Deviating from Coffee to Wine...

As this week has gone by, in the midst of a loving clash of cultures, I return to my fundamental challenge to law. My favorite soapbox.  Define the damn thing. It's a cat. What KIND of cat? Legal Courts, which feed the circling sharks, (aka lawyers)  trumpet such vague “visions” as The Declaration of Human Rights. Such a beautiful Idea.  A direction to zig-zag towards in a seemingly futile effort to be “human”.  Even on this term we cannot agree and political correctness slices through with  a “hu-man vs a Hu – woman”.  Humanity is lost in a mire of law and ensuing brown verbiage defies agreement even in a single court. Lawyers, less like sharks than rabbits, hop endlessly between interpretations taken out of context, like rabbits chasing carrots. It looks like a carrot, but Is it a carrot... what IS a carrot?  Or, as Shakespeare notes; "is a rose still a rose by any other name".. Very "zen-ish" of him that one. Wonder if he was high at the time.... 

What does all this mean?  As a human entering the “Halls of Justice” your proverbially fucked.  Justice is blind and the balance rests on a whether a judge has been inclined to review the case over a bad breakfast.  The balance is not in your or, justices favour.  The ultimate oxymoron of law.

I sit here, after three days doing mental deja vue  gymnastics, reviewing a 15 year argument. Can you please define the idea, law and  the damned WORD for fecks sake! All these cotton candy words make me feel warm and fuzzy but I still need real food. Here comes the bill.. Oddly, this is one of those places where argument is Not allowed..  Is Argument a Right?  I suppose I can argue until I am blue in the face or red, purple and/or any other color. (Please note my Tolerance of colors!) But, the end result is still the same. My wallet ( and glass) are empty. I don't mind the first so much..

Perhaps I should be less stubborn. More tolerant. History however proves that in this Case at least, tolerance leads, not so vaguely, to jail. Justice is lost in the mumbo-jumbo. Is it a Human Right then to be “intolerant”?   A level of Intolerance has led to some of the greatest historical steps of human rights.  To be intolerant of injustice...   Aha, I hear you shout- “define your terms ! Tolerance vs Intolerance”!!   Generally, and note I SAID Generally, Tolerance is defined as “ the ability or willingness to tolerate something (“Something”?? I KNOW, I know?!) in particular the existence of opinions or behaviour that one does not necessarily agree with.”   Webster goes one step further down the definition ladder; “ The capacity to endure pain or hardship: endurance, fortitude, stamina.   ( Hey, I Am Tolerant!! I know you're all equally shocked and jaws have just hit the floor. )  

So, in the interests of fairness, let’s check it’s opposite. Intolerance; “unwillingness to accept views, beliefs or behaviour different from ones’ own.   (does impatience count…)  Webster jumps back in, willy- nilly with: “ unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect persons of a different social group, especially members of a minority group”…  Whew, this just keeps twisting on!  What is a Minority??!!  And who the hell came up with This one..  Some days I feel language is biggest barrier in our search for humanity… We seem to create enough minority groups these days, they should just bloc together and vote as a majority group. And, it seems, each country or social stratus has it’s own sub-version of the cat. Black, white, tiger or lion. The more we label, the more we divide. My brain is tired. Pass the wine and let the music play...

04-27.17 Novedrate, Italy.