as the bane of the very existence of a community, let alone developing a seemingly prosperous one. One does not need to wish intentional harm upon anyone to push a hurry up and wait feature of what a Grandfather clause represents. Basically, you cannot be found guilty for an act that was not illegal at the time of the event. Therefore a building not built to current code specifications in 2012 is protected through mens rea means suggesting that there was no intent to violate existing laws simply because existing laws didn't exist when the building went up.
One twister of this path is a need for a community to have some sort of plan in place for developing an attractive measure of safety-related features amongst an otherwise enjoyable area to live, work, play and shop in. That takes some measure of cooperation, whether its adapting a belief towards a "taking one for the team" (I still ponder of how many families have never been reunited after a divide between an issue such as the length of ones hair, let alone the choice of partners left all sides finished with one another in terms of civility being a boundary at work within a relationship structure) or perhaps finding a different approach for something otherwise disturbing or distressing. For example, there has been rumblings regarding all those who cited the term Joker prior to a recent event, but is such rumblings any different than a member of the US military being quoted in a Time Magazine from World War II mentioning that the Hitler mentioned in the headlines could go ahead and change his name, this military member was keeping his entirely intact.
Faith relies on compassion and contemplation to formulate a measure of sensitivity to anyone other than one's self and many by default believe a building has at least some measure of protection from lightning. We've known about its destructive capabilities for centuries and who knows what effects are being triggered thanks to cigarette-sized whatevers causing the clouds to cry (couldn't help the metaphor).
Just how many communities still have pieces of property protected by a Grandfather clause in some fashion may be a relatively uknown quantifier, but lightning sure does have the chance to cause enough damage to force decision upon the building owner to either fix or face fines. How far along the timeline any single event travels before one or the other happens is part and parcel of cascading elements taking up resources that could perhaps otherwise be focused elsewhere, especially in a courtroom. How many cases have been argued in some fashion
By not mandating some measure of protection for structures from lightning, one cannot eliminate the temporary conclusion that someone somewhere actually wants to see these types of fights and struggles to keep going at the pace and clip they travel both in and out of the revolving doors of the Halls of Justice, let alone those who are resigned to accepting their community simply cannot afford yet another mandate imposed no matter what the forward-looking risks are.
Is this issue really that big of a deal? On a single balance sheet, perhaps not, perhaps maybe, perhaps even a yes every now and again. It all depends on who's balance sheet one is looking at and who looks what way. A community that can finally condemn a building that has been sitting vacant for 10+ years because of the damage imposed upon the structure due to the weather even triggers a check perhaps being cut on behalf of the property owner who lost the use of the building and peace can flow through the land that the eyesore was finally removed after years of having to keep watch over something that was representing a haven of some type of form.
But what of one single home worth $750,000 being totalled out and then three miles away a lightning strike destroys 3 homes and knocks out power to thousands. Even with latitude being provided for fate to render us still vulnerable to the physical damages caused by a storm, it is within these cascade of events and their effects and influences on how we are perceiving our environment around us at any given moment.
So if it can be argued that the placement of lightning rod systems can be sketched, reviewed, tested, analysed and codified for Wikipedia, certainly this same possibility has been available at least in terms of having the capability to develop a section in the Building Code Collection as an entirety and also within specific popular books being adopted by municipalities.
Whether someone knows for fact whether or not a lightning protection system is built into a structure is not common knowledge. It is an element of faith that is parallel to faith placed in all of the gadgets in a vehicle. One does not study the entire manual so they can decide if they want to take a risk with advanced technology - they rely on visual examples, perhaps comments from others about its quality and consistency and very generic terminology to arrive at a conclusion over whether or not they want to acquire the technology. Although a position of taking something for granted is sometimes twisted into a position of negligence, to have faith there is some form of lightning protection installed within the architecture is not a sign of unreasonable application of consumer faith in a product, i.e. the building. After all, if there was no faith in a building structure during a thunder storm, the streets would be filled with people in a panic over where they can head for cover from far more than just lightning strikes hitting their person.
To state as unwavering fact that the "experts" who compile the book do not believe it an important topic to demand of those seeking to claim expertise in constructing buildings worthy of placement upon the grounds of any community is impossible, but what are all of the victim's of such types of devastation supposed to think...let alone the general public.
Events themselves may not be avoidable, but the environment can be adjusted with intent on diverting something that has occurred in the past. Although we may not need to adjust rabbit ear antennas in order to tune into our favorite television shows or radio programs, perhaps we need to re-adjust engineering priorities enough to include a chapter or two about how architectural design can influence the attraction factor in relation to lightning and what types of adjustments will elevate the potential for a re-direct of what would have otherwise been a direct hit on someone's home or place of work or place of worship...
The is no plausible deniability for the absence of codes in this category of property/casualty damage. It ain't there. I don't know if it was once there and taken away or if it has simply been missing since round one of the book but there are no direct references to lightning tolerances. There's a bunch of stuff on fires, but no lightning.
But whether or not assigning blame to The Economy or National Security for the issue of lightning still not making it to the big-leagues is of Greater Good value or just a matter of (in)convenience needing to be brushed away, in order to construct something from destruction, one must understand how the destruction came about. And if there is a continuation of a puff and fluff attitude towards those who have had to endure the effects of a natural disaster, why should anyone delete awareness of those cigarette-sized objects I mentioned earlier...
You know. The ones designed to make the clouds cry.
The ones that carry evaporated water from somewhere.
Legends of rainmakers abound in history-bound books, the idea that one is able to fire a series of bullets into the clouds so that the water falls to the ground sounds like a great theme for a video game, but certainly its not a reality worthy of contemplation and consideration when conversing about just what is causing what to who...and why. Faith is just not enough of a firewall anymore when it comes to this kind of simple stuff being expected to be representative of "Taking one for Team USA" especially since we're not the only ones who have dabbled in the stuff.
I have no idea if lightning is even produced during these events, but I don't need an artist to provide me with any imagery associated with the possibility...
So why aren't lighning rod systems mandatory again when they can help reduce overall health care costs under some column heading...along with property/casualty pay-outs?
Might be a good attempt at reducing of Overall Fear Tally At Any Given Moment
For example, if mankind had not feared the elements so greatly, we wouldn't have skyscrapers. Certainly skyscrapers are more of the engineering feat intended to boldly challenge the mind of man, but every construct can have a designation of shelter against the measure of weather conditions at any given moment.
Tolerance is a term not only applied to how much sway a child may hold over a parent when a household rule is broken, but the physical engineering process, let alone research in skeleton formation, relies on a measure of tolerance to be built into an object so that it can withstand a checklist of some form before receiving a "good to go" stamp of release approval. Taller buildings are built to sway. Shorter buildings have added elements of protection, depending on how low to the ground they are.
We also have had to hold a great deal of faith that somehow, somewhere, someway, somehow, at least tomorrow will hold better prospects. Days upon nights of dazed and confused record-keeping, hazy shades of black and white life and death sweeps of statistics all swamp out the idea there is somewhere around 7 billion people on this planet. I have no physical confirmation of this number. I have faith that since I have not been informed of any events severely changing this number, I am pretty accurate at this moment in my relying on such a number playing a role in something so abstract as a discussion about codes and lightning rods.
I had no idea it was possible to track lightning strikes with such precision nowadays. In fact, if I assert another leap of faith that the content I was viewing via a computer screen regarding the topic is at least generically truthful, not only can we track lightning strikes from the top down, with evidence from the bottom, a variety of people can then issue a layer of potential credibility that the markings left upon a structure were possibly left behind due to a bolt of energy dropping from the sky and landing on the spot records are saying it did.
It is when consideration is given to why anyone would even care about any of the tendrils of an otherwise stunning and guaranteed original light show in the sky, it is in the headlines that roll through my news readers telling the toll of a weather event, at least in summary of the event, that an additional feature of the aftermath of the storm is the forward-thinking math being pulled out and plopped onto a variety of desks and let the codification of a new set of forward-thinking math begin...
Now even though I have taken at least a few knocks in the nuts while being chided and chastised for simply not "taking one for the Team USA," it still remains curious for an uneducated woman such as myself how and when weather control instruments will surface and in what context and setting. The passing of the 2008 Beijing Olympics provided a collection of headlines citing ability to create rainfall, let alone shift clouds, but this stuff has been going on for decades now and we still have no section in building code books addressing the issue of lightning and setting forth some measure of standard to be achieved, with the forward-looking objective being a lowering of the number of events irrelevant of the cost of any single lightning strike that actually causes damage.
Yes, we certainly have to carry levels of faith inside of us in order to tamp down on enough instinctive fear so that we can continue attempting to operate in a more civil manner, provided the assumption is that the default instinct of good is not anything more than a preferred ideal to recognize when present and accounted for. Questions of how many people pace back and forth in their homes during a storm relative to the number that can sleep through virtually any storm play a role in reasoning for a severe stepping back from existing building codes and welcome to the wonderment over what building structure was actually hit by lightning and perhaps more importantly, what lightning rod system design would have/could have prevented such an event from occuring seems to be simple enough. Even I can study drawings on the net and shop around for pricing and the pricing suggests means and methods are available to provide at least one level of effort to divert what could otherwise become perhaps a moment of life and death challenge of unknown proportions.
Even with one of my many favorite kicking posts being lovingly battered and bruised (the insurance industry) with my commentary in the past, most let go of their fear of lightning once they are inside a building structure. The lessons of how to react during a storm drips into our existence on an as-it-happens basis, but when one begins to search for answers as to just how much tolerance a structure can handle should lightning occur (I'm thinking the more rods, the greater the energy surge load capacity?), with an awareness that the taller a structure is, the more attractive it is to these electrical events, even the insurance community has feared the consequences of tinkering with the weather for far more than just their balance sheet, but it is exactly their balance sheets that stand to lose the greatest amount of direct wealth while the rest of the communities across the world ooze results from their own weather-related events.
Is it really so crazy to think it's crazy to believe absence of this topic in its entirety in the building code books is some sort of "Oooppss! Sorry! Didn't think of that one! We'll get it in there right away" line of thinking that continues to blockade any inclusion of this topic in the minds of thousands of people scribbling away at drawings for new buildings, fixing old ones, building new ones
The Grandfather clause has always been posed as the bane of the very existence of a community, let alone developing a seemingly prosperous one. One does not need to wish intentional harm upon anyone to push a hurry up and wait feature of what a Grandfather clause represents. Basically, you cannot be found guilty for an act that was not illegal at the time of the event. Therefore a building not built to current code specifications in 2012 is protected through mens rea means suggesting that there was no intent to violate existing laws simply because existing laws didn't exist when the building went up.
One twister of this path is a need for a community to have some sort of plan in place for developing an attractive measure of safety-related features amongst an otherwise enjoyable area to live, work, play and shop in. That takes some measure of cooperation, whether its adapting a belief towards a "taking one for the team" (I still ponder of how many families have never been reunited after a divide between an issue such as the length of ones hair, let alone the choice of partners left all sides finished with one another in terms of civility being a boundary at work within a relationship structure) or perhaps finding a different approach for something otherwise disturbing or distressing. For example, there has been rumblings regarding all those who cited the term Joker prior to a recent event, but is such rumblings any different than a member of the US military being quoted in a Time Magazine from World War II mentioning that the Hitler mentioned in the headlines could go ahead and change his name, this military member was keeping his entirely intact.
Faith relies on compassion and contemplation to formulate a measure of sensitivity to anyone other than one's self and many by default believe a building has at least some measure of protection from lightning. We've known about its destructive capabilities for centuries and who knows what effects are being triggered thanks to cigarette-sized whatevers causing the clouds to cry (couldn't help the metaphor).
Just how many communities still have pieces of property protected by a Grandfather clause in some fashion may be a relatively uknown quantifier, but lightning sure does have the chance to cause enough damage to force decision upon the building owner to either fix or face fines. How far along the timeline any single event travels before one or the other happens is part and parcel of cascading elements taking up resources that could perhaps otherwise be focused elsewhere, especially in a courtroom. How many cases have been argued in some fashion
By not mandating some measure of protection for structures from lightning, one cannot eliminate the temporary conclusion that someone somewhere actually wants to see these types of fights and struggles to keep going at the pace and clip they travel both in and out of the revolving doors of the Halls of Justice, let alone those who are resigned to accepting their community simply cannot afford yet another mandate imposed no matter what the forward-looking risks are.
Is this issue really that big of a deal? On a single balance sheet, perhaps not, perhaps maybe, perhaps even a yes every now and again. It all depends on who's balance sheet one is looking at and who looks what way. A community that can finally condemn a building that has been sitting vacant for 10+ years because of the damage imposed upon the structure due to the weather even triggers a check perhaps being cut on behalf of the property owner who lost the use of the building and peace can flow through the land that the eyesore was finally removed after years of having to keep watch over something that was representing a haven of some type of form.
But what of one single home worth $750,000 being totalled out and then three miles away a lightning strike destroys 3 homes and knocks out power to thousands. Even with latitude being provided for fate to render us still vulnerable to the physical damages caused by a storm, it is within these cascade of events and their effects and influences on how we are perceiving our environment around us at any given moment.
So if it can be argued that the placement of lightning rod systems can be sketched, reviewed, tested, analysed and codified for Wikipedia, certainly this same possibility has been available at least in terms of having the capability to develop a section in the Building Code Collection as an entirety and also within specific popular books being adopted by municipalities.
Whether someone knows for fact whether or not a lightning protection system is built into a structure is not common knowledge. It is an element of faith that is parallel to faith placed in all of the gadgets in a vehicle. One does not study the entire manual so they can decide if they want to take a risk with advanced technology - they rely on visual examples, perhaps comments from others about its quality and consistency and very generic terminology to arrive at a conclusion over whether or not they want to acquire the technology. Although a position of taking something for granted is sometimes twisted into a position of negligence, to have faith there is some form of lightning protection installed within the architecture is not a sign of unreasonable application of consumer faith in a product, i.e. the building. After all, if there was no faith in a building structure during a thunder storm, the streets would be filled with people in a panic over where they can head for cover from far more than just lightning strikes hitting their person.
To state as unwavering fact that the "experts" who compile the book do not believe it an important topic to demand of those seeking to claim expertise in constructing buildings worthy of placement upon the grounds of any community is impossible, but what are all of the victim's of such types of devastation supposed to think...let alone the general public.
Events themselves may not be avoidable, but the environment can be adjusted with intent on diverting something that has occurred in the past. Although we may not need to adjust rabbit ear antennas in order to tune into our favorite television shows or radio programs, perhaps we need to re-adjust engineering priorities enough to include a chapter or two about how architectural design can influence the attraction factor in relation to lightning and what types of adjustments will elevate the potential for a re-direct of what would have otherwise been a direct hit on someone's home or place of work or place of worship...
The is no plausible deniability for the absence of codes in this category of property/casualty damage. It ain't there. I don't know if it was once there and taken away or if it has simply been missing since round one of the book but there are no direct references to lightning tolerances. There's a bunch of stuff on fires, but no lightning.
But whether or not assigning blame to The Economy or National Security for the issue of lightning still not making it to the big-leagues is of Greater Good value or just a matter of (in)convenience needing to be brushed away, in order to construct something from destruction, one must understand how the destruction came about. And if there is a continuation of a puff and fluff attitude towards those who have had to endure the effects of a natural disaster, why should anyone delete awareness of those cigarette-sized objects I mentioned earlier...
You know. The ones designed to make the clouds cry.
The ones that carry evaporated water from somewhere.
Legends of rainmakers abound in history-bound books, the idea that one is able to fire a series of bullets into the clouds so that the water falls to the ground sounds like a great theme for a video game, but certainly its not a reality worthy of contemplation and consideration when conversing about just what is causing what to who...and why. Faith is just not enough of a firewall anymore when it comes to this kind of simple stuff being expected to be representative of "Taking one for Team USA" especially since we're not the only ones who have dabbled in the stuff.
I have no idea if lightning is even produced during these events, but I don't need an artist to provide me with any imagery associated with the possibility...
So why aren't lighning rod systems mandatory again when they can help reduce overall health care costs under some column heading...along with property/casualty pay-outs?
Might be a good attempt at reducing of Overall Fear Tally At Any Given Moment
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)