u/FloridaMinarchy

The source of having parasitic local county/city government is that those at the top positions want the same annual pay as white collar business people who actually PRODUCE income through engineering, sales, marketing, business smarts, etc

Government positions aren’t productive positions where they bring in that type of income nor through the same methods as in white collar business in order to sustain CEO level salaries .

Also, the main thing is that the private business derives their income not only through smarts, skills, and hard work - BUT by the amount of people WILLING to VOLUNTARILY PAY for their products and services.

The government takes much of their income in through taxation and fines under the threat, duress, and coercion of losing one’s house, car, job, or reputation from the public record.

We all know what word it is for an unproductive entity feeding off of the productive don’t we?

I always get a laugh reading anonymous keyboard warrior chatter online - or even hearing it in person from pretentious "colleagues"- about guys like Mike Stern, Dave Weckl, or Jeff Berlin. If you spend enough time on forums, or talk to "enough" hyper-traditional jazzers, you'd think these guys have "bad tone," "can't groove," and are just robotic speed-merchants who personally ruined the aesthetic of their instruments.

But then you look at actual music history and remember who actually hired them:

Mike Stern: Hand-picked by Miles Davis, Jaco Pastorius, and the Brecker Brothers.

Dave Weckl: The chosen engine for Chick Corea and Michel Camilo.

Jeff Berlin: Hand-picked by Allan Holdsworth and Bill Bruford, praised by Eddie Van Halen, and literally quoted by Marcus Miller as saying he wanted to be "the black Jeff Berlin."

It’s absolute "crazy work" to pretend these history-defining bandleaders were scraping the bottom of the barrel. I guess the "real groove masters" and "real ones" worldwide who they could've hired were just too busy with their own massive touring, recording, and rehearsal schedules, so Miles and Chick "had to settle" for these guys? 🤡

Could this obsessive hipster need to dismiss generational jazz and fusion players as "sterile" be just a lazy cop-out to avoid deeper listening, study, and, let's be honest - actually practicing?

Which Tunes have the highest call likelihood?

Which deeper catalogued tunes have the most documentary evidence making them more known than others ?

This will all be answered soon !

*subgenres

Not just this concert but just about every one - he’ll have fusion, straight ahead jazz, smooth jazz, some soul/groove jazz, etc..

Was thinking a Wayne shorter tribute but arranged for flute and tuba. As a drawing card, methadone to the first 10 rows

Thoughts?

Man somethin about 1986 and those last vestiges of fusion releases before the smooth jazz surge

Gawd how Vic hops right in and does his own thing incredibly in the wake of Jaco recording that album!

Love this tune! Lesser discussed one of his here

the whole of the starlicks performances I believe

Three sources, three completely different selection methods:

• jazzstandards.com - ranked by actual recording frequency (top 1000)
• Mark Levine's Jazz Theory Book - selected for pedagogical value
• Ted Gioia's The Jazz Standards - critical/historical canon

None of these are compiled the same way, which is the point ! If a tune shows up in all three, that's not one person's opinion, it's three independent methods agreeing.

Process: I filtered each to living repertoire (cut Dixieland/novelty/seasonal cruft), cross-matched titles (handling alternate names, "AKA"s, punctuation garbage), checked the filtered lists against the unfiltered originals to catch over-aggressive cuts, then computed the actual set overlaps instead of eyeballing it. Caught and fixed a couple of my own manual mis-categorizations this way, which is the point of doing it programmatically instead of by hand.

Results:

	Total	Convergence (all 3)	Unique to this source
jazzstandards.com	582	174	195
Levine	511	174	181
Gioia	246	174	2

The interesting part isn't the convergence list (though that's the strongest "must-learn" core you'll find anywhere) , but it's that critical curation (Gioia) found almost nothing the other two missed. Only 2 tunes appear in Gioia and nowhere else. That's real evidence the foundational canon is stable across wildly different methodologies, not just one guy's taste dressed up as consensus.

The other surprise: Levine's "unique" list (181 tunes) is overwhelmingly Shorter/Hancock/Henderson/Silver/Golson originals , which is stuff that's pedagogically essential but doesn't rank high on pure recording-frequency, because frequency ranking structurally favors older tunes that have had 50 more years to accumulate recordings. Worth knowing if you're picking what to learn next.

Scope note: this stops around 1970 on purpose. Frequency-based consensus needs decades to build, so there's no equivalent methodology yet for Wheeler/Mehldau/Rosenwinkel-era repertoire and that's a separate project, not an oversight. Also thin is Latin/Afro-Cuban rep and women composers constituting gaps in the sources, and the companion piece needs to correct it rather than inherit it.

Full methodology, limitations, and all four lists (with the tune-by-tune reasoning) at the Substack linked here

Constructive criticism is welcome - genuinely, that's more useful than upvotes. If you think something's miscategorized, say which tune and I'll check it against the sources.

Love the big band arrangements too! Production ain’t too shabby either!

My Take :

The “No Expectation of Privacy in Public” Error For Justifying It

Raul Mas Canosa sued the City of Coral Gables and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement over the city’s ALPR system. Cameras on major roads captured images of his vehicle hundreds of times, storing time-stamped location data for up to three years and sharing it with dozens of other agencies.

Court’s Key Holding

The trial court ruled in favor of the City, finding no reasonable expectation of privacy because the license plates were visible in public. The court stressed that the system did not amount to secret, continuous monitoring of every movement and therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Florida’s Article I, Section 23.7

Current Status

The decision has been appealed, with ongoing arguments centered on data aggregation, Florida’s broader privacy protections, and *Carpenter*’s mosaic theory.

Why It Must Be Addressed and Distinguished in Flock/ALPR Cases

It is the most prominent Florida precedent cited by governments defending ALPR/Flock programs.

While it supports limited systems, it does not automatically validate expansive deployments.

Critical Distinctions for Florida Flock Cases -

Higher camera density enabling near-continuous tracking

Longer retention policies for non-hit data

Robust retrospective search/query capabilities

Wider interagency (and sometimes national) data sharing

Resulting creation of detailed, searchable historical movement profiles

These features transform occasional public snapshots into the kind of comprehensive surveillance that can implicate Florida’s strong independent privacy right (Art. I, § 23) and aggregation concerns from Carpenter, Tracey, and related cases.

THE TAKEAWAY:

Mas Canosa is important but limited. Clearly distinguishing it on the facts allows challengers to shift the focus from “cameras see public plates” to “this Flock ALPR *system architecture* creates an unconstitutional movement dossier in Florida.” This factual distinction is often the decisive pivot.

The “No Expectation of Privacy in Public” Error:

The common argument that Flock cameras are 100% constitutional because there is “no reasonable expectation of privacy in public” rests on a fundamental error.

It conflates a single observation in public with a retained, searchable, aggregated record of a person’s movements over time.

The theory advanced does NOT depend on claiming that any one plate read in public is private. Instead, it rests on the proposition that a dense, networked ALPR system with long-term retention, retrospective querying, and broad sharing creates a historical movement dossier that can reveal the privacies of life— materially different from ordinary visual observation.

Florida’s Independent Privacy Protection (Article I, Section 23)

Once a protected privacy interest is implicated, Florida’s constitutional provision has its own independent force. Florida courts require the government to justify the intrusion under a **compelling-interest / least-intrusive-means** framework.

Supporting Law

Winfield v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (477 So. 2d 544, Fla. 1985:

Established that after showing a legitimate expectation of privacy and government intrusion, the burden shifts to the state to satisfy strict-scrutiny-like review.

In re T.W. (551 So. 2d 1186, Fla. 1989):

Applied strict scrutiny under Art. I, § 23 and struck down a law infringing privacy interests, stressing that the regulation must be narrowly drawn.

Persuasive Aggregation Reasoning

Carpenter v. United States (585 U.S. 296, 2018):

Long-term, retrospective location tracking reveals the “privacies of life” and constitutes a search.

Tracey v. State (152 So. 3d 504, Fla. 2014): Sustained, technology-enabled location tracking raises privacy concerns beyond naked-eye observation.

Smallwood v. State (113 So. 3d 724, Fla. 2013): Highlighted that digital data’s volume and sensitivity make simple analogies to physical observation inadequate.

Most objections rely on Mas Canosa, but that case is not the end of the analysis unless the facts are equally limited.

STICKING POINT:

Through targeted records requests, if a jurisdiction (e.g., Pinellas) can be shown to have denser coverage, longer non-hit retention retrospective search capability , and wider interagency sharing, then the system is factually distinguishable. The constitutional problem lies in the aggregated surveillance architecture, not a single public-facing camera capture.

TL;DR ? Here ya go !

Mas Canosa upheld a *limited* ALPR program on “plain view” grounds but is factually distinguishable from denser Flock-style systems. The key error in claiming Flock cameras are 100% constitutional is that it conflates a single public observation with a retained, searchable, aggregated historical movement dossier.
Under Florida’s strong Article I, § 23 privacy right and aggregation principles from *Carpenter*, such systems can still be unconstitutional when they feature dense coverage, long retention, retrospective querying, and broad sharing.

Full memoranda HERE

1. Rockwell – Somebody’s Watching Me

2. Alan Parsons Project – Eye in the Sky

3. Judas Priest – Electric Eye

4. Rolling Stones – Fingerprint File
   Early and explicit about government files, satellites, and electronic eyes. Still feels prophetic.

5. Stevie Wonder – Big Brother*
   OG “Big Brother is watching” soul track !

6. Hall & Oates – Private Eyes
   “They’re watching you… they see your every move.”

7. The Police – Every Breath You Take
   I thought it was a romantic tune until i actually listened to the lyrics.

8. Kraftwerk – The Telephone Call
   about tapped lines and data. The machine is listening, etc…

9. Radiohead – 2 + 2 = 5 (Orwellian themed)

10. The Untouchables – I Spy (For The F.B.I.)
    the lyrics list cameras, taps, bugs, and satellites. The “creepy authority figure using official tools” angle fits the Flock misuse stories perfectly.

11. Blondie – One Way or Another
    Stalker vibes segue from untouchables I will find you no matter what.”

12. Elvis Costello – Watching the Detectives Voyeurism, media, and the uncomfortable act of watching (and being watched).

13. Megadeth - Dystopia (closer on the more general theme)
    I

Rare gold here great production too

If interested, DM me a good email and look for the “hot docs”.

This is for a structured public-records effort to better understand how the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office uses Flock Safety / automated license plate reader (“ALPR”) cameras, including how often ordinary drivers are captured, how long those records are kept, and whether those records can be searched later to reconstruct a person’s movements over time.

This request is done by the driver only, so all private information stays with the drive - not with anyone else except the sheriffs office.

Coordination regarding who has requested and where they are at in the process is all that is needed and This not in litigation or in court at this point.

Immediate goal

The immediate purpose of this request is narrow and practical:

We want to determine whether your own vehicle has been repeatedly captured by the system and, if so:

when those captures occurred,

where they occurred in general terms,

whether the records appear to remain retained,

and whether any alert or watchlist status is reflected.

At this stage, this is primarily a screening and fact-gathering process. We are not assuming that every volunteer will end up being a strong factual candidate. Instead, we are trying to identify whether the system is in fact generating repeated records of ordinary, noncriminal travel for drivers who regularly pass known or suspected camera locations.

Broader overall goal

The broader purpose is to build a clear administrative record about the actual operation of this ALPR system before considering any further steps.

In particular, we are trying to understand whether the system functions only as a limited alert tool, or whether it operates more broadly as a retained and searchable movement-record system capable of showing patterns of travel over time. That distinction matters significantly for transparency, public accountability, and possible future legal or policy action.

This effort is designed to:

gather facts through the public-records process,

reduce uncertainty about how the system works in practice,

identify the strongest factual examples of repeated capture,

and avoid unnecessary cost by using an orderly, phased approach.

What’s being asked now

At this stage, this is for only a limited request concerning records tied the drivers own registered vehicle which they perform themselves. The request is intended to be relatively narrow and manageable.

IF youre certain youve driven past these cameras - please DM YOUR BEST email that you actually check !