4 years of low hanging fruit

Obama gave a somewhat inspired if not entirely exciting State of the Union.

The key notes I heard that I will hold him and the Democrats to account for in 4 years:

1. End the War
2. Universal pre-school
3. Access to benefits / retention of Obamacare-Social Security-Medicare
4. Improved Veterans Benefits
5. Active measures to improve the economy by improving Energy Independence and the Environment.

It is mostly on this last point that I will speak;

a. Tax Reform equals Environmental reform.
b. End subsidization of archane technologies and established players, back to investor of first and last resort.
c. Support STEMs in Education.

a. By closing loopholes in a conscientious and clear manner, there will no longer be a dispensation for making profit at all costs (where the environment takes the burden as resource and resolution).

Although not as clearly defined by the powers-that-be, the need for reform has a throughput onto the ideas introduced by Schumacher as Small is Beautiful. becomes that ecosystem and ecological thinking is in effect environmentally correct long-term economic development.

Obama was dancing at the edge of this thinking without removing any of his obvious commitments to the Corporate System.

However, a clever tax system will try to become clever by half playing "lets make a deal."  The second step to truly resolving the Environmental equation for Cost-Benefit-Analysis is for holistic and conscientious Tort Reform.  That is a hot potato in the Do Nothing Congress Part II we are effectively beginning to witness (although I am open to being wrong-- see Sequestration).


b. Corn Ethynol, Oil, and Fracking are all subsidized, although science clearly puts them in the back of the Carbon efficiency line (would that they list in order from most to least carbon efficient).  That carbon efficiency in conjunction with time for development (with unlimited resources) should inform what priority to grant and burse the otherwise limited resources dedicated to Energy and Technology.

As mentioned, the investments by the people for the people are best as first and last resort-- like radio and other experimental technologies the US government and the people have been the ones who "built the railroad," not the tycoons who then scooped up and organized for profit the activities.

Hopefully in four years we will have sensibly realigned subsides so that the only thing big oil is getting is small relief for the retooling of extant refineries to become clean, non-polluting, and carbon efficient.


c. All other social concerns aside, and with the full-throated support of the scientifically true "first five," as we call early childhood development, education and care in California, the next step is to raise a generation not afraid to do math, believe in science, or be transparent in their actions as citizens.

It is not the government that will lead the inevitable democratization of truth, rather it is the people.  Let's pay teachers what they are due for tending the most valuable natural resource we have, isn't it time?

I didn't hear a "socialist" argument as the Republicans over the decades are fond to label, rather a proactive agenda on education that accepted truths (like global warming) where for whatever reason the less than 1% of scientists disagree with the issue writ large (does climate change exist?).

A fact-based reality based education system will, informed by all the sciences and technologies, force a fundamental zugzwang by the Federal in favor of the local education officials-- and that is something I have heard every republican quick on the "commie," or "Socialist," trigger belly ache for power to rest in the local not Federal powers where education is concerned.

Yet, it was Bush II, who forced the random test driven multiple choice idiocracy called "no child left behind."

Incentivize the collaboration in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) with new and existing public-private relationships by also having the principles found in STEM, logic, and reason inform the process and development of this completely new world of education, knowledge, and technology, and any disadvantage from the retooling of our outmoded educational system (writ large) will fall away very quickly once children are given the access to tools already available-- just not very widely at time of publication.

Lets see if reason will spread like a disease in the next four years, or will we continue to appear as a gorilla chasing its tail to the rest of the world?

The Golden Fleece-down

Comcast won approval. Okay, but (and I haven't read the resrictions) should we not limit this transaction from a perspective of the possession or easement of telecommunicative ("two-way") devices in places of private residence or commerce in conjunction with the Potential of an implied warrant* the real issue: data mining, data collection, financial data sharing; etc.

*The former issue was similar to the subsidized railways of the 19th century, and now that much of the hard infrastructure is "owned," this implied or real monopoly on a market-by-market basis, in conjunction with certain content monopoly issues (channel restrictions, access limitations, and slower speeds for content not preferred) all imply that this will be bad for consumers.

This is a merger of Producer and Distributor to attempt to break this deal down into the simplest terms, and they have the customers "clicks" right in their hand.

I have Comcast Service, and it isn't as good as all that. Technical issues quite frequently, and local outages. That said, ATT U-Verse had major outages right over the holidays (as many are well aware) nation wide.

I would like to see better consumer protections... my bill has only gone up, and not just as a direct function of inflation.

How does this benefit consumers directly?

Silly Season: Open for Hunting

Dems have always had constituent group politics: gays, latinos, blacks, labor, etc.

Those groups, or factions, dont always agree, and often dont get everything they wanted, either.

This flexibility is something the Pubs are not known for; if anything they are know as being in lock-step, on-message, and in-synch-- a real machine. Except now, they really dont agree with one another on how best to proceed, and Boehner may risk (political) life and limb trying to get the stump out of the thresher-- to use a farming metaphor.

In other words, they now actually have sub-groups!

How Boehner deals with the transition to a group process format for these expressed interest will be measured by the body count in the 2012 elections. Try focusing on that instead of screwing Obama, and by the transitive property the nation as well-- First reason, it's what you guys did last time you were "in power."

Lest we should forget that neither party wants to talk about the real pain points, and so most of what is being fed as the primary proceedings of the political dialogue in DC really amounts to irrelevant misdirection to keep the interested confused and the rest of us bored with all of the lying!

New Tax Code

I really dont want to wade into the debate regarding the trial balloon, yet, but will say:

Close, but no cigar.

At least they didn't try to "please all the people all the time," and had political wisdom to understand that the recommendations wouldn't survive the congressional bile movements.

And I like they are starting down the road towards simplification, but some Tax deductions may be necessary.

That leads me to my only point;

They seem to forget that taxes, and the Relief therefrom, are the way to incentivize the citizenry and business alike.

Subsidies, tax breaks, and even certain "credit" type programs between the government and the citizens they propose to collect and protect (not be too cynical) from, can be made clear to create our future economy and growth from this recessionary hangover.

Ideas?

Learning from 19

Well, I am disappointed that Prop 19 didn't pass, but my eyes are opened up to where things stand.

I am also disappointed that the opposition created no effort at a cogent rhetorical argument against -- everything I heard, saw, or read was an appeal to emotion (mostly Fear) at the end of the day. No real debate of logic or reason.


What then would it take to be so reasonable as to shut out the opposition entirely:


Firstly, the measure failed in all the major growing areas! Also it failed in LA and SD, where I sense that had the Proposition somehow not stepped on fewer toes, then this may have passed without the support of the growers.

In his article, John Walker points out that exit polling found 30% of "NO" voters supported legalization-- just not 19!

That would suggest that a simple ballot proposal which only focused on the idea of making legal cannabis (in all its forms, including industrial) will pass.

Next, the simple folk wisdom that at the end of the day Prop 19 was a proposal to tax people, and I feel old when I think back to all the very good ideas I have seen, or helped put onto ballots, and even voted on, that dont pass for one basic fact-- the idea to raise taxes is a bad starting position.

Dont get me wrong, Prop 19 was well past deficit neutral, but it certainly appears that the 60-40 rule (when if you propose a tax it has the default position, regardless of issue, of being down 20%-- so to vote in a tax you need a virtual super-majority of enthusiasm, just to get to 51%!) was in full effect here.

So, then that suggests we need to legalize cannabis without creating taxes through referendum.

Finally, at the end of the day, it is certain that those people who operate directly or indirectly with the less than legal aspects of the current #1 Cash Crop, were overwhelmingly against the proposition for a wide range of hallucinations: market prices would drop (making this less profitable); medical marijuana laws would be hampered (which it wouldn't, but for certain operators the same issue of profitability would have potentially come into play); and claims of being poorly crafted (which would not have been as much of an issue because Ammiano would have reintroduced Bill to Legalize, Tax Marijuana, and thus harmonized and cleaned up any outstanding or unclear issues) seems to have been code for "let's not kill the goose laying golden eggs."

To summarize, the initiative that will pass sooner than later, must (a) be simple, clear, and complete; (b) should not prohibit, nor prescribe any taxes or fees; and (c) must be supported by the over ~60% of eligible voters who actually support an end of prohibition-- growers, suppliers, medical marijuana-ists, law enforcement, unions, churches, civic organizations, and maybe even another party (besides the Libertarians) that fully backs the initiative.


To whit the simplest proposal available for every state in every election year until prohibition is ended:

Shall Cannabis, its cultivation, harvest, products, by-products, use, sale, and distribution remain illegal?


Full text of the initiative;

A yes vote shall change nothing.

A no vote shall render all state and local laws against Cannabis void. If so voided, then the people will by force of this vote recommend the matter to state and local governments to establish regulation, tax, and control.


That simple, really.

I think the strategists, movers and shakers are well to get something as simple as this proposal onto a couple of 2011 ballots (maybe CA?).

If this issue can get onto the 2012 ballot in say a dozen or two of the major states where the movement is strong (WA, OR, CA, NV, CO, NM, MT, NE, MN, MS, OH, NC, NY, ME, HI, et. al.), then I imagine there will be an end of prohibition-- doesn't matter if it's 2 months, two years or two decades later-- we are very close to the beginning of the end of prohibition.

This strategy is a simple existentialist dilemma, which is designed only to jeopordize the continuation of Prohibition.


Finally, as I may not write another pro-Hemp article for fifteen days, months, or maybe another 15 years (hopefully not), I would like to re-iterate and respond to the question of why I support legalization:

Our founders had declared that the innate disposition of the character of the American Citizen is a free person who reserves and is granted by the Almighty an inherent right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. Further, the right to privacy is implied within the bounds of social order and safety of the state.

To have something, a plant, literally something that can grow as a weed, a volunteer, that has been misrepresented as in the same category as Heroine, when in fact it is less harmful than Alcohol, and has outstanding benefit to the industry and health of humanity, then as stewards of this little blue marble, we earthlings, must make free that plant, animal, or being. This is the ethical implication.

To arrest people for an activity that human beings have engaged in since the dawn of history itself is madness. This the moral implication.

The definition of Liberty may be argued in massive volumes, but put simply: "the right of the individual to live and pursue happiness within lawful means without infringing upon an other's liberties, nor antagonism towards the state."

As such, so long as we perpetuate false myths, rumors, and stories about reality itself and facts as such, we create a society of suspicious minds (to quote Elvis) that is in genuine conflict with the ideals of Freedom and a right to Pursue happiness.

So long as another American's reasonable expectations of ordinary individual Liberties are being infringed upon, then this implicates us each and all as fellow citizens to understand that some element from our own choices in life may be also similarly put asunder arbitrarily and capriciously by the government. This is the philosophical argument.

And finally, like any good red-blooded capitalist from America, the most important issue is that of making dark markets bright, fair, and regulated places, and spreading the benefits of what is basically a TRILLION DOLLAR industry back unto the populace from whence its also is gainful of those basic services taxpayers provided for these outlaws (yes, as in "when freedom is Outlawed, then only Outlaws will be free!") to be benefitted from the roads, services, and infrastructure whereby the goose may so continue to lay golden eggs, and all of us are granted a right to have geese! Revenues gained by the States and Municipalities from all the new profits would have probably exceeded estimates over time.

***

California just missed a multi-billion dollar chance at a major fifteen to twenty year first-mover advantage!

A New FHA for Consumer Credit: Deficit Neutral and No New Taxes Required

QUALIFIED FEDERAL CONSUMER LOAN PROGRAM PROPOSAL
(CLP) 1-50K

Premiss. In today’s economic reality debt is an admissable “sin,” that is not only permitted, rather it is encouraged on the whole by church and state, so simply we are told to spend, buy, and consume... and this we do.

Debt is a modern reality for every individual, family, and even local government!

As such, we must see that an eighteen year old today looking to become a “college educated,” independent person must then be admittting to entree of no less than $50,000.00 of debt ceiling in a very humble estimate of “standard,” education.

If we are expected to have an “average” college level of training, and earn a “reasonable” salary, then we should pretty much be planning with debt as a reality, not an “escape, or emergency.”

By dealing with debtor’s thinking only in crisis type situation we create and engage in unrealistic, non-methodological, and, often, rash decisions and decision making processes.

This applies to the emblematic purchases, such as mementos, and translates all the way through to extraordinary purchases (home, auto, business, etc.).

So, even college educated, especially the most recently graduated, speaking as the last ‘wave’ (or two) of persons graduated in a similarly desperate Employment Situation, I was similarly disappointed for many reasons (1995, not being the best day to enter into the “economy,” laden with debt loads that at this vantage seem simple and easy) after graduating college. See Affordability.



Imagining a Consumer Loan Program. The image of a pup-tent... Four tent-pegs and a tent post (or two):


Peg One. Using “Sallie Mae-style Rules,” herein referred to as the 1-50K (that’s one dash fifty kay), would require the first fifty thousand in debt of any individual American Consumer to be treated with the forbearance, interest rate restrictions, and fair regulation and rules treatment, similar to if it was a student loan.

The proposal here may potentially include minor Consumer Loan Protection adjustments and improvements to the Sallie Mae Rules, but it does not and should not affect the actual Sallie Mae Program.

A new entity, or possibly branch or division of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is proposed to be sponsored by the government for these purposes, as it relates to individual debt;

(A) Government Guarantee to it’s citizens (for that first $50,000)

(B) Regulate the micro-loan ($1 to $50,000 dollars US) markets, and to a lesser extent simplify the small business lending process ($50,001 to $250,000 dollars US) for micro (under $250,000) business loans

(C) Work with existing regulatory and oversight bodies to ensure consumer protections

(D) Independent oversight to expand recommendations for counsel with various regulatory and economic agencies


Government backing will create a secondary market to resell pools of bonds like Sallie, Freddy and Fannie. In this recommendation, we strongly urge the oversight of regulations and the simplicity and transparency of rules, and suggest this could become a means for clarifying, and making positive change in the bond and securities markets, extant.

Micro-loans, those under fifty-thousand dollars, to individuals, as secured by real property, tangible property, or without security are all considered equivalent in this regard, and refer to those US citizens to whom there is such indebtedness, often above and beyond just this loan amount.

I imagine that if this program and set of reforms were so implemented, by having no required loan minimums, we may expect this provision would create a swarm of micro credit availability and lending programs.

Working in concert with existing laws agencies and institutions, new modified and streamlined rules would allow for a massive wave of refinancing of consumer debt.

In some cases, individual credit may be extended.

This proposal amounts to a non-bankruptcy proposal to the American citizen, and an admission by it’s leaders’ that the economic policies for the last decades have not (i) improved affordability, (ii) fully redressed income or prosperity gaps, nor (iii) have fully redressed income discrimination or dispairities.

Debt is unfortunately inevitable, and we (apparently continue to) follow the example of our leaders.


Peg Two. Consumer Rights, Responsibilities, and Limitations

(A) Interest. Your interest rate may not be usurious. Rates are here proposed to have a regulated minimum of 2.5% and a maximum of 7.5%.

(B) Credit. Your “credit rating” can be calculated by a monkey. Five percentage points between 2.5 and 7.5 percent, create five categories of credit-worthiness:

a. Real Estate Attached and Full Documentation (Only)
b. Tangible Property Attached and Full Documentation
c. Tangible Property Attached and Low Documentation
d. Signature Only and Full Documentation
e. Signature Only and Low Documentation

(C) Limits. Your Loan Limit will be one factor where affordability and litmus tests can come into play. (It’s a government-backed loan, not a guarantee that someone will lend.)

(D) Tax Deduction. Any Interest paid on these loans is a write-off, so long as the item purchased isn’t also being depreciated in the tax year interest is written off.

(E) Business. Aside from a shot in the arm with refreshed credit sources, and credit availability, (S, SE, Sole Proprietorship, and 1099) small businesses and contractors will get an additional allowance of benefit in their own category, and these three elements of credit availability and liquidity combined should act as a serious stimulus for Main Street.

(F) Families. Any individual who claims any (one or more) dependant will automatically qualify for an additional $5000.00 credit limit.

(G) Responsibility. Although any Individual or business may refinance the first amount of debt ant any time, without pre-payment penalties, the debt may only be paid-off, and cannot be discharged through Bankruptcy.


Central Tent Pole. Insurance.

In a counter-balance to the risk of “no BK,” or ‘bankruptcies,’ to the consumer there is, aside from the potential for a secondary market in the government backed securities, another mitigating factor to the macro investors, as well as the creditors themselves.

There needs to be a tent pole in place that assures there is a sound investment proposal, otherwise this becomes a government-propped scheme, as opposed to a government operated trust on behalf of the Consumer.

Although no “insurance requirement” is here recommended to be used as a factor for making any one loan, an “insurance component,” that would be available to be opted in to any loan at any time, and in accordance with Federal and State rules, that allows for the expense of servicing to cover the costs of an insurance premium that benefits the Debt-Holder.

These policies do not have to be that simple, but they should follow some rules of the road, and is here recommended can not add to the expense of having taken the loan.

First off, according to this recommendation, like the loans have no pre-payment penalties, these insurance policies can be bought back by the consumer. After a debt is satisfied, the Debt Holder, must offer the consumer a fair right to redeem the Policy being held on his or her life.

Further, that right (1. to satisfy the debt, and 2. to retain the benefit of policy) is best if it also transfers to one’s legatees, heirs, and/or estate tax free, and no undue delay may be created by the Debt Holder.

Finally, a Debt Holder will be required to follow certain time periods that describe normal and requisite response times from Consumer to retrieve such a benefit.

However, in the event of a default, or the death of any consumer, after following procedure in concert with appropriate notification, waiting and response times, the Debt Holder may be considered in first position to discharge all costs against the benefits of any policy so entrusted, before transferring any fully accounted and audited remainder to the Consumer’s legatees, heirs, and/or estate tax free.

By including this insurance component with the government backed facility, (A) we have a secondary guarantee to have any consumer debt satisfied, (B) we have mitigated risk, so justifying the limits on interest rates and fees.

As Mortgage Insurance does for FHA Loans, so for the Debentures and Debts this private Life insurance market will act to mitigate risks posed by individual Consumers acting as borrowers, and secondarily will have the collective benefit of mitigating risks of recoupment of principle. Overall, this should be very attractive to investors, particularly if these debentures remain dollar denominated.


Peg Three. Resultant Savings.

If any of this remains unclear, for whatever reason, just do some basic research and consumer financial education and find out the difference between a typical credit card loan = a negatively amortized revolving loan with fees and rates between 6.99 and 29.99%, and the proposal here to make a flat rate of forbearable interest, fee restrictions, and a rate range from 2.50 and 7.50%-- this will save the average American family $1152 per year!
-
Just three ideas and a comment, from what would certainly be an eventual plethora as a result of these recommendations, of ways to improve the Consumer outcome in dealing with Affordability and Debenture, as a net benefit from these rule ideas, for this peg of the tent that may all be simultaneously executed:

(A) In Loan Work-outs, refinances, and/or other incentivized restructuring programs, a tax-free savings account (under rules similar to the HSAs [see Health Savings Account]) may be set up on behalf of the Consumer as a “Learning to Save,” qualification for any business that would so seek to be qualified. That tax free account would eventually revert to the Consumer, after all debts have been satisfied. Lawyers, insurance Agents, Brokers, as well as Credit Counselors, Not for Profit Debt Agencies, et. al. would be ideal candidates to assist in this program by becoming tested, qualified and bonded as a credentialed, licensed and recognized Trustee.

(B) In consumer credit devices, a similar tax-free savings account (under rules similar to the HSAs) may be set up as an incentive to qualify for lower interest rates (still have to be between 2.5 and 7.5% however), and may also with certain restrictions be set up as an overdraft protection mechanism.

(C) After a debt has been satisfied, any remainder due the consumer, with or without any insurance component(s), may be set into a new or existing tax-free savings account.

(D) Comment: Creditors are here recommended to be fully compliant as Trustees and meet additional requirements to participate in housing the principle sums for individual Consumers' Savings Trusteeship accounts that qualify for the FDIC sponsored savings program(s), preferable to local banks, Credit Unions, and Bonded Agents already insured by FDIC.


Peg Four. Business.

Loan Limits here proposed: for individual are $1 ~ $45,000 and then an additional $5,000 if you claim any dependant.

If you file Jointly, then as a couple your combined maximum limit for tax-deductable interest payments on qualified consumer loans is $90,000 and then an additional $5,000 for your first, and second $5,000 if you claim any dependants numbering 2 or above.

If you file as a Sole Proprietor, SE, S-Corp, or 1099, then under additional rules you may apply for “SBA Rules,” or 51-250K (that’s fifty-one dash two-hundred fifty kay [as in loan limits from $51 ~ 250 thousands]), which only should have in common with SBA Loans (1) they’re for Business Purposes, and (2) the government acts as backer of last resort.


Otherwise, only a Board of Advisors role is recommended by this proposal to be held something like at an annual meeting between this Consumer Loan Program (CLP) and the Small Business Administration to coordinate and harmonize lending rules would seem to be potentially necessary.

Same Interest Rate Limits as the first tent peg.

Same 5 credit categories as the first tent peg.

Same tax deduction, same everything, except (i.) loan limits go higher (up to $250,000), but may be slightly more restrictive, and (ii.) may potentially have pre-payment penalties, or other restrictions.

Cash flow of the business, credit worthiness, and net worth should all come into play, but ideally not be so inflexible as to stifle our nations Entrepreneurs from getting a second, third, or even fourth chance at success, the pursuit of happiness, and creation of Jobs!


Conclusion to this proposal. Imaging Purpose; The Second Tent Pole.

The government must act as debtor of last resort in order to encourage the Lending Institutions, and the Financial Industry in general, to effectuate a new game plan, which better enables and ennobles our American Citizenry—A Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—all three things that Lending can do when capital is properly employed.

This proposal is intended to be tax neutral, and highly stimulative to the economy.

Finally, I suggest a slogan to this Agency, Consumer Loan Program, or what-have you, and it reads simply:

Indifference and Forbearance


To whit a philosophy:

This agency in its oversight shall be indifferent to the “whom,” and focus only on the ‘what and how’ in order to protect the consumer, detect fraud and abuse, and foster equal lending practices at the micro-Business and individual Consumer levels.

The objective of this agency is to promote the free flow of capital investment to the farthest reaches of our economy.

Policy and procedure are the foundation, Rule of Law the building, and the marketplace of American Citizens shall be the people whom would so enjoin to make Consumer Loans.

This agency shall preserve the mission to forbear, for the Government must lead by example, and that purpose is: (i) a tolerant and quiet strength with efficiency in motion, (ii) an unyielding belief in Americans as a group and as individuals, (iii) and straightforwardness of purpose.

To bring to bear the proper practices available to the Consumer on the economy.

And, to create opportunities for the American Citizenry in their pursuits of Life, Liberty and happiness.

My World and the rest of the world....

Wow, Just found an old Newsletter I sent out at the end of Winter 2005 ~ 6, which recommends a heavy and long investment into the reintroduced thirty year T-Bill:

Starting January 2006
Date 2 yr 3 yr 5 yr 7 yr 10 yr 20 yr 30 yr
02/06/06 4.62 4.57 4.51 4.52 4.55 4.69 N/A
02/07/06 4.61 4.57 4.52 4.54 4.57 4.73 N/A
02/08/06 4.64 4.61 4.55 4.55 4.56 4.75 N/A
02/09/06 4.66 4.62 4.55 4.55 4.54 4.72 4.51
02/10/06 4.69 4.67 4.59 4.59 4.59 4.76 4.55
02/13/06 4.68 4.66 4.58 4.58 4.58 4.76 4.56
02/14/06 4.69 4.68 4.61 4.61 4.62 4.80 4.60
02/15/06 4.71 4.68 4.60 4.60 4.61 4.78 4.58
02/16/06 4.69 4.67 4.59 4.59 4.59 4.77 4.57
02/17/06 4.66 4.64 4.55 4.54 4.54 4.71 4.51
02/21/06 4.71 4.68 4.59 4.58 4.57 4.72 4.53
02/22/06 4.68 4.66 4.57 4.55 4.53 4.68 4.48
02/23/06 4.72 4.70 4.63 4.58 4.56 4.70 4.51
02/24/06 4.74 4.70 4.64 4.60 4.58 4.71 4.52
02/27/06 4.74 4.71 4.66 4.61 4.59 4.74 4.55
02/28/06 4.69 4.67 4.61 4.57 4.55 4.70 4.51
03/01/06 4.71 4.68 4.63 4.60 4.59 4.74 4.56
03/02/06 4.72 4.72 4.68 4.66 4.64 4.80 4.62
03/03/06 4.76 4.75 4.71 4.69 4.68 4.84 4.66
03/06/06 4.77 4.77 4.76 4.74 4.74 4.91 4.72
03/07/06 4.77 4.79 4.76 4.75 4.74 4.91 4.72
03/08/06 4.72 4.77 4.75 4.74 4.73 4.91 4.72
03/09/06 4.72 4.77 4.75 4.74 4.74 4.91 4.72
03/10/06 4.74 4.80 4.77 4.76 4.76 4.93 4.74
03/13/06 4.74 4.81 4.78 4.78 4.77 4.95 4.77
03/14/06* 4.66 4.72 4.68 4.69 4.71 4.89 4.71
03/15/06 4.69 4.72 4.69 4.70 4.73 4.93 4.75
03/16/06 4.62 4.62 4.60 4.61 4.65 4.86 4.70
03/17/06 4.65 4.64 4.62 4.63 4.68 4.89 4.72

Postmark on returned newsletter.

Source: Federal Reserve.gov ; http://bit.ly/asBCk9


***

(4.75% interest tax free for thirty years is a good bet even right now....)

~~~

If I was right about that fun fact about the economy four years ago, then trust me when I say, HEMP is right for the Economy Today!

There have been no new actual arguments brought up by the opposition since my last Post, or Original Argument from 1993~4. Mostly we have seen the same old tired out retread Arguments of "Fear," and to much lesser extent "Greed," because actually YES wins the conversation about jobs, taxes, and the economy.

The fearful bits about elections, is one of the key reasons why I am actually sick of our political system. Washington was as Cincinnatus a citizen - soldier - then politician - then citizen, and the (low) level of discourse in our modern politics disenfranchises ordinary citizens.

So, Fear is something, but the reason we are given privacy to punch our ballot is that the vote must not be made under duress. That category then is hard to define once we take impersonal effects from the citizen... does not the economy itself pose a certain duress upon the perceptions of voters today?

Thus, even though there are legitimate problems in our economy, government, and state budgets, we must look past fear and ask simply, "Will this Proposal (proposition 19) actually help?" Make a positive impact on my life and the future of our State and Economy!

With an estimated $1.8BB in savings by redirection of Peace Officer efforts and incarceration, this can certainly be redistributed at a savings to governments, and then more than make up any potential slack posed by people doing more or less what they are already doing (and government make fewer or no taxes from it).

With an estimated $1.4BB in revenues to state and local governments, this is a real solution for today's issues-- INCLUDING JOBS!

I am glad, although unaffiliated with, have often voted Libertarian, as well as other third parties, that the Libertarians recognized and endorsed Prop 19, without waiver or condition.

This will get the beginning of the end of a failed Prohibition and a failed social "drug" war mentality.

Peace.

THANK YOU.

Go out and Vote today November 2nd, 2010.

Please vote YES on 19!

Status Updates

Although there is a ton of stuff I have yet to make comment on, at this juncture I just want to make some simple updates:

1. Only one Hemp Legalization Initiative made it to the ballot for November. This is the Tax Cannabis version sponsored by the Oaksterdam founder. I think there is only one problem with that, as articulated by the Jack Herer Initiative Sponsors, which is the tax is based upon pre-legalization commodity prices, and so is artificially high. Also, I would guess (blankly, as I haven't gone into the Budget Analysis) that this theoretical commodity price drop hasn't been totally accounted for once supply and demand equalize.

A further consideration is that there would be a "green wave" situation of markets in adjacent States trying to balance supply and demand, so the price should stay in the area of where it is now for a while, but only falsely (due to the pent up demand and high taxation estimated). How the Feds react is the XYZ factor....

Those are the two (the second consideration being a concern in the event of any of the proposed initiatives passing) things I can say that are against.

For: (a) re-prioritize prisons and law enforcement towards more problematic and anti-social problems; (b) generate much needed revenues (conversely, not included by the Budget Analysis [I further blankly guess] would be the knock-on to the state for "Hemp Tourism") for our State; (c) create tremendous small and medium business opportunities... in the non-intoxicating uses of commercial Hemp (building materials, food, paper products, etc.); and although I probably could drone on let's just round this out by saying that technically (d) this is a move to restore property rights, so that those illegal growers would leave our State and National parks alone (once they can just grow in their backyard, or for larger scale operations by permit on a farm).

Right now there is about a 50-50 chance of this passing, but Oaksterdam has quite a few rounds left (plus this could be a very colorful get out the vote season forthcoming).


2. Health Reform. They are now warming up the water that the frog is bathing in. In three years the frog will be ready to serve for dinner. That said, the bill is a pretty good start at equalizing the International disparities of competitive edges other International producers have over our system. We will still be one of the lowest taxed post-Industrialized nations, and still have a lot of room to improve the overall ability of the median person to receive good (let alone preventative) health care. I would like to see more emphasis on people not overeating, and doing regular exercise.


3. I just really want to repost this, because there is still a major disconnect between what is necessary for people to succeed at a fundamental level. Those who say there should be no tax and consequently no government are fooling themselves. The "good ole days," if ever there was such a thing was propped up by the New Deal, FHA, the GI Bill, and Jim Crow-- lest we should forget?


and finally


4. My sister and family continue the very personal battles which is the war on cancer. My step-brother's mother was recently made a board member to Zero. Congratulations!


I am still gathering my macroeconomic and ethical thoughts on the oil flooding into the Gulf as I write, but suffice to say I am at the very least very disappointed.

President's Question Time

An incredible display of the evolution of democracy and accountability was put on by President Obama this week.

To me, this was a culmination of what I am only assuming was fine political calculation.

My assumption, based on absolutely nothing other than life experience alone: This kind of "Prime Minister's Question Time" was something candidate Obama had on his Transparency Wishlist.

But President ranks somewhere between King and Prime Minister here in the USA, so the UK model isn't totally apt; besides this was ('would be' goes the imaginary explanation to then candidate Obama) a radical step which needed to be timed correctly. I cant imagine how much more apt this exercise's introduction to the dialogue of transparency and accountability could have been.

Remarkable points;

(I) Had Obama done this earlier, in say August, the flux af the situation could have greatly distorted outcomes of the various vitriol of the time (people yelling at politicians in town halls about false rumors).

(II) By waiting a full year to watch as the Congress fiddled while the US was burning, Obama has now set himself apart from their poor favorability-- all parties.

(III) Having all but lost this first match (in what is expected to be a three to eight match game) in the health care issue, in spite of many accomplishments by the Congress, the culture of Partisanship was writ large by the election of the Junior Senator from MA. Obama's final answer hammered home the point about no one talking with one another, looking only to score rhetorical points, and the active schadenfreude by both parties and their mouthpieces-- including the acts and deeds to extend and further that attitude of blame and buck passing.

(IV) Responding to the situation of somehow 51 Senators no longer being considered a majority, rather that the threat of cloture and filibuster was so persistent by this sessions Republican's now 60 barely qualified as a majority, he held this first televised question time with the Republican's. He had earlier held question time with Democrats, but did not televise that. This partial version of the UK PM?T, essentially broadsided the Pubs into having to answer for the elephant in the room (pun intended), that of the obstructionist tact.

(V) Finally, like a breath of fresh air, this display of scholarly brinksmanship, artful rhetoric, and skilled debate highlighted the features of a qualified President! It does not matter what that President's policies are... the question is do we have an Executive truly capable and qualified to be the Chief? A command of details and issues, clarity in thought and actions, and accurate language to reflect the inner mind of a political genius. All POTUS' are by definition political geniuses (sorry rabid detractors of Bush II), because somehow they got there to the station of our republic's modern Ceasar. If somehow Obama makes this a regular feature of our modern 21st Century 24 hour News democracy/political cycle, then we can expect it, like the State of the Union, to be an essential set piece for the abilities of any future POTUS or would-be POTUS-- much as it is already standard form for any PM or shadow Minister to be able to stand the hot seat of the multiparty question time held in the UK's House of Commons almost weekly.

***

SO my humble suggestions:

(A) Next time, treat it exactly like the PM?T and have all members of either the Senate or House (not both at the same time, but from all parties) voluntarily attend the televised question time. This will then promote a semblance of dialogue, because by then calling from the various parties and factions in alternate, there approximates the status of a political conversation or national dialogue (NOT DIRECTED BY THE MEDIA!).

(B) To be fair to everyone, let's have these events as more or less scheduled set pieces, no sudden TV cameras in the room at the last minute. That said, probably one of these per quarter is more towards our Corporation style republic model, as opposed to the weekly meeting of Ministers and MPs in just the lower house version in UK. (Also, probably best to have these set about two to three weeks after recess has ended so (i) the members would have fresh info from constituents, (ii) any changes from elections and such would be more or less in place, and (iii) everyone was making a fresh start-- more or less.)

(C) Like PM?T, maybe have some Cabinet Members available to be referred to for details? I think in the case of our financial mess, this would either secure Geitner as a great choice or put him on the fast track to join the millions of unemployed!

(D) Like the UK, sometimes the PM cant make it, so why not Pelosi, Reid, or even >gulp< Biden to make interim question times?

+++

Kudos to Obama, and I think anyone from any party, who believe transparency and accountability is important for our nation and its political system to begin to heal and repair itself, would have to agree!

The 10% (of GDP) Solution

[UPDATED (09/25/09)]

We approach one year since the Government of George W. Bush came to the rescue of Profiteers on Wall Street to create systemic reward for failure in our market driven economy.


Yesterday, Rachael Maddow interviewed Paul Krugman, and

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

In minute five he begins describing the remedies for the current situation and I will be discussing the statements he concludes by about minute six, and among the other interesting points he made he mentioned that in order to get out of the Great Depression we had WWII which required government fiscal input of ~40% of GDP.


He went on to state that the current stimulus is only about 2.5% of GDP.


Now I am not going to spend time checking to see how accurate those numbers are this morning, and I dont agree with everything Krugman says. That disclaimer out of the way, I will say hes probably pretty accurate on those facts, and it is clear (as he also went on to say) that the political fortitude for such a stimulus plan is weak at best (mirroring the point in the one minute clip I could find above).


SO lets take those facts as a rule of thumb. Lets say the economy is twice as efficient now as it was sixty or seventy years ago; Let grant that this Severe Recession isnt exactly the same as the Great Depression (lets say for simplicity its half as bad adding the broader networking of International markets, exchanges, and trade); and we would need about ten percent of GDP in stimulus to really soar past our current problems!


Now lets assume the government has screwed the pooch with Paulson-Cheney's rescue, and that Obama's versions are still too early to call. All that, according to Krugman yesterday is about 4% of GDP (including cash for clunkers, et. al.).


[Lets apply about 1.5% of GDP for Infrastructure improvements, as my memory from first post to this update was off by 1.5%, so that means] we have about another 6% of GDP yet to spend: So thats about $858BB we can still spend.



1. Thats about the estimated cost for the full Health Reform Bill without any efficiency savings



2. My top ten wish list (inclusive of increased infrastructure and health care inclusive of efficiency savings)


or


3. A Citizens Stimulus



Here's the idea: Instead of giving more money to the moneyed interests, give to the citizens! Let's say there are about 200,000,000 individual and family tax payers; There is about $850BB to give for completion of stimulus which is about 1/4th as strong as how we escaped the Great Depression; then we have about $4250 Credit Amount per individual.



A. Order of the Allthing. In Icelandic and Nordic cultures there was the All Thing which basically reconciled all debts every year-- including debt forgiveness. So here would be the thing which I prescribe;


i. First, subtract Federal back taxes and penalties forgiven up to the Credit Amount
ii. Then from that remainder, subtract State back taxes and penalties forgiven up to the Total Credit Amount (This money goes to the States!)
iii. Next from that remainder, subtract local (real estate) tax liens and penalties forgiven up to the Total Credit Amount (This goes to the local governments!!)
iv. Finally, assuming anything is left over, any outstanding judgements, child support, or other unpaid levies would be forgiven up to that Total Credit Amount



B. The way TARP should have been applied.


i. Citizen give government the right to examine credit records (they ostensibly have this data just from Fannie-Freddie)
ii. Government confirms real outstanding balances from an official capacity via subpoena powers (thereby any institution being usurious or illegal would be committing fraud at a Federal level)
iii. Citizen has time to dispute final balances
iv. Creditor has right to re-validate claim(s)
v. Citizen may elect to have any remainder from Allthing process (above) to be applied to some or all participating Creditors to discharge debts in a class manner



C. Citizen may simply bypass this class bailout/credit restoration process and collect remainder form Allthing process.


SO think about this practically! Lets say 33% have something left over and want to participate in this settling of debts. Lets imagine who the money is owed to? In its current configuration (post-bailouts and mergers) something like 90% of all consumer debts are carried by 5 major institutions.


IF we imagine that Citibank (for instance) then recovers something to the tune of 10% of its consumer debt, doesnt that serve the same purpose of stimulus? It also relieves the consumer, and technically allows Citibank to make new loans!


FInally, if all those bailout moneys had been so applied the amount being discussed would be closer to $10K per person, and if we added the idea that mortgages could be included as direct or indirect beneficiaries to the class settlements or the use of funds by individuals who elected to bypass the settlement process some of the foreclosure and real estate market issues would have been rounded out.


You may say I am a dreamer, but I hope someday you will join me...!

Ethics 505: Health Care Solution-Koan

For all who would have an impact on treatment, care, practice, regulation, profit, expense, or any other involvement between the ancient and sacred connexion between physician and patient, they too must forswear all else for the primacy of the Hippocratic Oath, "Above all, Do No Harm."

(That includes Insurance companies, HMOs, Hospitals, Hospices, State and Fedral run Health programs... et. al.)

NEW BOOK!

Metaeconomics will be available 04/15/09!

Go to the e-Store and receive the Early-bird After-tax Super-secret Special Discount.

Here is excerpt #2 from the book, which is a part of the Afterword:

My hope here is not for a primacy of one state over any other, nor for one type of person to be considered better or more deserving, yet to find the balance and fair measure of markets to better facilitate the participation of the Earth and her creatures towards a more fruitful co-existence.

I hope neither my language was unduly obscure or scholarly for ordinary people and experts, nor my rubishness in some way distraction for scholars and critics from these very real ideas (and ideals) which I have been quietly developing my entire life by paying close attention.

The primary purpose for the existence of this book is to illuminate and define an appropriate context of very real issues away from demagoguery, fallacy, or foolishness. We are living through a time of extraordinary crisis.

The Free markets decided to ignore their supposed heroes, which would have required in the year of 2008 markets and their component pieces then shatter into a million pieces, and allow the almost Holy Ghost of the Invisible Hand to resurrect the markets, like a Phoenix or Lazarus, whereby each person becomes required to evolve into some other new function (many of which would be [and yet are] the soup kitchens and homeless shelters) to the market which is like a skin covering a body. To hear the skin of the marketplace speak, it would say, “Where am I going?”

To which the body, I here attempt to define, says, “I am you.”

So where should we go?

Markets are society, and the society is a market—just different aspects of the same massive being, just using different ways of measurement.

To subject educational systems, science, and other progression in humanity to the dull thudding whims of executives who actually believe that Gordon Gecko, of reptilian disposition, was right when he said famously, “Greed Works,” is a non-sense, which denies the humanity of the individual.

Yes, greed works, but to a point of diminishing returns and drain of resources whether they be social, political, or spiritual. Relative laws made that statement relatively true… for a while.

At this juncture, that spiritual, emotional, and integral bank account has been fully plundered by the double-speaking defenders of what has now been proven to be relativistic capitalists flocking around the carcasses of Wall Street like a murder of crows.

Now it is left for scientific and rational humen to begin taking full and accurate measure of the true values and meanings of things that are in our economy to which we are all Interdependent. We rely upon it, and it relies upon us… there is no free lunch!

I ask that you take the many carefully considered points to expand the conceptual dialogue between yourself and you, your business and the economy, and your service (or vocation) and others.

Let us shed this old skin towards renewal, for that is the true beauty of not just capitalism, but the nation in which we are so very fortunate to live.

I only pray that we can see a better day soon whereby real value and intrinsic worth is placed in proper context with the society and the marketplace, instead of economics being governed by the political arguments of the day designed to propel one group beyond another group from convenience of that argument, so that a true and fair measure of not just economic progress and prosperity, but of human progress and social evolution, can be made in a real, scientific and calibrative manner.

--J. W. Kilvington, 02/12/2009

Why the Republicans are "Communists"

Lets start off by defining communism via copying from Wikipedia;

"Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general."

That very good sentence is not what I mean by referring to the "W" administration as Communist.

Lets shade things in a little:

When I was growing up you were a Pinko, Commie, or as Wally George would say, "Looney Liberal" if you disagreed with trickle down economics.



Aside from Appeal to the Masses approach of name calling, why would I conclude that the label of Communist, as the many Republicanistas I have known over the many decades, would call someone, group, or argument which believed in any hint of the socialist concept of nationalization of wealth, be an appropriate adjective for the Republicans?

Lets construct the argument from the Republicans and their Administration.

(1) Paulson hands in a three page proposal to solicit $750BB by using an Appeal to Fear.

(2) The congress, after some questioning, submits to this request without examining the construct of mechanisms of oversight, re-regulation, or sufficient scientific or public input by certifying the Appeal to Fear and also using an Appeal to Consequences.

(3) Paulson in turn has "bailed out" only the richest and most influential corporations without any calculation towards restoring the credit markets. In doing this he acting as proxy for the "W" Administration has nationalized more dollar for dollar (adjusted) private wealth than did Lenin in the 1917 Russian Revolution.

The main difference between the almost 90 years and two continents? Lenin nationalized means of production, and Paulson/Bush have nationalized private failures.

As sickening as that statement is alone, it in my opinion gets worse.

(4) Now it also turns out that the execs and other elite do not have to take any pay cut for their failures.

The primary argument from all the trickle downers was that through facilitating the elites, you create more jobs, and thus have a social hierarchy which is a form of meritocracy. Often the arguments from those same trickle downers was that to have a state mechanism which takes care of less fortunate, say war veterans or people with disabilities, would reward failure, incompetence, or lacksadaisy. Can you see where I am going on this one?

The beneficiaries of the decades of pro-corporation, deregulatory, and trickle down thinking has been turned on its head by those very same people who would have argued (in the face of say a $700BB package to allow individuals who earn less than $50K per annum to write down their losses [not pay taxes], be reimbursed for incompetence, and be availed of debts incurred from their poor decisions by the US government) against such a blatant avoidance of capitalist consequences.

Those who would argue that somehow the Clinton years were not in this bag of hammers are dead wrong. Clinton worked with the Knut Gingrich congress to get those lazy welfare mothers back to work, for instance. Only Jimmy Carter tried to oppose the Nixonian economic dismantling of the Great Society and the New Deal-- and he was absolutely punished (for not doing a very good job of trying to swim against the current).

So, was Paulson's appeal true or false? Probably a little of both. Yes, the sky was falling, but not in the way anyone could comprehend-- or at least anyone who truly comprehended this did not say. (On a separate note, how convenient is it of the anti-government Republicans to not only have built the largest American bureaucracy in history, but to have also spared us poor innocent citizens from the awful and complex truth involved in the facts {thus a defacto Nanny State mentality, to boot}?)

So, was Congress reasonable or irrational to take such drastic action? Probably a bit of both. On the one hand to it was fairly unpopular (especially at first blush), but to have gone into lame duck session without action could have been political poison for reelection.

So will the companies chosen to be bailed out be a good or poor move by the collective US Government? Probably a bit of both, again: On the one hand if we are truly getting preferred stock interest, corporate bonds, and other repayment guarantees, then there is a real probability (say 30 ~ 55% chance) that the US government (and hence the taxpayer) will come out ahead in dollar for dollar inflation adjusted numbers at the end of two or three decades. On the other hand it is in my estimation also a fair probability that dollar for dollar we could come out behind.

Effectively the US Government will have to now manage a portfolio. On the other hand, it will control certain of these groups (like Fannie-Freddie). All the while being the regulator for these corporations! This is a Corporatist Socialism model which in large part has been the fantasy of many of the Pro-Business "Libertarians" I have read.

They showed Soylent Green on TV yesterday, and that is taking the overreach and complicit conspiracy between corporation and government to a natural and far reaching (if not simplistic) conclusion.



My recommendations for the new administration:

(a) Re-enforce various merit based pay systems/anti-golden parachute provisions for these loans, or they will become due. The Republicans (and many Dems) are fond these days of talking about mortgages and other legal devices as if these are mutable documents. The basis of law is the immutable nature of such binding agreements in writing and witnessed. If there is going to be any flexibility in interpreting legal agreements lets start with the fact that the intention of the parties was NO GOLDEN PARACHUTES!

(b) Envigorate and expand regulatory mechanisms. Further this by making public oversight commissions to review this triangle between the US Government as Stock/Bond holder, US Government as regulator and enforcer of laws, and as shepherd of tax dollars thus invested. (Think Customer, Regulator, and Broker-- of which US Govt is now all three.)

(c) Create new rules for this new use of tax dollars to further discourage cronyism, quid pro quo, and other unsavory action which could clearly emerge over time from this unholy trinity by creating trust fund and anti-collusion rules for the US Government as Broker.

(d) Create timelines (not in terms of time, rather in terms of event mile markers) which delineate the divestment of these holdings (as Customer).

(e) Enforce the bloody rules that are on the books! And simplify them so that even the company Receptionist could theoretically blow the whistle upon detecting malfeasance or felonious behaviour!!

So now I am going back in time, to 1987, Reagan is President, and I am going to visit Wally George and be on the lame-ass Hot Seat show to say, "We need to infuse business with $700BB in order to allow them to avoid losses, keep their jobs, and 'stimulate the economy.' I believe the government should become three times bigger than it is today. I think it will be good for us to avoid confusing our consumers, I mean citizens, with any real information or data germane to the decision making processes, because politicians know best. And then I believe as regulator, primary stock holder, and investor the US Government shouldn't be burdened by little details like accounting for how those funds are used by the corporations we deign to be worthy of state investments!"

Commie!

Esoteric Critique for McCain reserved for after the Campaign (Part 2)

MESSAGE, Message, and message....

To illuminate my next critique, I will first choose the thing that Obama did (amongst other things [but in this case from strictly a marketing point of view]) oh so very right: He picked a brand identity and stuck with it.



If memory (yes, I am not googling it or whatever) serves me, then I believe he had the trademark blue "O" with the red stripes of the American flag as hills (or waves) more or less at his announcement in Springfield. I also believe it was fairly early on (before Iowa) wherein he used the one word slogan "Change." He stuck by those now famous messages throughout his effort.

Hilary gave him as stiff a challenge as she could (and still hope for a personal political future aside from her husbands shadow), and barely lost in her efforts to peel away at the brand of a cool intellectual who stood firmly for change and chose most words carefully most of the time.

She did throw the kitchen sink at him. But she also tried (again from memory only) the better part of half a dozen slogans, and dozens of various straw man sticking points with varying degrees of truth buried within the message-- all designed to run against Obama.

Last mention of Obama here, and then onto McCain, Obama (and his exploratory committee) seemed to calibrate the message (brand identity+slogan+platform) squarely against ALL COMERS, not just his next nearest competition.

McCain's team in March clearly failed to assess that (A) Obama's message was fairly consistent throughout a grueling Democratic primary, and (B) his Brand and Identity were fairly unshakable. That would seem to imply that (1) In order to appear more unshakable, unflappable, AND experienced a granite bedrock and marble foundation of a message needed to be developed during that down time from March to June, and (2) It was going to be an all out effort which required coordination and harmonization at every level-- especially the ground.

So, lets focus just on McCain: identity = servant to the nation, war hero, and maverick; slogan and platform... well that never quite got straightened out by the "Straight Talk Express."

If he was going to continue riding around in the STE, then a heavy dose of Straight Talk would have really been helpful. I mean how high would his polling numbers have shot up if he had said, "I know President Bush has been unpopular, hey personally I think he's even a bit of a Jerk, but in order to win these wars you have to make some unpopular decisions."

What part of that statement could the Dems have disagreed with? You then refocus on the messy details of how to win wars.

My Proviso here is that I am assuming the Pubs had some sort of strategy (other than continuing to prolong the war and siphon tax dollars to no bid contracted cronies for shoddy work and non-accountability), but if I am wrong then moreover they deserved to lose!

On the Economy (and I already suggested that Romney should have been the VP... there would have been a much more contentious battle in the West, Rust Belt, and to a lesser degree New England), if he were to have said, "I know there are some people struggling, but its the job of the government to give a hand-up-- not a hand out!"

Again, thats an oldy but a moldy from the Reagan playbook Maverick 2000 McCain would agree with, but somewhere the message was coopted to please the Rovian Sith Hordes (a.k.a. NeoCons) and so any talk of assistance to anyone (used here to include the "personhood" of corporations) not worth billions was taboo.

On Immigration, "My friends, I could prattle on about my long record on immigration and human rights, but lets get one thing straight-- We need to fix this broken down Immigration and border system."

Vague enough to not completely freak out the borders only crowd, but tongue firmly in cheek enough to give the wink to his true base of Pro-Life Hispanics who have some concerns for workers rights, and deep fear for some of the more draconian suggestions posited by the NeoCons.

Finally, although this may not be entirely "message," but it fits into the category of "Non-verbal." When you go into your convention a landslide victor, your party needs to conform its platform to your overarching gameplan and strategy.

That most certainly didnt happen.

No, as became clear on September 15th, McCain surrounded himself with people who could tolerate his bullshit, and (probably) feared him enough to not be able to simply point out his errors or fallacies. Someone had approved a script saying "The fundamentals of the economy are strong," when most economists worth their salt were at least tipping their hand that the "R" word was around the corner if not nearer. What on Gawds green monster sign were they thinking?

Here are some great stats about how to measure Recession, and why I would never have ever approved of that message (if McSame was my boy), as we have technically been in Recession for years.

He then panicked, "suspended" his campaign (even though in fact there were commercials, surrogates, and Palin romping around), scuttled a deal brokered in Congress with the President, and then resumed his campaign only to vote FOR the bailout. Think "My Pet Goat," on Viagra, uppers, and Scotch....

I have to believe that the absolute shit sandwich (all of those many many served to him 'special order' over the years) that McCain was served as part of the 2000 campaign and its subsequent events (including the absolutely dishonorable attack against fellow Vietnam Hero Kerry) had (as they say in Poker) put on Tilt a personality and temperament which could really not afford to be on Tilt.

So what possible message could you construct with all of those facts?

Suggestion for the trial balloon meeting that should have been on or around March 25th, 2008;

It takes a nation of millions to hold us back.

Monday Morning Quarterbacking for the Losing Team(s)

If I am Lombardi, in the halftime lockerroom (where I left off on August 1st), and speaking with my losing team that just had enough time on the clock to throw two Hail Mary's, and the first one was intercepted (where upon the opposite side {Dems}) then took a knee to run out the clock (twice because we did have one time out remaining when we hurled the ball to the two yardline) sending us into that lockerroom where we still had a real chance, then my speech would have gone something like this:

Ladies and Gentlemen, and the Rovian Sith Hordes, we are down, but not out by any means.

First, we have to decide are we a running game offense (ergo true Mavericks with a smash mouth offense), or a finesse team (ergo traditional divide and conquer partisan and identity politics), because at this point I am unsure if we can afford to do both.

The conventions are around the corner, and we have to make a smart pick for Veep... If we go smashmouth, true grit, honesty, leadership and the ability to speak our centrist truth to power I say lets get someone like Lieberman (how's his knee?) in there to lend true across the aisle credibility, an appeal to moderates and many conservatives, yet an ability to bark at the opposition on their terms. That would show 'em.

However, as confusing as that would be to the opponents, run play football is a hard way to have to catch up... lets get a guy who raised our game, kept us on our feet, and still has enough credibility on things we are weak in (like Economics) to make plays that pick apart defense... Romney.

Okay so heres the plan;

After the nomination, Romney you work the North West starting in every town in Utah in an ever expanding circular motion until you meet McCain at the end of his Viva la South tour (which starts in Florida, covers all of Dixie and then some, and meet up in Arizona). After Arizona for about a week we will reassess on where you are weakest, and let you do some joint appearances to rally huge crowds... after all we dont want you guys appearing at the same place all the time {oops}.

That said, a Veep Pick victory does not make...

Our key problem here has been message. We are trying to beat them at their game, trying to coopt that "Change" mantle. That doesnt work when weve been in Washington for over two decades and in power for a majority of that time.

Mmmm... lets see, oh yeah, our opponent is weak in experience. Rather than challenge (or appear to challenge) his patriotism, heritage, beliefs, or even to a lesser extent his philosophy (because lets get real our parties are still more or less two different sides of the same coin), lets instead hammer out a simple bumper sticker slogan (or two) that gets to the core....

Okay coach what do we have? (-offensive coordinator speaks-)

Great. Yeah, they have one word, so let us choose one word: Stability.

That will be all we need to do to reassure our conservative base who is a little squirrley that Romney didnt win, play neutral enough with moderates and independents, and if anything weird happens in the world, like God forbid a political crisis or economic crisis {puke}, we can be seen as above the fray in our stable bunker and hold tight to our consistent brand identity of "Stability." Also this wont offend the remaining two-hundred thousand people who believe in the current administration, yet allow us to make critiques freely of that administration should it handle such challenges poorly (but that hasnt happened, nor could it happen again {couldn't it?}).

Finally, defense (money and organization).

Team we need to really step it up. They have us on money, but organizationally, once we get our coalition with a bee in its bonnet-- we cant be beat!

It also strikes me that instead of rallying a get out the vote drive in only the last 72 hours may not be enough, so lets just start all our ground game stuff right on the heels of our convention.

All right, go out there and win one for the Gipper... no not George Gipp!

...of course I surely did not want this to become a competitive contest.

Washington's Arguments for the Disestablishment of Parties

Keith Olberman, that modern minstrel and scholar, recently chastised Obama for his alacrity in supporting FISA, or Federally condoned, and probably illegal, definitely limiting our Liberties, spying program.

His main point was that as it goes he can support the bill and claim to champion civil rights by having his new AG sue the participants under criminal (as opposed to civil) law. It was a political move by Obama not to upstage the current Congress and their sausage making progress, but for civil libertarians a bit of a let down all the same.

In that monologue, he substantiated one of his points by referring to our late great President Washington’s last speech in office, and specifically referred to the warning contained therein AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PARTIES.

I was pleased to be reminded of this speech, and was reminded why I am neither Tweedle-DEM or Tweedle-PUB! I would like to use this opportunity to expand on the definitions of WHAT MAKES THE RATTLESNAKE PARTY? and UNIVERSAL FACTION….

A thing to note is the intelligence and force of intelligence the speaker gives his argument and the depths he goes into at an almost philosophical level.

On the other hand, one can imagine that it would defy the conventions of that day on December 23, 1783 to have reporters digging literally asking the highest office questions like “boxers or briefs?” The audience was probably more respectful, rapt, and had a better tendency towards paying attention for long periods of time to people speaking (as that was effectively the entertainment of the day—reading books aloud, singing songs, theatre, etc.).

Finally a piece of context no doubt understood but not fully explained in the Olberman diatribe: Had Washington not resigned, not given the speech, not thought of the greater good, he could have ruled indefinitely and reverted to monarchical and/or what we term now fascistic governance.

Therefore, these words are to be considered metaphorically as if Moses himself came down from the mount, because no President since, and God willing none ever after, shall have such unanimous popularity and source of absolute power, in any one moment of time within the Great American Experiment.

I will be quoting from excerpts from that fine speech, fulltext, making brief commentary, and these concepts tie in the Rattlesnake Party.


§13. “Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty.”

Think to Eisenhower’s admonition of the Military Industrial Complex! Further extrapolate that the concept of Party, and thereby any assembly, that would rely upon overburdened force, threat or destruction are thence to be treated in the social concept of Liberty as a direct and personal threat, and a collective threat to the state of Union between States.


§15. “One of the expedients of party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart-burnings, which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those, who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.”

True libertarians therefore seek fraternity before identity, and through intellect, reason, and fair persuasion gain consensus amongst people and therefore groups of people. Party only serves to dismiss such persuasion before it can be heard, discoursed, or counter-argued.


§17. “All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.”

If ever prescient words were ever spoken, here we find ourselves today in exactly the predicament foreseen by the Great General.

In plain English:

1. When the process of creating laws are obstructed unjustly by any organization in ways designed to control that process of reason and deliberation, then the principal of law itself is undermined, probably fatally.
2. Any organization that would use unjust means for false purposes, will tend to put in place their voice rather than the voice of the people and their elected officials, even though they may be only an artful and enterprising minority, and according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

Although Washington’s last phrase isn’t exactly Plain English, it is truly what we have witnessed in Congress for far too long! I had to leave that phrase in tact.


§22. “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.”

Washington here refers to the Politics from which the Great American Experiment was born, and from whence he and our founders prayed we would never return to. This expands and reflects the description above in §17, and how foul have we gone to have the very situation in our modern Congress as the first step in this four-step recipe of Washington’s observations as to the origins of despotism and the nature of fascism?


§25. “There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged.”

Although not as alarming as some of the other thoughts, warnings, and premonitions. This is a very clear statement that Party Politics is not suitable to true Democracy in a Republic of States.


RATTLESNAKE

Let us be vigilant to these truths observed long ago by the man who went from defeat at New York to this sublime and greatest triumph for Liberty, that of relinquishment of power in the name of a greater cause.

Rattlesnake is not a “party,” but to make simple the thought of what we are attempting to influence we must be within the convention of any reader’s eyes and ears convenient. Rattlesnake is a Universal Faction, which believes all lawful and legal Americans are our brothers and sisters in arms.

And although one may argue this is the plain definition of American, we do believe that until the course of law is witnessed there are amongst our law abiding brethren an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community.

These people and groups are not party to our cause, and until such time as the “fatal tendency” of such persons are diminished, we would call ourselves a “party.”

Once that cause is realized, then the concept of Universal Faction becomes clearer: There would be no “win-lose” paradigm; Rattlesnake no longer need be a “party,” rather another part of the Universal Faction; and thereby the interest of the people would be better served.

Universal Faction is a subset of the greater liberty and freedom by which we define ourselves as Americans.

There is no Membership Card. You pay no fees or dues. This is true liberty.

You either believe or you don’t.

May we all be blessed upon this the 232nd anniversary of our Independence!

Learning From Floods

I was heartened to see an article which clearly spelled out the point of view long held by many environmentalists and Native Americans regarding the management of lands along the Mississippi; click

Settlers well documented their efforts to drain the swamps of Iowa, and other places along the great river. click

Is it time to take a clear approach to land management, yet?

When it is the consensus view that land management is a National issue, I and how many others I am unsure are here and ready for that correction of vision and consensus, as it relates to our connection and stewardship of this planet.

When we are truly ready to step up to the plate in a comprehensive manner, we would have to address the issue of using, storing, transporting, and disposing of toxins in sensitive wetland, watershed, and high water table areas.

Floods in Louisiana, and now recent flooding has provided a real, serious, and accurate depiction of the problem. This is another opportunity for our people and its government to learn from its mistakes. click

The industrial agricultural techniques, which rely on chemicals that are in concentration, or combination harmful to water need to be eliminated from sensitive water table zones, and reduced in general for the sake of our hydrosphere click

The industrial farm techniques, which concentrate animal wastes, also considered a major source of global warming “greenhouse” gases, rather than effectively manage the waste stream must also be reconsidered. More so, such masses of effluent should be better contained in general, and not stored on or near water sources and water table (or Phreatic) zones.

Although it may take the better part of what is left in this century to totally create a non-toxic consumer culture, the toxic sludge created in flood zones is arguably an excellent negative example of how the things we store in our garage to make our lives, houses, and vehicle go need to be utilizing non-toxic and biodegradable substances (see IV.D. but the rest is fascinating click )

Even recent studies on flame-retardants in our furniture demonstrate the highly toxic nature and transferability of such toxins, and this is the same stuff that seeps into waters that flood houses. click

Building materials contain hazardous substances that when combined with water are harmful to the environment.

And modern automobiles, aside from their fuel-inefficiencies, and other inefficiencies, are also a hodgepodge of chemical substances in terms of construction and required fluids. click

So, when you dunk this toxic tea bag of a typical American farm, suburb, or city into 4, 8, 12, or more feet of water for a period of hours, days, and even weeks at the end of the day you get a toxic sludge which can only be absorbed by the environment in three direction— water, air, or land.

We drink the water, we breathe the air, and we eat food from the ground. Talk from farmers struck by these floods is phenomenal in its ignorance, as in ignoring science, when they mention replanting these same fields with food crops. Those crops will absorb some parts of the pollution, and that goes into the food system. Therefore, faulty levees are a food security issue, but its not the levees fault entirely.

These toxins are dangerous to our health, and therefore the rebuilding along major waterways, water sources, and water table zones becomes a matter of not just public health and safety but National Security.

In every crisis there is an opportunity. We need to carefully consider rebuilding along areas that have been flooded, and take this as a major opportunity for long-term planning, coordinated efforts to create a less (if not entirely non-) toxic building standards, and clearly permit what can and can’t be done on these flood plains.

Farming, Families, and Cities can co-exist in harmony with the Great River. She has taken care of us, and now it is our turn to seriously consider how we are treating her.

Eulogy for Bush II and the W Administration– A First Draft

Much shall be made of George “W.” Bush, Junior’s two four-year Administrations, hereafter referred to entirely as “W,” and of course, after January 2009, as we get further away, greater clarity and context shall surely emerge. I propose to advocate a narrative for the latter, context, and that seems to be eluding people in their present discussions and seems to escape the major mass media all together.

Regardless of whether Bush the Second the man at the end of the day is determined “the worst,” or just a poor, President of the USA, the ”W” Policies of anti-science and politicization of science has helped to veil a second Renaissance.

Regardless of most possible negative efforts by any US Administration this Renaissance is inevitable and at worst can only be delayed.

On the first point, W’s stand on the politicization of science is well documented:

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/science/rfk.asp
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0614-04.htm
http://www.waronscience.com/home.php
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/


There is a second Renaissance more or less already afoot:

In health;

http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/reporter/index.html?ID=5568
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1809322.stm
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=38086
http://www.aist.go.jp/aist_e/latest_research/2008/20080521/20080521.html
http://www.amdsupport.ca/articles/79/1/Bionic-Eyes-Under-Development/Page1.html
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD0-4GYH7K2-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=83840f0650b4c88b041c53be9d522223


In transportation;

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4261425.html?page=10&series=19
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/03/27/blade-runner-australia-s-first-zero-emissions-car/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/car/my.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/16/hondas-zero-emission-car_n_107307.html


In energy;
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/?a=f
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080603102752.htm
http://www.green-energy-news.com/arch/nrgs2008/20080042.html


Continuing the point, the Internet is now some virtual 21st Century version of the ancient Library of Alexandria, and in ancient terms if it were a physical space would probably be considered a Modern Wonder by almost any standard:

If you google “art” there will be over 1.8 billion places to go; “music” will show you over 2.8 billion places; “philosophy” gives you 173 million places to explore; “literature” 328 million; and that is only based on an English language search.

According to http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm over 20% of the world has access to this Virtual Great Library. In ancient terms, that would be the equivalent of 20% of the human population in ~100 BC living within walking distance of the Temple of the Muses—and having access regardless of class, nationality, ethnicity, etc.!

We live in a tremendous time where the light of truth is burning as bright as ever, and therefore the obscuring or politicization of science and truth stands little hope of overcoming the time tested saying, “and the truth will set you free.”

With that thought the second point, that no government could totally destroy or retard the progress of this Second Renaissance, which will probably also eventually be considered a progression of human society equivalent to the Enlightenment and Renaissance all rolled into one Great Science Fiction novel, is technically false.

A better statement is that no reasonable government could totally retard or destroy this oncoming progress. Therefore, “W” should be seen as a somewhat reasonable, if not mediocre force, which dragged its collective and metaphorical feet into the 21st century, without absolutely deposing this oncoming progress.

An unreasonable government would, for example resort to fascism to enforce antiquated ways of thinking, and although many believe Bush II should be impeached;

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060130/holtzman
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE21FOVAfMfEbAE5LDwiYm8fGh4QD916SHJ01
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush


Any Argumentum ad Nazium about the “W” Administration, or Argumentum ad Hitlerum about Bush II himself, is vastly out of proportion with whatever wrongs or possible crimes his administration or he has allegedly perpetrated, and to which subsequent proceedings shall create the clarity to more accurately discover and prove. This is not a defense of W, rather a contextual boundary line that would recognize only an exceedingly fascist and a VERY UNREASONABLE government, or more aptly coalition of governments, could possibly delay, or attempt to stop, the oncoming cultural, social and intellectual Renaissance.

It is dubious to imagine that no matter how unreasonable or fascist a coalition of governments would be that it could actually stop the oncoming tidal wave of human endeavors that compose this Second Renaissance. As the expression goes, “That horse has left the barn.”

The W Administration stance on most issues, and in particular science, will be seen in the context of the last throws of an effort to resist the upcoming series of scientific, intellectual, and, probably most relevant to the seemingly convoluted motives of the W Administration, SOCIAL changes, and once these changes and the facts surrounding their genesis and synthesis become factual grounds for the historical context of this Administration, Bush II will be relegated to the dustbin filed under: the last vestiges of the Twentieth Century and some of its antique fallacies of thought.

Fallacy Watch

The Game is Afoot....

I expect to see a lot of logical fallacies between now and November, and I am planning on occasionally making fodder of certain poorly thought arguments.

I hope to help take some of the baby steps into beginning a new Age of Reason!

Here are a formal list (thanks to Wikipedia):


Formal fallacies are arguments that are fallacious due to an error in their form or technical structure. All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.

1. Appeal to probability: because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is the premise on which Murphy's Law is based.
2. Argument from fallacy: if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion must necessarily be false.
3. Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.
4. Base rate fallacy: using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability.
5. Conjunction fallacy: assumption that specific conditions are more probable than a single general one.
6. Correlative based fallacies
7. Denying the correlative: where attempts are made at introducing alternatives where there are none
8. Suppressed correlative: where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible
9. Fallacy of necessity: a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based on the necessity of one or more of its premises
10. False dilemma (false dichotomy): where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are several
11. If-by-whiskey: An answer that takes side of the questioner's suggestive question
12. Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis)
13. Homunculus fallacy: where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this usually leads to regressive middle-man explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process
14. Masked man fallacy: the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one
15. Naturalistic fallacy: a fallacy that claims that if something is natural, then it is "good" or "right"
16. Nirvana fallacy: when solutions to problems are said not to be right because they are not perfect
17. Negative proof fallacy: that because a premise cannot be proven true, that premise must be false
18. Package-deal fallacy: when two or more things have been linked together by tradition or culture are said to stay that way forever


19. Propositional fallacies:

20. Affirming a disjunct: concluded that one logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true.
21. Affirming the consequent: the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true. Has the form if A, then B; B, therefore A
22. Denying the antecedent: the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B


23. Quantificational fallacies:

24. Existential fallacy: an argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion, but the premises do not establish the truth of the conclusion
25. Illicit conversion: the invalid conclusion that because a statement is true, the inverse must be as well
26. Proof by example: where things are proved by giving an example

27. Syllogistic fallacies are logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.
28. Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise
29. Fallacy of exclusive premises: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative
30. Fallacy of four terms: a categorical syllogism has four terms
31. Illicit major: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is undistributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion
32. Illicit minor: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is undistributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion.
33. Fallacy of the undistributed middle: the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed
34. Categorical syllogism: an argument with a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises


35. Informal fallacies are arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural ("formal") flaws.

36. Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam)
37. Appeal to ridicule: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous
38. Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance")
39. Begging the question ("petitio principii"): where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises
40. Burden of proof
41. Circular cause and consequence
42. Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard)
43. Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc)
44. Equivocation
45. Fallacies of distribution
46. Division: where one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts
47. Ecological fallacy
48. Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum)
49. Fallacy of the single cause
50. Historian's fallacy
51. False attribution
52. Fallacy of quoting out of context
53. False compromise/middle ground
54. Gambler's fallacy: the incorrect belief that the likelihood of a random event can be affected by or predicted from other, independent events
55. Incomplete comparison
56. Inconsistent comparison
57. Intentional fallacy
58. Loki's Wager
59. Lump of labour fallacy (fallacy of labour scarcity, zero-sum fallacy)
60. Moving the goalpost
61. No true Scotsman
62. Perfect solution fallacy: where an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented
63. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: also known as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation.
64. Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium)
65. Psychologist's fallacy
66. Regression fallacy
67. Reification (hypostatization)
68. Retrospective determinism (it happened so it was bound to)
69. Special pleading: where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption
70. Suppressed correlative: an argument which tries to redefine a correlative (two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, thus making one alternative impossible
71. Sunk cost fallacy
72. Wrong direction


73. Faulty generalizations:

74. Accident (fallacy): when an exception to the generalization is ignored
75. Cherry picking
76. Composition: where one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some (or even every) part of the whole
77. Dicto simpliciter
78. Converse accident (a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter): when an exception to a generalization is wrongly called for
79. False analogy
80. Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid)
81. Loki's Wager: insistence that because a concept cannot be clearly defined, it cannot be discussed
82. Misleading vividness
83. Overwhelming exception
84. Spotlight fallacy
85. Thought-terminating cliché: a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance.

86. A red herring is an argument, given in response to another argument, which does not address the original issue. See also irrelevant conclusion

87. Ad hominem: attacking the personal instead of the argument. A form of this is reductio ad Hitlerum.
88. Argumentum ad baculum ("appeal to force", "appeal to the stick"): where an argument is made through coercion or threats of force towards an opposing party
89. Argumentum ad populum ("appeal to belief", "appeal to the majority", "appeal to the people"): where a proposition is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be true
90. Association fallacy & Guilt by association
91. Appeal to authority: where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it
92. Appeal to consequences: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument concludes a premise is either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences for a particular party
93. Appeal to emotion: where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning
94. Appeal to fear: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side
95. Wishful thinking: a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason
96. Appeal to spite: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party
97. Appeal to flattery: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support
98. Appeal to motive: where a premise is dismissed, by calling into question the motives of its proposer
99. Appeal to novelty: where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern
100. Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad lazarum)
101. Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam)
102. Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio)
103. Appeal to tradition: where a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long standing tradition behind it
104. Chronological snobbery: where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held
105. Genetic fallacy
106. Judgmental language
107. Poisoning the well
108. Sentimental fallacy: it would be more pleasant if; therefore it ought to be; therefore it is
109. Straw man argument
110. Style over substance fallacy
111. Texas sharpshooter fallacy
112. Two wrongs make a right
113. Tu quoque


114. Conditional or questionable fallacies

115. Definist fallacy
116. Slippery slope