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.
