LesActive

So ten years ago, skank flanks are the latest trend. Get a pocket watch there and witness it turn Dali-esque over time.

You're welcome. Despite its recent surge in popularity over the past ten or so years tattooing is still a somewhat mysterious and, in reference to your pirates and convicts allusion (you forgot whores!), taboo trade to a lot of folks. I don't mind dispelling popular misconceptions about tattooing when given the opportunity. There are two main reasons for funky looking tattoos as the skin ages: weight fluctuation and the skill of the tattooer. As I often have to tell people who want tiny, detailed designs/lettering, your skin is not like paper or canvas. It will change over time. I've seen tattoos absolutely destroyed by weight gain/loss. If tattooed while slim and then weight is gained the design stretches in width but not in height. In the case of body builders who can gain and lose weight quite quickly, the skin can give suddenly and you end up with stretch marks which, in a tattoo, can be pretty funny. I had a friend with a fair sized (6") sunflower on the side of her belly that, when she became pregnant, didn't end up quite so circular after the baby was born. Conversely, if tattooed while large and then lost weight the tattoo thins up and becomes crenellated. Also not a good look. Stability seems to be key. The skill side of things is another story. A good tattooer who wants to make their client happy isn't going to do something that shouldn't be done. If the essence of tattooing is permanence then designs that aren't going to hold up for the next 50 years should be avoided. That being said, as your skin replaces its cells a tiny bit of ink is being dispersed which causes a faded look. If the tattooer is heavy handed the needles will hit into a layer of fat beneath the dermis (where the ink is held stably and where you want the ink to go) which cause the ink to immediately spread laterally and as the body ages the ink will continue to spread causing a blurry appearance. Conversely, if the tattooer is light handed and the ink doesn't reach the dermis then the ink disappears as the skin regenerates. That's why I suggest to look at healed tattoos. I've seen many examples of great looking tattoos in the artists portfolio but the healed tattoo two years later looks like it was scratched in with a wire brush. Good tattooers aren't cheap and cheap tattooers aren't good. caveat emptor sigh, this is getting long, sorry, but then there's the aftercare. If the tattoo is exposed to the sun within the first six to eight months you risk sudden fading which gets progressively worse as the skin ages. The same goes with soaking in chlorinated water for long periods in the six to eight month range. Don't get tattooed while on vacation. A poor healing regimen can also cause severe damage. If it scabs then ink will fall out and an infection can turn into a nightmare. In the end though, if the tattoo looks faded or crappy then c'mon in for a consultation about a coverup or redo. The oldest person I tattooed was 87. She got a yin-yang on her ankle. She claimed she'd be the hottest thing in the home.

Before I answer I should correct a false assumption of the OP: a tattoo done by a competent tattooer does not scar the skin. Scarring occurs when the incompetent tattooer either, 1- hits the skin repeatedly at conflicting angles which damages the tissue; 2-going over the same spot too much with the same result as reason 1; 3- using poorly prepared or damaged needles (barbed or hooked, usually caused by blunt force) which turns the skin to hamburger. That's why proper training is so important and why one should always research their prospective 'artist' and their healed work. I've been tattooing full-time for over 15 years now and have heard dozens of reasons for getting a tattoo. Sometimes there is no reason to get one. Sometimes it's just to get inked and sometimes it's for the trendiness of the design. Do you have any idea how many f'n variations of infinity loops I've done in the past 5 years? For their first tattoo it's usually a design that imparts meaning to the wearer. Things like family crests, kids names, personal philosophies, poli/social statements, childhood memories and maps are common first tattoos. After the first one the reasoning for getting another becomes more relaxed on the regret-o-meter. After a while some develop a thematic approach to their chosen imagery. For instance, my right arm is dedicated to internal contradictions and I approach the artist with just that much information and no more. There are almost as many reasons to get a tattoo as there are people who wear them and they are certainly not for everyone. That being said, I used to tattoo a sitting judge in London, ON. He has a full body suit, feet to collar bone, in tribal/black work. It takes all kinds.

Perfect spot for this quote from the "Police Manual for Arrest, Seizure and Interrogation", Carswell Publishing. I'm quoting the text as it's not available online. I got the book at a used book store. I haven't carried ID since I let the driver's licence expire bout ten years ago and don't even use a legal name except on one account (hydro). Personally, I claim the right to be identified as I see fit and I feel no duty to ID myself in any way except by offering my given name, no family name. As the statute says, "a person whose birth is registered in Ontario is entitled to be recognized by the name as it appears on the birth certificate or change of name certificate". Change of Name Act, Sec 2.1, Ontario. An entitlement is quite different from a duty. There is no obligation there. Is there a charge for attaching a legal name to someone without their consent? Date of birth? Was not a competent witness to that event; will the officer accept third party hearsay testimony? They shouldn't. Yes, I am prepared to lose some freedom over this.

A hundred years ago she (at least, possibly he too) would have been sanctioned for such blatant impropriety. <s>Separate benches are in order as teachers of opposing sexes should never commingle.</s>

oh man, don't get me started on the scam (as I see it) that is insurance. Repeat offenders, especially drunks, should bear the burden of their irresponsibilities; be it fines for those who can afford it, suspension for those who don't require a license for their livelihood or something else that gets the point across that they've breached the drivers contract but which doesn't put them in a compromising position. There are many more possible variables that could be utilized which would be dependent upon the situation. I think we could allow the judges a lot more wiggle room than just varying the amount of the fine as they propose. As it is, it's a start, but that's all.

Yeah, I get it. I just think that there is more than one way to 'punish' people. Focusing on money is myopic and easy and doesn't necessarily deter the action.

To your first point: fine the wealthy, make it hurt. IMO, an alternative to fines on the poor would be more equitable. The wealthy have the money to spare while to the driving poor, the spare is in the trunk. Some folks require a car to get to work and yet are still below the poverty line. When I see initiatives like this it just seems that it's another way for more revenue generation made to appear more fair, even though it's still harder on some.

My point was merely that priority should be placed on paying down outstanding debts much faster than the interest accrues. That does not appear to be the habit of most governments.

'Fair' is a relative term in this instance. It implies a levelling of penalties but doesn't take into account the fact that in some cases that $50 fine is one to two weeks worth of low quality food. The wealthy are unlikely to experience that kind of desperation.

Indeed, and on sunny days one would be wise to fix the shoddy workmanship/materials of previous contractors if it's found wanting, preempting the eventual flood. Fixing a roof while its raining is an action in desperation and is bound to cause hidden issues in the future.

The poorer ones would still feel it more. Imo, the risk of negative social stigmatism, say in media and/or the offenders social circle, would be far more effective than the levying of fines, especially to those of a higher social status. If, however, the breach involves money then as money was the desired outcome of the crime it should cost them in those same terms. I'm not suggesting an eye for an eye philosophy, I think we can be much more creative than that, but making every crime a commercial one will always be most unfair to the poor. I've always liked that quote.

Vacations are nice and all but are considered luxuries, even in the west, but if you neglect the roof you won't have much of a home to return to. To continue the analogy: is it worth fixing the roof if the supports are wonky?

Maybe. Certainly some kind of incentive to clean up the mess would be welcome. There don't seem to be many real consequences to those whose job it is to dig the hole at the expense of others.

You may be hard pressed to find conclusive evidence showing that fines are a reliable deterrent to either criminal or non-criminal activity. It would raise more revenue for the state, definitely, but to what end? How would things improve?

I was generalizing but I suppose it applies in particular to those governments that borrow to spend instead of securing old debts.

Has the gov't ever touched the principal. Afaik, they've only made payments on the interest. Interestingly, at least to me, is that the BoC can borrow money at interest but the amount incorporating the interest is never created.

Any idea what would happen if the finee (?) didn't have the resource or ability to pay? Are debtor prisons still a thing? Maybe I have it backwards (not a rarity) but I always assume the creator of a debt is the one who owes it.

Matthew 7:16 By their fruit you will recognize them.I think that about poetically covers it and in that light there are very, very few.

If there's no record of income is there still a fine? Community service is a much better idea, imo. Too much focus on revenue generation is a dangerous thing.

I lived there for two years recently and while I didn't take to it (lived in the club district = nightmare) your superlatives describe more about your state of mind than the city proper. Thanks for sharing. No soup for you!

For those who still think that 'our' money is made in Canada at the Royal Mint, here's the site for the German company that prints, among other valuable documents, many of the bank notes for the Bank of Canada: Giesecke & Devrient http://www.gi-de.com/

celebrate!

Some of you may remember my previous (not very well received) posts regarding lawful disentanglement from statutory restrictions. The following is part 1 of 23 ten minute segments of a seminar held this past May 2nd in Fort Erie, Ontario. The seminar contains information that, if properly instituted, could quite possibly free this country of debts and start us on a road to real prosperity. All you have to do is stop working for the sake of money. cheers!

It may very well be true that we're way off base with this but in my mind, convoluted as it may seem, it makes sense and that's all I need at the moment. If this doesn't work I'll survive, no biggie. I've had 'dreams' shattered before. Thanks for the wish FTA. Did I mention we have two ex-CRA accountants and a Crown Attorney on side? Either way, I'll be back to let you know how it went. cheers!