Hague Gaddafi

What we are witnessing in the Mid-East today is full of hope and promise, yet signals the beginning of a long road for each of these societies filled with peril and danger.

To that end we begin to see the result of a dictator of convenience to oil consuming nations, thoroughly ensconced in the best soldiers, weapons, and hiding places in his capitol city bitterly beginning his attempt at counter-revolution-- like that picture of the little fish trying to eat the big fish! Except, the big fish is turning around to swim at them and say, "I'm gonna git you sukka!"

Dont worry little fish, stay true to your purpose, and next thing you know the big fish is back to where he once was... moments away from being eaten-- just the opposite direction.

We are witnessing the promise of the world wide web truly materializing-- democratization through information.

In the Reagan era, they called this The Information Age. A bit overstated, but undeniable, too.

When they made the Internet something that anyone, who happened to have a computer, residence, phone line, and subscription, could access we heard of all the exciting potentials.

In this day and age of the $100 computer, multi-function hand held devices with wireless internet access, and the general saturation of technology over time the other shoe has begun it's foot fall.

So, this simple suggestion to the West in general and USA in specific from your humble observer:

This is the opportunity in clearest daylight for the USA and Obama Administration to back the Court of International Justice in Hague, it's processes, and all that it represents for the future of International Justice.

Obviously, events must play themselves out, but when Gaddafi is captured or escapes to his island hideaway, ala Dr. No from James Bond, we Americans must agree that The Hague Court was set up to deal with dictators actively killing their citizens in popular revolt. Where else should we have him tried as a consistent War Criminal and human rights abuser?

That move would continue the momentum we see for transparency, democracy, and set the model for future dictators subject to popular rejection. It would also reverse yet another backward Bush-era policy.

From the peanut gallery to the rafters... a crib sheet with commentary on the SOTU

Here in Bold are my take-aways, and in italics the words from the speech that best summarized the speech logic points.

Howard Fineman called it 'the most pro-business speech a Democrat has given.'

1. Implied acknowledgement of Keynesian Major Project Theory."The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation."

2. Direct acknowledgement of the broken educational mechanisms. "...we also have to win the race to educate our kids."

3. Acknowledgment that one of the most efficacious stimulus actions of money from government would be best spent on Infrastructure. "Our infrastructure used to be the best - but our lead has slipped."

4. Acknowledgement of over-burdened small business part 1: regulatory. "All these investments - in innovation, education, and infrastructure - will make America a better place to do business and create jobs. But to help our companies compete, we also have to knock down barriers that stand in the way of their success."

5. Acknowledgment of over-burdened small and medium businesses part 2: tax code. "So tonight, I'm asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years - without adding to our deficit."

6. Fiscal Prudence. "Now, the final step - a critical step - in winning the future is to make sure we aren't buried under a mountain of debt."

7. Government streamlining and modernization. "We should give them a government that's more competent and efficient." (Streamlining is a proven savings.)

(The rest focused on foreign policy, summarization and concluding remarks.)

***

Overall, if even some of this gets implemented in a reasonable (dare we suggest bi-partisan) manner, then we stand to be improved economically.

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!

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!

Lost in the forest of arguments... The REAL big Business Argument for Health Care Reform

Okay lets start with some data:

As per http://bit.ly/MwulQ

HEALTH CARE SPENDING PER PERSON
Rank Countries Amount
# 1 United States: 4,271
# 2 Switzerland: 3,857
# 3 Norway: 3,182
# 4 Denmark: 2,785
# 5 Luxembourg: 2,731
# 6 Iceland: 2,701
# 7 Germany: 2,697
# 8 France: 2,288
# 9 Japan: 2,243
# 10 Netherlands: 2,173
# 11 Sweden: 2,145
# 12 Belgium: 2,137
# 13 Austria: 2,121
# 14 Canada: 1,939
# 15 Australia: 1,714
# 16 Finland: 1,704
# 17 Italy: 1,676
# 18 United Kingdom: 1,675
# 19 Israel: 1,607
# 20 Ireland: 1,569
# 21 United Arab Emirates: 1,428
# 22 New Zealand: 1,163
# 23 Spain: 1,043
# 24 Greece: 965
# 25 Portugal: 859
# 26 Slovenia: 746
# 27 Singapore: 678
# 28 Argentina: 654
# 29 Uruguay: 621
# 30 Bahamas, The: 612
# 31 Barbados: 601
# 32 Korea, South: 470
# 33 Lebanon: 469
# 34 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 408
# 35 Czech Republic: 380
# 36 Bahrain: 358
# 37 Hungary: 318
# 38 Brazil: 308
# 39 Chile: 289
# 40 Slovakia: 285
# 41 Costa Rica: 257
# 42 Poland: 248
# 43 Panama: 246
# 44 Estonia: 243
# 45 Mexico: 236
# 46 South Africa: 230
# 47 Colombia: 227
# 48 Dominica: 208
# 49 Trinidad and Tobago: 204
# 50 Grenada: 193
# 51 Lithuania: 183
# 52 Antigua and Barbuda: 179
# 53 Venezuela: 171
# 54 Latvia: 166
# 55 Jamaica: 157
# 56 Turkey: 153
# 57 Saint Lucia: 151
# 58 Maldives: 150
# 59 El Salvador: 143
# 60 Namibia: 142
# 61 Peru: 141
# 62 Jordan: 139
# 63 Iran: 128
# 64 Botswana: 127
# 65 Gabon: 122
# 66 Mauritius: 120
# 67 Syria: 116
# 68 Thailand: 112
# 69 Tunisia: 108
# 70 Burma: 97
# 71 Dominican Republic: 95
= 72 Fiji: 86
= 72 Paraguay: 86
= 72 Romania: 86
# 75 Belarus: 85
# 76 Belize: 82
# 77 Malaysia: 81
# 78 Guatemala: 78
# 79 Honduras: 74
# 80 Bolivia: 69
= 81 Kazakhstan: 62
= 81 Bulgaria: 62
# 83 Ecuador: 59
# 84 Nicaragua: 54
# 85 Guyana: 51
# 86 Swaziland: 46
= 87 Congo, Democratic Republic of the: 40
= 87 China: 40
= 89 Cape Verde: 37
= 89 Philippines: 37
= 91 Albania: 36
= 91 Zimbabwe: 36
= 91 Bhutan: 36
# 94 Kenya: 31
= 95 Nigeria: 30
= 95 Turkmenistan: 30
# 97 Sri Lanka: 29
= 98 Cote d'Ivoire: 28
= 98 Ukraine: 28
= 100 Uzbekistan: 25
= 100 Papua New Guinea: 25
= 102 Senegal: 23
= 102 Zambia: 23
# 104 Haiti: 21
= 105 Ghana: 19
= 105 Mauritania: 19
= 105 Guinea: 19
= 108 Pakistan: 18
= 108 Uganda: 18
= 110 Vietnam: 17
= 110 Cambodia: 17
# 112 Georgia: 16
= 113 Gambia, The: 13
= 113 Tajikistan: 13
= 115 Benin: 12
= 115 Bangladesh: 12
= 117 Nepal: 11
= 117 Malawi: 11
= 117 Mali: 11
= 117 Kyrgyzstan: 11
# 121 Rwanda: 10
= 122 Burkina Faso: 9
= 122 Central African Republic: 9
= 122 Togo: 9
= 125 Indonesia: 8
= 125 Mozambique: 8
= 125 Sierra Leone: 8
# 128 Chad: 7
# 129 Laos: 6
= 130 Niger: 5
= 130 Madagascar: 5
= 130 Burundi: 5
# 133 Ethiopia: 4


Compare (as per http://lauraschneider.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/where-does-america-rank-in-healthcare-quality-and-efficiency/);

Table 1. Overall efficiency in all WHO member states
[Country names shortened by blogger]

1 France 96 Fiji
2 Italy 97 Benin
3 San Marino 98 Nauru
4 Andorra 99 Romania
5 Malta 100 St. Kitts & Nevis
6 Singapore 101 Moldova
7 Spain 102 Bulgaria
8 Oman 103 Iraq
9 Austria 104 Armenia
10 Japan 105 Latvia
11 Norway 106 Yugoslavia
12 Portugal 107 Cook Islands
13 Monaco 108 Syria
14 Greece 109 Azerbaijan
15 Iceland 110 Suriname
16 Luxembourg 111 Ecuador
17 Netherlands 112 India
18 U.K. 113 Cape Verde
19 Ireland 114 Georgia
20 Switzerland 115 El Salvador
21 Belgium 116 Tonga
22 Colombia 117 Uzbekistan
23 Sweden 118 Comoros
24 Cyprus 119 Samoa
25 Germany 120 Yemen
26 Saudi Arabia 121 Niue
27 U.A.E. 122 Pakistan
28 Israel 123 Micronesia
29 Morocco 124 Bhutan
30 Canada 125 Brazil
31 Finland 126 Bolivia
32 Australia 127 Vanuatu
33 Chile 128 Guyana
34 Denmark 129 Peru
35 Dominica 130 Russia
36 Costa Rica 131 Honduras
37 U.S.A. 132 Burkina Faso
38 Slovenia 133 Sao Tome & Principe
39 Cuba 134 Sudan
40 Brunei Darussalam 135 Ghana
41 New Zealand 136 Tuvalu
42 Bahrain 137 Côte d’Ivoire
43 Croatia 138 Haiti
44 Qatar 139 Gabon
45 Kuwait 140 Kenya
46 Barbados 141 Marshall Islands
47 Thailand 142 Kiribati
48 Czech Republic 143 Burundi
49 Malaysia 144 China
50 Poland 145 Mongolia
51 Dominican Republic 146 Gambia
52 Tunisia 147 Maldives
53 Jamaica 148 Papua New Guinea
54 Venezuela 149 Uganda
55 Albania 150 Nepal
56 Seychelles 151 Kyrgyzstan
57 Paraguay 152 Togo
58 South Korea 153 Turkmenistan
59 Senegal 154 Tajikistan
60 Philippines 155 Zimbabwe
61 Mexico 156 Tanzania
62 Slovakia 157 Djibouti
63 Egypt 158 Eritrea
64 Kazakhstan 159 Madagascar
65 Uruguay 160 Viet Nam
66 Hungary 161 Guinea
67 Trinidad & Tobago 162 Mauritania
68 St. Lucia 163 Mali
69 Belize 164 Cameroon
70 Turkey 165 Laos
71 Nicaragua 166 Congo
72 Belarus 167 North Korea
73 Lithuania 168 Namibia
74 St. Vincent & the Grenadines 169 Botswana
75 Argentina 170 Niger
76 Sri Lanka 171 Equatorial Guinea
77 Estonia 172 Rwanda
78 Guatemala 173 Afghanistan
79 Ukraine 174 Cambodia
80 Solomon Islands 175 South Africa
81 Algeria 176 Guinea-Bissau
82 Palau 177 Swaziland
83 Jordan 178 Chad
84 Mauritius 179 Somalia
85 Grenada 180 Ethiopia
86 Antigua & Barbuda 181 Angola
87 Libya 182 Zambia
88 Bangladesh 183 Lesotho
89 Macedonia 184 Mozambique
90 Bosnia & Herzegovina 185 Malawi
91 Lebanon 186 Liberia
92 Indonesia 187 Nigeria
93 Iran 188 Congo
94 Bahamas 189 Central African Republic
95 Panama 190 Myanmar
191 Sierra Leone


And finally this from the OECD:

Country Life expectancy Infant mortality rate % of health costs paid by government
Australia 81.4 4.2 67.7
Canada 80.7 5.0 69.8
France 81.0 4.0 79.0
Germany 79.8 3.8 76.9
Japan 82.6 2.6 81.3
Norway 80.0 3.0 83.6
Sweden 81.0 2.5 81.7
UK 79.1 4.8 81.7
USA 78.1 6.7 45.4

*-*

So, really the argument comes in this last part.

Lets take the #1, France, and see that they have a competitive advantage of about 33% on base costs 54 cents on the dollar-- in other words my American Company has to pay about 15 extra cents for every dollar a French company pay in Health Care costs for care that ranks 36 places worse!

Lets take the silver medalists, Italy: In 2005, Italy spent 8.9% of GDP on health care, or US$2,714 per capita. Of that, approximately 76% was government expenditure. My American Company has to pay a premium of (~44% @ 64 cents per) ~ 28 cents extra for every dollar my Italian competitors pay for health care that ranks 35 places better.

Finally, the bronze, Singapore (I couldn't find adequate stats for the other four ahead of this one). Overall spending on health care amounts to only 3% of annual GDP. Of that, 66% comes from private sources, according to the WHO. So my American company will be paying an adjustment of 101% against their costs, but their cost are about $678 per person! pretty much straight forward math then ($4271-678)*.99= $3557 per person more for health care that is about 30 places less efficient!

---

Do you get the picture?!

We subsidize corn, oil, and all sorts of other industries, yet somehow we let our workers and the companies who want to care about them compete against other countries who have government advantages!

This is equivalent to allowing every country to dump subsidized products from every sector onto our market!

Think about it....

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!

Strategy, Tactics, and Terrorism

I will make this brief.

The idea that we can stop terrorists who seem to be coming in via London, Amsterdam, or other foreign ports into America to set off havoc (and bombs) by essentially removing civil liberties here at home beggars belief.

A phrase that would have been heresy just several years ago, but is now on the TV-machine a lot is "security theater."

Now in my mind this would be the staging area for a secure zone, but in fact means staging an act which is designed to lend the appearance of greater safety.

We still haven't completely implemented the work of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Republicans continue to play petty politics by not conferring a TSA Chief, and meanwhile New safety measures appear arbitrary... I mean here.

The simple Strategical guidance I would offer is simple: We must shift from a Reactionary Defense to a Proactive Defense; We must shift from a Nation-State Invasion Model to a Sectarian Counter-terror Model.

Easier said than done!

That said, Proactive Defense looks more like what the British accomplished in 2005 with the liquid bombers; or the French have been dealing with since Algerian Independence in 1962. A lot of very advanced police work!

Our current reactionary basis has us looking at areas where the opponents last struck. As they say in investing, "past performance does not guarantee future results." This is backwards hindsight mentality.

The balance is to get international cooperation on improved intelligence techniques that somehow maintains reasonable personal privacy and functional civil liberties.

As for our wholesale invasion of places where terrorists live, well that is as delusional as the idea that Terrorists will somehow destroy the Freedom we enjoy in the West.

Our freedoms, our wealth, and our model of social change is not something that people plan on giving up on, and like any good product or service-- it is in high demand!

Ours is not a natural state of governance, but a logical outcrop as a result from hard earned lessons and wars of the past. Ours is the best model, for now, and people basically like Freedom, Liberty and Justice. So the terrorists can't expect random acts of havoc to remove or somehow dethrone this truth.

On the other hand there are dissenters and at the harshest end bad actors, those who would commit terrorist acts, probably in any major nation-state in the world. It becomes a question of what is aspirational and what is operational as to what threats are indeed real to human safety and liberty.

So, to invade yet another country to ensure freedom and democracy is so 20th century, and a very proven failed idea from not just a budgetary, but a benefit-cost, point of view.

Like NASA, our defense and offense needs to get more focused, accurate, and scale appropriate to live within their means.

Keeping Score

Trying not to get totally sidelined by the Obameter!


My God I wish all the Presidents had one of these... It would have been amazing to watch the Bushes break promises, or see more clearly Reagan and Clinton's agendas.


This is truly our first 21st Century President, now being held accountable to every campaign promise, in the golden light of free speech and public access. That is a good definition of transparency, and certainly everything Obama's Administration does to address this extant challenge will set precedent.


So lets see the score card for what it really is:


TOTAL PROMISES:
515

PERCENTAGE ADDRESSED (Jan ~ Oct [so about ten months]):
36% (185/515)

PERCENTAGE ADDRESSED KEPT:
25% (47/185)

PERCENTAGE ADDRESSED COMPROMISED:
6% (12/185)

PERCENTAGE ADDRESSED BROKEN:
4% (7/185)

PERCENTAGE ADDRESSED STALLED:
6% (12/185)

PERCENTAGE IN THE WORK (ADDRESSED and TOTAL):
ADDRESSED; 58% (107/185)
TOTAL; 21% (107/515)

***

Now lets assign a number of time to this data set: we could argue that it has only been ten months, and 10/48 is about 21%. For simplicity lets say that some political capital has been expended and that this report card is emblemic of about one years worth of future work load-- or 25%.

Lets assume a similar rate of success/failure per annum:

9.125% KEPT
2.33% COMPROMISED
1.35% BROKEN
20.777% IN PROCESS


We then get this matrix:

1 2 3 4
KEPT 47 94 141 188
COMPROMISED 12 24 36 48
BROKEN 7 14 21 28
STALLED 12 24 36 48
PROCESS 107 214 281 203
UNSTARTED 330 145 0 0


Which translates to:

By year three all promises will have been addressed. If we count compromises as promises kept thats about a 46% success rate, or without compromise about a .365 batting average-- not bad.

5.44% of promises are broken, and 9.32% are "stalled." If we assume these to be the same we come up with a cumulative 14.76% failure rate.

At this same rate of progress, assuming a re-election, adding an additional 31 promises then by year eight:


5 6 7
KEPT 235 282 329
COMPROMISED 60 72 84
BROKEN 35 42 49
STALLED 60 72 84
PROCESS 125 78 0


That would leave year eight to hammer through the 84 pieces of stalled business and run the new candidate slates.

It translates to the following baseball stats:

Kept .603
Comp .154
Broke .090
Stall .153


I know this methodology is simplistic, but to imagine a President held this accountable that someone like me can do the baseball math-- and to imagine a President who can keep his or her word 75% of the time in the light of public scrutiny-- is a good start.

Top Ten Triggers For the Snowe Health Bill Compromise Proposal

10. When there are more than 100,000 homeless people without health insurance coverage

9. When there are more than 100,000 people who lose health insurance (and can't afford the COBRA) when they lose their jobs

8. When Real Unemployment average for the USA is over 10.00% (currently ~17%)

7. When the average Californian has a 1 of 5 chance of claim denial by the top six insurance agencies (currently ~22%)

6. If a "death panel" of Insurance Actuaries, middle managers, and cost comptrollers deny someone coverage because of a "pre-existing condition"

5. If a "bankruptcy panel" of Insurance Actuaries, middle managers, and cost comptrollers deny someone's claim and they have to declare Bankruptcy

4. When the next 15,000 Americans become uninsured (that would be tomorrow)

3. When Insurance cost efficiencies exceed 15.00% (they currently average ~30%)

2. Before the next grandmother, a.k.a. "Granny," dies because a life saving treatment is denied by the health care coverage (HMO, Insurance, etc.)

1. Before the next child dies because a life saving treatment is denied by the health care coverage (HMO, Insurance, etc.)

Excerpt #1

The book should be available very soon, but in any event I wanted to blog some excerpts as a teaser, and/or to clarify this work of which I am proud.

First excerpt from the Foreword of Metaeconomics: Market Evolution Intuited from Practical Lessons of the Past and Present; A Treatise on the Philosophy of Economics / J. W. Kilvington – 1st ed. Copyright 2009 Kilvington Enterprises All Rights Reserved (contact book@kilv.com for permissions):

By September 17th, everything I thought I knew about Economics was destroyed, and yet made almost clear—as if all the gloss and polymer that never quite made sense about Economics had suddenly gotten out of my way from obstructing a view to truth.

The rabid free-marketeers were gladly going on the government dole like the much decried “welfare mother’s”; the red meat capitalists approximated red flag communists in their approach to problem solving; and in my entire lifetime it had been repeatedly explained that because an individual is responsible for their station in life as we are a meritocracy, the poor are the poor for a reason, and don’t deserve any of that precious tax money from the government.

All these now proven to be argumentum ad nauseam.

To say a thing over and over is not to have necessarily to have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt its truth and validity.

Nixonian cum Reaganomic cum Bushian trickle down theory to dismantle the state edifice of Keynesian New Deal and Great Society systems had officially and irrevocably failed.

The poor were always poor. Carter attempted to swim upstream, and got stagflation. Clinton made a nice presentation piece of the trickle down theories, and did improve the social netting—repairing holes in which people were falling through. But by also opening up new loopholes that added to our current state of affairs the rich kept getting richer.

I have harbored doubts about the circular logic of the trickle down system, its shortcomings, and now its bright line failures—more nationalization of private assets in 2008 USA than 1917 Russia its outcome!

What was the difference between Communist Russia and the obscene display of cowardice by the financial elites last year? Russia privatized means of production, as Marx and the other German Communists prescribed, but the Republicans under Paulson-Bush-Cheney privatized failure!

The lack of judgment, foresight, ability, competence, skill, expertise, ethics, integrity, and any notion or public sense of the higher good was underwritten to the tune of over $3,400,000,000,000 in the waning days of Bush II, a.k.a. “W,” and their cronyistic, nepotistic, and ceaselessly corrupt sense of self service.

That stain shall make irreparable the old ways of the supposed free-marketeer, which we can now see clearly tolerating such massive and self-serving corporations in your market and country is the same as harboring a Pirate in among your shores and counting their loot as part of the regular (taxable) economy—when in fact foul ways are clearly a disruption to the economy for those abiding the rules!

So from my supremely under educated vantage, yet speaking from patient practical experience, I shall attempt to describe my observations of what truly needs to happen to create economic systems wherein: I.) Humen are ensured Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness; II.) Free Markets can exist; and III.) Anyone can play and succeed in Business upon their efforts, merits and good behavior.

I pray this my work can continue the dialogue necessary in this nation and our world to provide Peace and Prosperity to all who would ask for it.

Update

So I haven't been anywhere in Cyberspace for well over a month... I barely had time and energy to make that little quip about Cheney.

Reason why: I have completed the first draft and first edit of a two hundred (or so) page book on Macro Economics.

The book is meant to be readable and modestly entertaining, but in fact is an exposition in Philosophical thought on economics which allows the reader to follow an argument I have been thinking for over twenty years now, but had allowed myself to be convinced by the "trickle-downers" that theirs was a system that worked.

Well that horse has left the barn, and the fly in the ointment is a obvious as the emperors new clothes. Sorry, had to puke out a couple of over used cliches, which I tried to avoid in the book, with the exception of two, for which I directly apologize to the reader having (in less than one months writing) only come up with those relatively apt descriptions to hasten the readability.

I would have loved to spend ten years instead writing some needlessly complex book which makes obscure and practical example of the thought so espoused in this work, but morally I felt the compuncture to instead make an effort to shift the dialogue we are presently trapped in with our current economic state of affairs.

All that said, I am hanging in there, wish you all the best, and hope to publish the book as a final draft by March.

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.

On the Constitution

This is a complex subject, so I will defer to an excellent piece of new scholarship to set the tone to the latest and greatest technology in understanding the constitution, and how both sides of the "abortion debate," are both technically right, but that whichever view eventually prevails (with full acknowledgment that statutes on the books state a woman has a right to choose) both sides have a right to be heard, as per the 1st Amendment.

"Abortion and Original Meaning

JACK M. BALKIN
Yale University - Law School

Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 128
Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 24, No. 101, 2007


Abstract:
This article argues that the debate between originalism and living constitutionalism offers a false dichotomy. Many originalists and their critics improperly conflate fidelity to the original meaning of the constitutional text with fidelity to how people living at the time of adoption expected that it would be applied. That is, they confuse original meaning with original expected application.

Constitutional interpretation requires fidelity to the original meaning of the Constitution and to the principles that underlie the text, but not to original expected application. This general approach to constitutional interpretation is the method of text and principle. This approach is faithful to the original meaning of the constitutional text, and to its underlying purposes. It is also consistent with the idea of a basic law that leaves to each generation the task of how to make sense of the Constitution's words and principles in their own time. Although the constitutional text and principles do not change without subsequent amendment, their application and implementation can. That is the best way to understand the interpretive practices characteristic of our constitutional tradition and the work of the many political and social movements that have transformed our understandings of the Constitution's guarantees. It explains, as other versions of originalism cannot, why these transformations are not simply mistakes that we must grudgingly accept out of respect for settled precedent, but are significant achievements of our constitutional tradition.

The article applies this method to the most contentious constitutional issue of our generation - the constitutional right to abortion. It concludes, contrary to conventional wisdom, that the constitutional right to abortion is consistent with the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and, in particular, its prohibition on class legislation that is embodied in the Equal Protection Clause.

The article criticizes Roe v. Wade's original trimester system, arguing that there are actually two rights to abortion instead of one. Finally, it explains how courts might have better implemented the constitutional guarantee of the two rights to abortion in ways that are more respectful of democratic politics.

[This article will appear in 24 Constitutional Commentary (2007). A response to critics, expanding on the some of the key ideas of the article, appears in Original Meaning and Constitutional Redemption, 24 Constitutional Commentary (2007), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=987060]"

Read the full text and see how he demonstrates how such bastions of the Right, as Scalia, are admitted "faint-hearted originalist," working from a theory that is flawed.

In other words, like all aspects of human society, we believe judges, as humans, must make a full attempt to interpret the constitution yet stay within their part of the balance of powers using the best Technology available to them, in order to ADHERE TO THE PRIME CONCEPTS ENSHRINED IN OUR BUNDLE OF RIGHTS AND THE BALANCES OF POWERS.

For those who would use the Constitution to outlaw Abortion or Homosexuality, we STRONGLY DISAGREE that this is the equation of human liberty set in motion by our founders.

Unfortunately, for those of us who may indeed believe that if it was our own physical womb which was holding a fertilized ovum that we would personally protect and defend that little critter with our life, it is clear that that homunculus doesn't pass the 5th Amendment or other tests of personage enshrined in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, for instance, as Balkin states, "It is hard to see how a fetus could be compelled to testify against anyone, much less against itself."

Scientific reason thus permits us to simultaneously imagine that the fetus may indeed be very valuable to society, the family it will be born into, etc., and yet comprehend why the fetus doesn't have (for instance) Miranda, or any other Rights. It is the mother who would be robbing a bank, be arrested, and required to be Mirandized (another example).

The brilliance of this argument isn't so much that we "love" abortions, in fact we would hope prudence and civil progress would create access to contraception, prevention, and abstinence using a scientific and reasonable basis. Further, that we believe Education (not just sex education, but science, math, sports, etc.) is one of the best contraceptives available.

No, the brilliance of this argument is that all the judges whose words are "final," at least until someone more brilliant, or a situation more enlightening occurs, are only human and thus limited by the technology of the day. That is why our "framers" developed a Constitution which contains an organized intrapreneurial methodology for the social revolts they knew, scientifically, were a regular part of human government.

Could you imagine if all our damn lawyers would focus their energy on constructive progression of the Science of Law, instead of frivolous lawsuits?

We are neither "originalist," nor "constitutionalists," rather we seek reason and wisdom which protects the principals of established constitutional and case law. We believe Congress or the Executive must be restrained from burdening the people and the Judiciary is that protection in the Balance of Powers. We believe in the enshrinement of our bundle of rights, and finally that all these laws and rights must be translated into plain English for common reference and daily use-- otherwise, at the rate we are going, we will end up a nation of lawyers.

Plain English

Okay, so I will now write this in plain English, more or less.

We believe that our government should only write laws in Plain English, or at least translate all laws into plain English.

We believe that in order for laws to be understood by all people there needs to be a reliable point of understanding.

In contract law, there are typically definitions at the start of the contract which identify all important terms. We believe every congress should publish two dictionaries. One would contain the Non-plain English words (such as legal terms, or phrases) defined in plain English. The other would contain all Plain English Words which can be used in writing the laws, and their dictionary definitions.

In Plain English, we choose the more commonly understood word if there are two words for the same meaning. Sometimes, "in law it is important to be specific."

A non plain English way of saying the last sentence would be, for example, "Specificity is relevant to constructing relevant laws." Yet both phrases are almost identical in meaning-- both sentences mean the same thing.

This is not talking down to people, rather it is making simple all points which are part of any citizens duty to obey. Otherwise how does the government expect the majority of people to be law abiding?

Plain English is not a mandate to make "English" the official language. Rather it is only to make it the official rule for writing all laws. Deviation from plain English is on a need only basis, and would then be explained (in the body of the law and) in the Dictionary.

We believe all current law needs to be translated into plain English.

We believe that once this happens, there will be fewer lawsuits, faster justice, better enforcement, and fewer crimes. If we think of Mao's little red book, from China, then we see this concept of a standard set of laws that all people can read, refer to, understand, and even remember can remove a large part of the natural ignorance of the law-- for which "their is no excuse," as the saying goes.

One final note on this subject is that when all laws are put out in plain English, and provided as an open publication on the internet (call it a little red, white and blue book), then certain ridiculous items such as crack possession laws will be also made plain.

Is it common sense to slap the person on the wrist carrying cocaine (the potent source from which crack is derived) while putting in jail the crack user for possession of only a fraction of the same substance?

Ideally with Plain English some common sense will also take hold, but just in case that isn't the case-- for whatever reasons-- we also believe laws should make sense.

Rule of Law, not mere fascism...

If we consider the source of law in America, first we have the Judeo-Christian moral code which is premised upon the ten commandments.

By the time of the American Revolution, there was a clear Protestant view on the interpretation of these rules. One of the clearest comments as to why America exists is both Freedom OF and Freedom FROM Religion.

Although we believe everyone has a right to practice their own philosophy and religion within the context of common law, the need to impose an interpretation upon others is left for the courts.

To take an example, "This is not a Christian Nation in the strictest sense because it is not a crime to worship idols." Of this we are thankful for the wisdom of the founders, not so much because we insist on idolatry, rather that certain laws outlive their usefulness within the context of modern science, reason, and humanity.

Homosexuality is a real hot button issue. It is an good example of how science has informed us that by default something like 1 ~ 15% of all human have that innate psychology to be able to function as or ONLY function as such. So our human laws (in the past, wherein such practice was literally illegal) attempted to take precedence over natural laws.

A final Example, lets say the city council made it against the law for dogs to crap. Well, this is unreasonable by definition, because anyone who owns or has owned (or even has much of a brain in their head) can tell you that this is one of the important functions in the domestic arrangement between human and canine... they poop, and we pick it up (ideally).

So this hypothetical City Council might have more of a point in outlawing dogs from public streets and parks, imposing a fine for anyone walking a dog not picking up after the animal, or improving funding for their animal control department-- depending on what net effect they are attempting to have. Of course should they choose to impose all three one might argue this hypothetical Council has become Fascist, but more than argue it is the Responsibility of those citizens who disagree to then use the mechanism of Democracy and Government to reverse such laws.

And so government is a collective of human beings limited by their own knowledge, perspective, and abilities to attempt to effect change. Government makes laws, which are interpreted by courts. Eventually laws need to be improved to refine the result sought, modified to protect citizens bundle of rights, or even removed for being untenable.

Our founders understood this, and created a republic of States. Each State was a virtual country which belonged to a larger collective (until the Union was formed after the Civil War). The principles still remain, and each City, County, and State governance mechanism is a "laboratory of democracy."

You could only envision this in an Age of Reason.

A modern example of the cutting edge of the Rule of Law is California. Now I qualify by saying that not all is well in California Uber Alles, but our government is moving where the current USA administration and Congress has failed to adjust accordingly-- for instance in the fight against global warming.

Now that we have firmly established that law is not a fixed point, rather a moving target, which evolves like our thoughts, and bodies, over time, let us attempt to ascribe how we apply the law and live by it.

A further genius of our founders was to establish a Constitution. I could begin about the Magna Carta, or how the Founders used the example of the Ten Commandments which became adorned with hundreds of other more mutable laws thereafter by the Jews, rather I would like to take a more physical view.

The body and its functions were slowly being uncovered (along with things like physical science) back towards the end of the 18th century, and likewise the concept of "Constitution," or constituent parts is a great piece of genius in law.

We now know that the human body replaces EVERY cell something like every 12 to 180 days depending on the tissue type. This is really amazing and weird in and of itself, but thats not the point. There is always a liver, a heart, lungs, etc, and they're always more or less in the same place doing the same things-- otherwise that body dies.

So it is with our Rights and Responsibilities (chief amongst these is Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-- although that is in the Declaration) that no matter what "cells" (Laws) are in place to assist the function of the "constitutional organs," it is the function which is most vital.

Therefore the role of law is to be clear, relevant, and applicable to the society which that law intends to govern.

In our case, the Founders added the role that all laws must be subset to our Bundle of Rights, and have put the functions of organized revolution (elections, balance of power, bill of rights) to ensure protection of these inalienable rights with which all American Humans are born.