Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Second Appeal


United States Court of Appeals
For the Sixth Circuit

Case Number: 14-5246 (In)


JOHN DAVID KENNARD

Plaintiff-Appellant

vs.

CITY OF ASHLAND, KENTUCKY; BOYD COUNTY, KENTUCKY

Defendants-Appellees


Pro se Appellant’s Brief

1. This is an appeal by the Plaintiff pro se and in forma pauperis in the case of John David Kennard v. City of Ashland, KY, and Boyd County, KY, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, Northern Division at Ashland, Civil Action No. 12-28-HRW, filed April 5, 2012 [Docket No. 1], from that Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order adverse to him dated February 10, 2014 [Docket No. 30].

2. The appeal is on the original ground of the case, of Defendants-Appellees' violations of Plaintiff-Appellant's Fourth and Fifth Amendment and other due process rights.

Operative Facts

3. The facts of this case have been rehearsed numerous times in the course thereof, that (a) Plaintiff-Appellant was driven out of his wholly-owned home on March 7, 2012, by officers and employees of Defendant-Appellant City of Ashland, Kentucky, and his home padlocked against him, rendering him homeless, for inability to afford utilities; (b) City of Ashland at the same time dragged by their necks using clamping poles his eight companions, feline persons Abby, her daughter Squeaky and son Max; Maggie; (female) Gray; (male) Fumey; and Sunny and his sister Claudia, all neutered, fully-domesticated, and timid (terrified of strangers), from under and behind furniture and appliances as they tried to hide, and caged them; (c) City of Ashland then took said feline persons to Defendant-Appellee Boyd County's “Animal Control Center”, where they were kept in lieu of payment of $20 apiece for seven days raised to $60 apiece thereafter, and, after ten days in which Plaintiff-Appellant was unable to pay, all eight were killed, all in routine coordination with the City of Ashland; and (d) there was no charge, indictment, trial, conviction, sentence or court order before said violence by Defendants-Appellees against Plaintiff-Appellant and his companions.

At the very moment that the City of Ashland was carrying out such violence against Plaintiff-Appellant and his companions, it was taking monies from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development's Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Rehousing Program (HPRP), via the Kentucky Housing Corporation, to prevent homelessness due to inability to pay utilities.

Arguments

4. Plaintiff-Appellant filed the present combined tort and civil-rights suit against Defendants-Appellees City of Ashland and County of Boyd on April 5, 2012, first using a supplied form [Docket No. 1], and then filing a fuller and clearer originally-composed Amended Complaint on April 10 following [Docket No. 4]..

His case throughout has been and is that the City of Ashland and County of Boyd acting as monolith violated his fundamental human rights to be secure in his home and property, rights explicitly recognized by the Fourth Amendment, as well as his rights to correspondingly-substantive due process explicitly guaranteed by both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments before such fundamental rights be invaded, in particular the right to trial.

He argues furthermore that the present case involves exactly the sort of bureaucratic totalitarian and mobster violence which the Fourth and Fifth Amendments were intended to prohibit and, upon failing to deter, to provide supreme legal foundation against in citizen recourse to the courts.

He adds that by “correspondingly-substantive due process” he meant and means that such fundamental human rights can only be invaded on substantial proof (not Legislative, Executive or administrative presumption) of substantial injury (no mere misdemeanor can ever justify such invasion) in substantial procedure, to wit trial overseen by an independent judiciary.

And he maintains that our Constitution was written to be read, understood and applied by the citizenry, “by comparing the plain import of the words, with the general tenor and object of the instrument” (Gouverneur Morris, who wrote the final form of our Constitution in Convention, to Timothy Pickering, in a famous letter dated December 22, 1814). And if anything can be inferred from words, Constitution, history and human experience, it is that those who framed, campaigned, voted for and won the passage of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments did not celebrate upon that victory their establishment of the power of the State to as a matter of administrative routine drive the citizenry out of their homes, and even kill their housepets, without trial. And since the governments of town and city, county and parish, are those which the citizenry face in everyday life across the country, if such bureaucratic totalitarian and mobster savagery at such level of government be upheld by the Federal courts, then our Constitution itself amounts according to those courts to no more than a charter for such bureaucratic totalitarian and mobster State. But it was a catchphrase among the original framers and generation that established our Constitution including Bill of Rights that “An elective despotism is not the government we fought for” [see Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, and (Madison), The Federalist, No. 48].

5. Defendant-Appellee City of Ashland in its Motion for Summary Judgment of November 6, 2013 [Docket No. 25] admitted the applicability of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the present and similar cases but asserted and cited a number of precedents supporting a doctrine of "minimal" fulfillment of any Constitutional procedural requirements involved.

Plaintiff-Appellant argued in his countering Motion of November 27, 2013 [Docket No. 26], that all powers and rights originally and ultimately reside in the people; every governmental power is a partial or complete transfer of one or more powers or rights from the people to government, and every power or right of the people not so transferred is a restriction or limitation of the power of government; our Constitutional (and lesser statutory) system restricts governmental powers to those explicitly placed in government, retaining all others in the people, a doctrine explicitly established in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, extended by the Fourteenth Amendment to the powers and rights of the people as State citizens and corresponding limitations on the powers of the States; that it can easily therefore be seen that our fundamental Constitutional doctrine and statutes minimize governmental powers and maximize the powers and rights of the people; and that any doctrine of "minimization" of the powers and rights of the people entirely contradicts this fundamental doctrine of our Constitutional system.
 
6. The Court in its above-referenced and appealed-from Memorandum Opinion and Order does not directly reference either argument but argues and cites precedents instead for substituting in American law, for the independent process and Judiciary our Constitution establishes, local simulation of that process provided by and dependent on local authority.

Plaintiff-Appellant respectfully but emphatically submits that such “process” is not the independent process and Judiciary established by our Constitution; is necessarily wrapped in and permeated by local influence; and as such is understandably attractive to local bureaucratic totalitarians and mobsters, since it makes them collectively and more or less directly judges in their own causes (“Next to the impropriety of being Judge in one's own cause, is the appointment of the Judge”—Morris again, in Convention), which fraud as worthy instrument of predictably forwards local bureaucratic totalitarianism and mobsterism, as evidenced by the fraud and cruelty piled on fraud and cruelty of the present case.

Reliefs Sought

7. Plaintiff-Appellant respectfully seeks reversal of the decision of the above-referenced Memorandum Opinion and Order [Docket No. 30], and to be granted the minimal but appropriate reliefs sought in his above-referenced Amended Complaint [Docket No. 4].

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Walls

 First there are animal-paths, generally made or mostly maintained by the passage of larger hooved animals, as they find and use the shortest or easiest ways between food and water, also used and crossed and recrossed by animals of all kinds.

 Then we humans come and use those paths, too, using the easier ones for horse-paths.

 Then we use the easiest of those as wagon-roads, traffic and weights and wheels rutting and eroding, making it difficult for the smallest animals to cross, killing some beneath the wheels.

 Now traffic increases, and its frequency and weights and wheels make the roads still more difficult and dangerous for small animals to cross, killing more beneath the wheels.

 Now traffic increases further, and its speeds increase, and the roads are widened and graveled, with crossing still more difficult and dangerous for many small animals, killing still more beneath the wheels.

 Now comes the automobile, and traffic increases further, and weights, and speeds, killing more and more animals, and larger and larger ones, and it even starts becoming dangerous for birds and bees and butterflies to fly low across the roads.

 Now the roads are asphalted, and traffic and and weights and speeds increase further, and still more and more animals are killed as they try to cross or fly low across the roads, which are becoming walls of asphalt and machine and draft between water and wood everywhere, making it dangerous for the other animals of our living world to reach water, or food, even to pollinate.

 And now the roads are asphalt and concrete and multilane, with dividers and chain-link fences and actual concrete walls, impossible for animals to cross or fly low across, killing all that try, and the roads have become Walls of asphalt and concrete and machines and draft between wood and water everywhere, slicing our living world into smaller and smaller sections, making it less and less able to sustain itself.

 These our Walls between wood and water everywhere, slicing our living world into smaller and smaller and ever-less-diverse sections, are classic and pervasive examples of a change in quantity becoming or being also a change in quality (Hegel, Marx), examples devastating our living world.

 These our Walls are equally classic examples of our tunnel-vision typical even of our engineers and scientists with regard to the effects of our constructions and technologies upon our living world.

 And these our Walls are equally classic examples of our contempt for our living world (witness in particular the popularity of "road-kill" jokes).

 But what fairer way to judge us as a species, than by how we treat one another, and our living world?


 [See also:

 [ "Jewel"
 [ "The Overpopulation Equation"
 [ "Geocide"
 [ "The Savage Principle"
 [ "Population Law: The 1% Solution"
 [ "Photonomics: The Photosynthetic Economy"
 [ "The Just Limits of Wealth and Concentration of Wealth"
 [ "Beyond Plutocracy and Its Two-Plutocratic-Party System"
 [ "A World Without Lies, Evil or Violence"
 [ The Uncivil War ]

Monday, December 23, 2013

"Affluenza":
"It's the Noo USAye" III

 "Affluenza," the affliction cited by a psychologist to argue that a North Texas teenager from a wealthy family should not be sent to prison for killing four pedestrians while driving drunk, is not a recognized diagnosis and should not be used to justify bad behavior, experts said Thursday.

A judge's decision to give 16-year-old Ethan Couch 10 years of probation for the fatal accident sparked outrage from relatives of those killed and has led to questions about the defense strategy. A psychologist testified in Couch's trial in a Fort Worth juvenile court that as a result of "affluenza," the boy should not receive the maximum 20-year prison sentence prosecutors were seeking.

The term "affluenza" was popularized in the late 1990s by Jessie O'Neill, the granddaughter of a past president of General Motors, when she wrote the book "The Golden Ghetto: The Psychology of Affluence." It has since been used to describe a condition in which children — generally from richer families — have a sense of entitlement, are irresponsible, make excuses for poor behavior, and sometimes dabble in drugs and alcohol, explained Dr. Gary Buffone, a Jacksonville, Fla., psychologist who does family wealth advising.

But Buffone said in a telephone interview Thursday that the term wasn't meant to be used as a defense in a criminal trial or to justify such behavior.

"The simple term would be spoiled brat," he said.

"Essentially what he (the judge) has done is slapped this child on the wrist for what is obviously a very serious offense which he would be responsible for in any other situation," Buffone said. "The defense is laughable, the disposition is horrifying … not only haven't the parents set any consequences, but it's being reinforced by the judge's actions" . . . :

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/12/affluenza-dwi-dui-texas/3999487/

Affluenza: the latest excuse for the wealthy to do whatever they want


"I was raised in a wealthy family that never taught me to take responsibility for my actions, so I therefore should not be held liable for anything I do."

It's funny how that doesn't fly for poor or working-class families, isn't it?

But as Plutarch said, "it is only worthless men who seek to excuse that deterioration of their character by pleading neglect in their early years."

And it is only worthless courts that excuse the wealthy for their misdeeds on account of their wealth.

And it's not Ethan Couch, or the Couch family, or the Waltons, or the Kochs, that have "affluenza":

It's America.


(See also:

Ye Olde American Plutocracy

Ye Olde American Plutocracy Part II

"It's the Noo USAye"

"It's the Noo USAye" II

Beyond Plutocracy and Its Two-Plutocratic-Party System

)

Thursday, December 05, 2013

Second Round

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION AT ASHLAND
CASE NO. 0:12-CV-00028-HRW

JOHN DAVID KENNARD, PLAINTIFF

VS.

CITY OF ASHLAND, KENTUCKY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS


PLAINTIFF JOHN DAVID KENNARD'S
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HIS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT


1. The Plaintiff, John David Kennard, submits this Memorandum of Law in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment. Based on the allegations of the Complaint and Amended Complaint filed herein, and on the responses of the Defendants City of Ashland, Kentucky, and County of Boyd, Kentucky, it is clear that the Plaintiff John David Kennard is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on his claims against the Defendants City of Ashland, Kentucky, and County of Boyd, Kentucky.

2. This case is on remand from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 13-5406, with instructions for this Court to consider the procedural due process claim clearly set out in the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.

3.  Defendant City of Ashland filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on November 6, 2013, to which this Motion is Answer and Countermotion.


I. OPERATIVE FACTS

4. The Court has been fully briefed on the facts of this case previously, but the Movant rehearses the facts under penalty of perjury relevant to the resolution of the Plaintiff's procedural due process claim forthwith:

(a) On March 7, 2012, the Plaintiff was driven out of his wholly-owned home by officers and employees of Defendant City of Ashland for inability to afford utilities, and the doors of his home drilled and padlocked by them.

(b) At the same time, Plaintiff's eight housecats, feline persons Abbie; her daughter Squeaky and son Max; Maggie; (female) Gray; (male) Fumey; and Sunny and his sister Claudia, neutered, fully-domesticated indoor animals, the Plaintiff's sole companions for seven years to that date, timid and terrified of strangers, were dragged by officers and employees of Defendant City of Ashland by their necks using clamping poles from under and behind furniture and appliances rodeo-style as they tried to hide, caged, and taken to Defendant County of Boyd's Animal Control Center, in routine coordination therebetween.

(c) The Plaintiff spoke with County of Boyd Animal Control Center Director Paul Helton by telephone on two occasions during the first week thereafter, informing him that said feline persons had been seized from the Plaintiff's home and that the Plaintiff could not afford the ransom demanded for them of $20 apiece during the first week amounting to $160 total, rising to $60 apiece thereafter amounting to $480 total, and they were shortly thereafter routinely killed.

(d) All of the foregoing acts of violence were committed in routine coordination by Defendants City of Ashland and County of Boyd against the Plaintiff and his companions in the complete absence of any charge, trial, conviction, sentence or court order.

(e) The Plaintiff discovered two days after his eviction and the seizure of his companions that the Defendant City of Ashland was at that very time taking Federal monies from the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Rehousing Program, via the Kentucky Housing Corporation, to prevent such evictions; immediately inquired by telephone as to how the City of Ashland could both take such monies and simultaneously evict poor and misfortunate citizens for inability to afford utilities; and was told “That’s a different department”.

II. ARGUMENT

5. Defendants City of Ashland and County of Boyd working routinely together violated in the most brutal way the Plaintiff’s fundamental human rights to be secure in his home and property, rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to our Federal Constitution, as well as his rights to correspondingly-substantive due process guaranteed by both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments before such fundamental rights be invaded, in particular the right to trial:

By “correspondingly-substantive due process” he means that such fundamental human rights can only be invaded on substantial proof (not Executive or administrative or Legislative presumption) of substantial injury (no mere misdemeanor can ever justify such invasion) in substantial procedure, to wit trial overseen by the independent Judiciary provided for in our Constitutions both Federal and State.

Defendants also deprived the Plaintiff in the most brutal and permanent way of his long-time companionship with his eight housecats Abbie, Squeaky, Max, Maggie, Gray, Fumey, Sunny and Claudia.

6. In previous pleading in this case, Defendant City of Ashland asserted that its "police powers" were superior to the Plaintiff's Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, an obviously un-Consitutional doctrine since the very definition of those powers is those not denied to government by our Federal Constitution, or explicitly vested thereby solely in the Federal government, or retained by the people, and restricted by the Fourteenth Amendment to those powers analogous to the Federal but not explicitly and solely vested in the latter (see below).

In its Motion for Summary Justice of November 6th, 2013, Defendant City of Ashland shifts its ground and admits the applicability of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the instant and similar cases but asserts a doctrine of "minimal" fulfillment of any procedural requirements involved.

All powers and rights originally and ultimately reside in the people. Every governmental power is a partial or complete transfer of one or more powers or rights from the people to government, and every power or right of the people not so transferred is a restriction or limitation of the power of government. Our American Federal Constitutional (and lesser statutory) system restricts governmental powers to those explicitly placed in government, retaining all others in the people:  This doctrine was explicitly established by the people in the interpretative articles of our Federal Constitution, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, themselves amended by the Fourteenth Amendment, which extends the powers and rights of the people as Federal citizens, and therefore restrictions on Federal governmental powers, to the people as State citizens as well, and therefore extending the corresponding limitations on Federal powers to the powers of the States as well.

It can easily be seen that our fundamental Constitutional doctrine and statutes minimize governmental powers and maximize the powers and rights of the people.

And any doctrine of "minimization" of the powers and rights of the people entirely contradicts this fundamental doctrine of our Constitutional system.

Indeed, Defendant City of Ashland not only asserts an un-Constitutional maximization of its powers and minimization of the powers and rights of the people residing therein, but its assertion that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments do not require independent Judicial mediation before driving the poor out of their wholly-owned homes and killing their pets for inability to afford utilities amounts not just to minimization but nullification of the powers and rights of the people involved as well as the authority of the Judiciary.

7. Finally, justice delayed is justice denied: It has been twenty months since the Plaintiff filed the present simple Constitutional and tort case against Defendants City of Ashland and County of Boyd, during which time he has been homeless due to the violence practiced upon him and his companions by them.

III. CONCLUSION

8. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff John David Kennard prays that this Court enters summary judgment in his favor against Defendants City of Ashland and County of Boyd on his claim for compensation due to their violations of his Constitutional right to be secure in his home and property and to due process and for related injuries, and grants the reliefs sought in his Amended Complaint.


[This is a little rough, but I thought I had thirty days to respond to the City of Ashland's Motion for Summary Judgment; got nervous and double-checked, and found I only had twenty-one; pulled an all-nighter Tuesday night before last (I'd already grasped the argument, and used the City's Motion and Memorandum as my models); spent Wednesday scraping up printout, mailers, postage, etc., through the kindness of friends; and filed last Thursday.

[In particular, the third paragraph of section 6 should read at the end "the Fourteenth Amendment, which extends the powers and rights of the people as Federal citizens to them as State citizens, and the corresponding limitations on Federal powers to State powers—and the States cannot delegate powers they do not have to inferior jurisdictions such as municipalities and counties.")]

Friday, June 14, 2013

Mobsters

Mobsters operate best within and behind government, political party, corporation (especially bank and law-firm), and labor-union.

Nor does it matter whether those mobsters establish such front, or subvert it by infiltration, bribe, threat and violence, or buy it, or it degenerates into mobsterism on its own, every group of people wielding any significant power for any significant period of time becoming mobsters.

You know mobsters by their actions.

Friday, April 12, 2013

White House Petition:
Investigate and Prosecute the Oil Bubble of 2006-8

The Oil Bubble of 2006-8 quadrupled the price of oil in less than two years and deliberately destroyed the economy of the world and the United States, in an act of war against the world, a war-crime against the world, and a crime against all humanity, from which the world and the United States are still reeling, and those Americans who engineered it, ran it, profited from it, and have helped cover it up since must be prosecuted by Federal Government, for rebellion, to the fullest extent of the law, even unto death and revocation of corporate charter and total confiscation of assets of all principal conspirators including organizations in the worst cases, and we do hereby petition the President of the United States to do so.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/investigate-and-prosecute-oil-bubble-2006-8/ZQqKx1N7

IMTOB

[Expired after thirty days with only three (3) votes.]

Keywords: commodity speculation, commodity exchanges, corruption, crimes against humanity, economic warfare, Oil Bubble of 2006-8, International Military Tribunal, IMTOB, London City Labour, London City Conservatives, London City Liberal Democrats, plutocracy, two-plutocratic-party system, Wall Street Democrats, Wall Street Libertarians, Wall Street Republicans, war-crimes

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Top-Down Taxation,
or Tax-Grazing

Sales-, income- and withholding-taxes are regressive, weighing least heavily on the wealthiest, where any fair system of taxation should weigh heaviest.

Wealth only should be taxed, and only of individuals (except where profits flow abroad, where heavily-progressive taxation of profits should be levied).

How should wealth be taxed, in such a way to be fairest to most of the wealthy as well?

It should be confiscated granularly, from the top down, in top-down taxation called here "tax-grazing":

Take, for example, a country with one hundred citizens, possessing from poorest to wealthiest from one thousand to one hundred thousand dollars in wealth, each possessing one thousand dollars more than the next-less and less than the next-more wealthy.

The total wealth of this country will be $5,050,000.

Let us then examine the effect of tax-grazing 1% of the total wealth of those citizens and that country percentile-wise, percent by percent.

1% of the total wealth of those citizens and that country would be $50,500.

There is only one citizen with wealth in the highest percentile, and the total wealth held in that percentile is one thousand dollars, so the first thousand dollars of tax-grazing comes from that percentile and citizen, reducing his or her wealth to $99,000.

There now are two citizens with wealth in the second-highest percentile, and the total wealth held in that percentile is two thousand dollars, so the next two thousand dollars of tax-grazing comes from that percentile and those citizens, reducing their wealths to $98,000 apiece, and giving us three thousand dollars total from tax-grazing.

There now are three citizens with wealth in the third-highest percentile, and the total wealth held in that percentile is three thousand dollars, so the next three thousand dollars of tax-grazing comes from that percentile and those citizens, reducing their wealths to $97,000 apiece, and giving us six thousand dollars total from tax-grazing.

There now are four citizens with wealth in the fourth-highest percentile, and the total wealth held in that percentile is four thousand dollars, so the next four thousand dollars of tax-grazing comes from that percentile and those citizens, reducing their wealths to $96,000 apiece, and giving us ten thousand dollars total from tax-grazing.

There now are five citizens with wealth in the fifth-highest percentile, and the total wealth held in that percentile is five thousand dollars, so the next five thousand dollars of tax-grazing comes from that percentile and those citizens, reducing their wealths to $95,000 apiece, and giving us fifteen thousand dollars total from tax-grazing.

There now are six citizens with wealth in the sixth-highest percentile, and the total wealth held in that percentile is six thousand dollars, so the next six thousand dollars of tax-grazing comes from that percentile and those citizens, reducing their wealths to $94,000 apiece, and giving us twenty-one thousand dollars total from tax-grazing.

There now are seven citizens with wealth in the seventh-highest percentile, and the total wealth held in that percentile is seven thousand dollars, so the next seven thousand dollars of tax-grazing comes from that percentile and those citizens, reducing their wealths to $93,000 apiece, and giving us twenty-eight thousand dollars total from tax-grazing.

There now are eight citizens with wealth in the eighth-highest percentile, and the total wealth held in that percentile is eight thousand dollars, so the next eight thousand dollars of tax-grazing comes from that percentile and those citizens, reducing their wealths to $92,000 apiece, and giving us thirty-six thousand dollars total from tax-grazing.

There now are nine citizens with wealth in the ninth-highest percentile, and the total wealth held in that percentile is nine thousand dollars, so the next nine thousand dollars of tax-grazing comes from that percentile and those citizens, reducing their wealths to $91,000 apiece, and giving us forty-five thousand dollars total from tax-grazing.

And there now are ten citizens with wealth in the tenth-highest percentile, and the total wealth held in that percentile is ten thousand dollars, so the final five thousand five hundred dollars of tax-grazing needed comes from that percentile and those citizens equally, reducing their wealths to $90,450 apiece.

The worst-hit of all the wealthiest citizens has been tax-grazed less than ten percent of his or her wealth, and is still in the highest percentile of wealth in the country.

And eighty-nine citizens have not been taxed AT ALL, their "consumer" confidences and buying-powers, and therefore national business/corporate sales, profits, dividends and capital gains, unscathed, in populist "trickle-up economics" with its plenty in place of aristocracy-plutocracy's "trickle-down economics" and its "austerity".

Naturally there will be as many and as various attempts to evade such taxation as at present, for example in the classic sale-and-sweetheart-lifetime-lease arrangement for real property, but no tax-system can be effective where such fraud is not investigated, prosecuted and punished, with both prison-time and confiscation of the wealth involved.

And there should of course be truth in ownership, such that any wealth the ownership of which has been concealed or falsified, or the ownership trail of which leads to a country which allows the concealment or falsification of ownership, shall be confiscated by the country (State/Province perhaps in Federal countries) where it is located.


Keywords: antiplutocracy, aristocracy, austerity, economics, plenty, plutocracy, populism, tax-grazing, top-down taxation, trickle-down economics, trickle-up economics

Friday, November 09, 2012

Good Americans

The First Principle of the American two-plutocratic-party-system political corps, "elected", appointed, hired or contracted, is "Cover Your Ass (CYA)".

The Second Principle of the American two-plutocratic-party-system political corps is "What's In It For Me? (WIIFM)", also expressed as "Nothing for nothing" and "Money talks, bullshit walks".

The American two-plutocratic-party-system political corps has and needs no third principle.

And in this, if in no other way, the American two-plutocratic-party-system political corps for once truly represents the working-people it strings along and loots and sets upon one another on behalf of its owners.

You can even see it in the religion they all profess and some even believe in:

That religion doesn't preach not doing evil because it's evil, or doing good because it's good.

It preaches not doing evil because it'll be punished in "Hell" ("Cover Your Ass"), and doing good because it'll be rewarded in "Heaven" ("What's In It For Me?").

Such is the "morality" of banality, from the lowest to "the Highest", in seamless web.


Keywords: aristocracy, corruption, morality, plutocracy, slavery, theocracy, two-plutocratic-party-system

Thursday, November 08, 2012

US Politics: The Blue-State Letter

From a correspondent of a correspondent, who got it from somewhere else . . . :

"Dear Red States:

"We're ticked off at your Neandertal attitudes and politics and we've decided we're leaving.

"We in California intend to form our own country and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes New York, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and the rest of the Northeast.

"We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation and especially to the people of the new country, the Enlightened States of America (ESA).

 "To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the original and now 'right-to-work' slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Andrew Cuomo and Elizabeth Warren. You get Bobby Jindal and Todd Akin. We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Stanford and Harvard. You get Ole Miss. We get 85% of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama. We get 2/3 of the tax revenue. You get to make the Red States pay their fair share. Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms. With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80% of the country's fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners), 90% of all cheese, 90% of the high tech industry, most US low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT. With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia. We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you. 38% of those in the Red States believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that Saddam was involved in 9/11, and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we Lefties. We're taking the good weed, too. You can have that crap they grow in Mexico.

"Sincerely,

 "-- -----

"Citizen of the Enlightened States of America"


[I've slightly edited the above--various versions are in circulation--another correspondent located

http://monroeanderson.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/10/were-got-an-old-wound-that-sarah-palin-and-her-running-buddy-john-mccain-have-ripped-off-the-scab-and-torn-open-the-divid.html

--and this was probably originally Sumerian/Emegirean/Kiengerian.]

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Law and Terrorism

Io non giudico né giudicheròmai essere difetto difendere alcuna opinione con le ragioni, sanza volervi usare o l'autorità o la forza.

Machiavelli

Let us take terrorists at their words, that they are waging war, in which case they can be taken legally to be specialized and trained in and conspiring to commit and actually committing war-crimes and crimes against humanity . . . .

And if they're domestic terrorists, you can add rebellion to that, the maximum penalty for which (which considering that war-crimes and crimes against humanity are involved should generally be levied) is death and total confiscation of assets.


Keywords: crimes against humanity, law, terrorism, war, war-crimes

Wednesday, August 08, 2012

Jewel

Our planet is a jewel, but we don't treat it like a jewel.

(See also my posts "Population Law: The 1% Approximation", "The Overpopulation Equation", "Geocide" and "Photonomics: The Photosynthetic Economy".)

Keywords: conservation, ecology, law, morality, overpopulation, photonomics, photonomy, population, sustainability

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Occam's Universe: Gravity Is Expansion

In the spirit of my cosmological and cosmogenerative musings in my blog-posts "The Nonintensive Universe" and in particular the reductionism of my "Occam's Universe: The CMBR as Space" , I hereby propose that the two mysteries gravity and the apparent expansion of the Universe are one and the same, gravitational attraction between two nodes of least expansion (from the simplest and smallest to the most complex and largest, from subnucleons to galaxies) being along and equivalent to lines of least expansion.


Keywords: astronomy, cephalgia, cosmogeneration, cosmology, expansion, extension, Grand Unified Theory, gravity, GUT, intension, nuclear, nucleon, Occam's Razor, particle, philosophy, physics, reductionism

Monday, July 16, 2012

Population Law: The 1% Approximation

As a good rough first approximation of what a real, moral and rational population-law would look like, I submit that we as a species should not use more than 1% of the least available living resource (rainfall, freshwater, aquifer, arable land, CO2-fixing, whatever) (LALR) that we use on this planet.

Obviously we will use more than that in our industrial and urban cores and surrounding suburban countours, but all that should be counterbalanced by law by preserve elsewhere.

Also, land which could be connecting preserves and preserves to significant landforms (river, coast) should be counted as somewhat more valuable as preserve and in terms of preserve needed to counterbalance.

And some lands and landforms should of course be given enhanced protection (heads of watersheds, karst, forest, habitats of significant endangered species) and counted as even more valuable in terms of preserve needed to counterbalance (if other than grandfathered/conservation-easement-overlaid development/habitation is to be allowed at all).

Also, the issues of CO2- and heat-generation should be considered to see whether they represent significant enough population-pressures on our planet to be counted along with or even before the foregoing (I believe simple heat of population and its effect on rainfall is a direct cause of many of Florida's, California's and Australia's problems, and no doubt elsewhere, including throughout history).

The foregoing represent the sort of constraints on our numbers I submit a real, moral and rational population law would be based on.

Obviously, our population at present undoubtedly far exceeds anything imaginable under such law.

I do however believe, unlike, apparently, some "Greens", that we as a species have just as much right to live as any other, and as a technological species.

A one-child-per-couple law is the least-onerous of all transitional laws to get (ever more) slowly to where we need to go, with more allowed where that would cause vanishings of subpopulations, and also where voluntary restraint causes population to actually dip below the desired level, such extra children allotted by lottery and raffle, and perhaps a very small number by auction (proceeds of raffle and auction to be split between social and green budgets).


(See also my posts "The Overpopulation Equation" and "Geocide".)

Keywords: conservation, ecology, law, overpopulation, population, sustainability

Monday, May 14, 2012

Beyond Plutocracy and Its Two-Plutocratic-Party System:
A Three-Phase Strategy

In my blog-posts here "Beyond Plutocracy and Its Two-Plutocratic-Party System" and "Beyond Plutocracy and Its Two-Plutocratic-Party System: A Populist Amendment" and a related post on OccupyTheory.org "A Two-Phase Strategy for Reform", I call for a two-phase strategy to roll back the savage plutocratic gains made in this country (and our world) over the last thirty years: first, the adoption of a "Populist Amendment" to take law and justice out of the hands of the wealthy and the corporations and the plutocratic politicians, the "two" plutocratic "parties", and the legal profession which so devotedly and so relentlessly serve them, and put them back into the hands of the people; and, second, leverage that empowerment of the people to pass a specifically "Antiplutocratic Amendment" to make up for our Constitution's total lack of explicit protections against plutocracy (as compared for example with those against aristocracy and theocracy).

But what would undoubtedly be the most popular section of any such "Antiplutocratic Amendment", the anti-"corporate-personhood", anti-Citizens-United "People's Rights Amendment", has already been introduced into the US Congress, if not indeed already safely (the "two" main plutocratic "parties" no doubt hope) buried in committee there.

And the "Populist Amendment" I have proposed, dealing as it must with varieties of plutocratic subversions and antiplutocratic protections, is considerable of a chunk to digest (nine sections at present, with others referred to in parenthetic note), let alone recommend to the people, even though still unfinished, and embodies several novel concepts (eg, its reform of the courts, making juries the finders of all cause, fact, law and appeal, and its implementation of public, randomly-selected ethics committees to watch over the ethics of all corporate bodies, including legislatures, professions, corporations and unions), which might better be studied, formulated, recommended and adopted on their own (maybe it would all be better written up as "the Ohio River Valley Resolutions", except that sounds like something you would recommend to a Constitutional Convention and I'm too frightened of what a present-day Convention would be like, dominated and gamed as it undoubtedly would be by the plutocracy).

I conclude in any case that a three-phase strategy (at least) is in fact in order: First, the adoption of the "People's Rights Amendment" referred to above, along with another Amendment embodying what is really the most fundamentally-popularly-empowering section of the "Populist Amendment" referred to above, its section 9, which allows the adult citizens of the States to amend the Federal Constitution without any participation by President or Congress, breaking the stranglehold thereof over further populist Constitutional reform; second, using those new popular powers to adopt whatever other "Populist Amendment(s)" are deemed necessary; and, third, adoption of whatever "Antiplutocratic Amendment(s)" are deemed necessary.

Why is such "State Amendment" Amendment so necessary and so empowering?

Madison and Hamilton in writing The Federalist believed (or at least intimated that they believed) that corruption would most likely and heavily flow from the States to the Federal government.

But is it easier to corrupt one Federal Congress or fifty State legislatures?

The question answers itself.

As does the history of "inside the DC 'Boughtway' " over the last thirty years.

Section 9 of the present version of the "Populist Amendment" referred to above reads, "This Constitution may be amended by vote of a majority of adult citizens in each of three-quarters of the States or a majority vote of three-quarters of the adult citizens of the United States."

Note the bimodality of passage, which addresses the perennial problem of big states versus small states, the more populous States contributing more taxes and soldiers in time of war and therefore naturally wanting more say in national affairs, the less populous States having no reason to join any Union in which they would be dominated by the big States, which conflict almost wrecked the original Constitutional Convention and led to the "Great Compromise" in which the States are equally represented in the Senate and proportionally to population in the House.

But the three-quarters majorities of States or citizens required is too high a threshhold for passage of Amendments, and the language proposed doesn't seem to quite sufficiently address the bimodality of passage desired.

I therefore suggest the following language for such Amendment:

"This Constitution may be amended by vote of a majority of adult citizens in each of at least two-thirds of the States representing cumulatively a majority of the adult citizens of the United States, or by vote of at least two-thirds of the adult citizens of the United States with majorities in a majority of the States."

These two Amendments, the "People's Rights" Amendment and the "State Amendment" Amendment, when coupled with campaigns demanding candidates for the US Congress support those Amendments as well as public debates and recorded votes on them in Congress, seem to me to represent the most promising, best-controlled and safest first steps forward out of the present plutocratic abyss in our country and world.


[See "Center Forward: Two Amendments and a Pledge" at occupytheory.org.]

Friday, May 04, 2012

Occam's Universe: The CMBR as Space

The "Big Bang" cosmogenesis has needed constant "fixes" (from "inflation" to "dark matter") and has fatal flaws (eg the non-decrease in universal density in terms of galaxies per unit-volume, and the non-decrease in heavy elements observed in those galaxies, as we look at them farther and farther away and therefore farther and farther back in time), and its faithful deal with such criticisms by the religious/theocratic tactics of studied ignorance or permanent controversialization, and indeed the patent reason for its astonishingly wide and rapid spread and fervent adoption is due to its fit with the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic cosmogony ("Let there be light"), all together supporting the inference that it represents a back-door invasion and subversion of astronomy-cosmology by that cosmogony.

Students of (more or less steady-state) cosmogeneration must therefore consider alternative explanations for the expansion of the Universe inferred from red shift and for the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).

And it is more than interesting that the wavelength of that radiation considered in combination with the universal photon-density of that radiation (photons per unit volume) show that that radiation fills space.

Such photons might be generated to fill space as it expands, but it is more economical and accords with Occam's Razor to conclude that those photons are space (or space-time):

The cosmic microwave background radiation is space.


Keywords: astronomy, atheism, Bereshith, Big Bang theory, CMBR, cosmic microwave background radiation, cosmogeneration, cosmogenesis, cosmology, cosmogony, Genesis, Judaism-Christianity-Islam, MBR, Occam's Razor, photons, pseudoscience, religion, theism, theocracy

[See also my "The Non-Intensive Universe" and "Occam's Universe: Gravity Is Expansion" .]

Monday, April 02, 2012

A World Without Lies, Evil or Violence

Many ideologies promise a world of truth, of good and of peace, if only in the future, or another world.

But error, lying, evil and violence cannot be eliminated without eliminating choice, without which there can be neither responsibility nor morality.

Without, that is, eliminating humanity.

Every such ideology then as an implicit attack on responsibility is irresponsible, and as an implicit attack on morality—and therefore on good—is immoral—evil.

And since no such ideology can hope for general approval, still less political power, while subjected to such simple and just moral analyses as the foregoing, it must if it is even to survive, still less thrive, suppress such criticism, both internally and externally:

Every such ideology must therefore be inherently dogmatic.

And every such ideology must therefore be inherently totalitarian.


Keywords: choice, error, evil, good, falsehood, humanity, ideology, lying, moralism, morality, peace, responsibility, totalitarianism, truth, utopia, violence, world


[Posted by me several times a number of years ago to the Usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology as an annual "Xenumas" gift.]

[See also my moralist primer The Uncivil War.]

Tuesday, March 06, 2012

The Dual-Copolymer Proof of Evolution

Living things are composed of cells.

Most cell structures are formed or synthesized and most other cell functions are performed by the molecules called proteins.

Proteins are polymers, complex chain-like molecules, each synthesized by the chemical bonding or polymerizing together of many smaller molecules called their monomers, the monomers of the proteins being called amino acids.

Proteins are also copolymers, polymers polymerized from monomers of more than one kind, amino acids of twenty different kinds being commonly found incorporated into them.

Proteins are synthesized by cells using, and their amino acid orders—and therefore their conformations (coiled structures), and therefore their shapes, mechanical properties and surface structures, and therefore their functions—are determined by, copolymers called nucleic acids—DNA and RNAs—which serve as templates not only to synthesize proteins but also new copies of themselves, so that they can be passed down to new cells and organisms, in genetic inheritance.

Every living thing of every species on our planet uses its cell proteins to do most of its work, and its cell nucleic acids to synthesize its proteins and inherit and pass on its proteins' amino acid orders and therefore its biological traits in heredity.

Such universally-shared dual-copolymer usage proves that all living things of every species on our planet are related.

Since all living things and species on our planet are related, we must share a common ancestry.

And such common ancestry and later divergence of our species is called evolution.

The biological and evolutionary significance of such universal use by living things of proteins and nucleic acids is too often passed over for the less fundamental but much more famous ongoing analysis of relationships between proteins and nucleic acids used by different species, which relationships are themselves of course not only so many more evidences, but which have provided detailed evidence as to the exact course(s), of evolution.


(See also my MeSeBlog—in slow progress.)


Keywords: amino acids, biology, cells, copolymers, evolution, nucleic acids, polymers, proteins

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Theory, Prediction, Fallacy, Negation and Proof

Direct prediction is in fact no proof of a theory:

After all, "A implies B; B: therefore A" is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent (since some other subject, say "A' ", may imply "B", too).

This would seem to imply that there can be no predictive proofs of scientific theories, only disproofs, although as a practical matter one can calmly accept that the more, and the more different, and the more unexpected, predictions that a theory affords, the more likely it is that it is true (this resembles Hume's later position, say in "Of Miracles", after his original and highly unrealistic idee fixe that "causation is custom").

But if you can formulate the negation of the theory "A", "~A" (easy enough with a simple theory consisting of a single elementary or atomic proposition, and using the tilde "~" to mean logical or Boolean "NOT"), then if you can show "~A" implies a false proposition, it is false, and therefore (since the negation of a falsehood is true) the original theory "A" is true": that is, " ~A implies C; ~C: therefore ~(~A), = A" (a double negation of course canceling each other).

As for more complex theories, if the theory to be proved is "A1 && A2 && A3" (using the double ampersand "&&" to mean logical or Boolean "AND"), then its negation is "~A1 || ~A2 || ~A3" (using the double stroke "||" to mean logical or Boolean "OR"), and the aforementioned proof then hinges on whether that disjunction implies a falsehood, which means that if any one of "~A1", "~A2" or "~A3" implies a falsehood, then the original theory is true.

It seems strange that the original complex theory "A" can be proven on the basis of an assessment of just one of its elements, but, of course, that's not what's happening here: what's being assessed is an element of the NEGATION of that theory.

Note: For those readers unfamiliar with propositional logic due to an incompetent education, "A && B" is equivalent to "~(~A || ~B)", so negating "A && B" gives "~A || ~B".


Keywords: cephalgia, logic, philosophy, prediction, theory

Friday, January 06, 2012

All You Need to Know About American Politics

Conservatism = plutocracy + theocracy + hypocrisy
Liberalism = plutocracy + psychosociocracy + hypocrisy

Wall Street Democrats = Wall Street Republicans

Reagan = Bush = Clinton = Bush II = Obama


Keywords: plutocracy, two-plutocratic-party system

Thursday, January 05, 2012

Walking Through the Cold

An Occupy Wall Street "Winter War" Picket-Song

(Sung to a slow walking cadence, accent on "walk-" and "cold" in the chorus-line, "cold" held for a beat and a half)


We carry our signs in the snow and wind.
We carry our signs in the snow and wind.
We carry our signs in the snow and wind.
We're walking in the cold.
We're walking in the cold.

Our hearts are on fire, our hands and feet are numb.
Our hearts are on fire, our hands and feet are numb.
Our hearts are on fire, our hands and feet are numb.
We're walking in the cold.
We're walking in the cold.
We're walking in the cold.

Dupes shout "Get a job", and dupes shout "Go home."
Dupes shout "Get a job", and dupes shout "Go home."
Dupes shout "Get a job", and dupes shout "Go home."
We're walking through the cold.
We're walking through the cold.
We're walking through the cold.

We'll claw back the money and the jobs you stole.
We'll claw back the money and the jobs you stole.
We'll claw back the money and the jobs you stole.
We're walking through the cold.
We're walking through the cold.
We're walking through the cold.

We'll walk to Spring and end your plutocracy.
We'll walk to Spring and end your plutocracy.
We'll walk to Spring and end your plutocracy.
We're walking through the cold
We're walking through the cold.
We're walking through the cold.

We're walking through the cold.


[Composed while walking back and forth for three hours on the Occupy Ashland (KY) picket-line alone the evening of January 2, 2012, with the temperature in the high 20s F and falling, a brisk W/NW wind, and spatters of snow.]

[What that afternoon looked like:

http://twitpic.com/85da2i

although at one point visibility dropped to a couple of hundred feet.]

[Simulposted to Usenet, Message-ID:6a7f41d6-d2ce-4cbb-b6a1-649f0da37c2c@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com ]


Keywords: antiplutocracy, Occupy Ashland (KY), Occupy Wall Street, OWS, plutocracy, US Day of Rage, USDOR

Thursday, October 27, 2011

The American Regime's Barbarism Begins to Show

Two-time Iraq War vet Scott Olsen gets shot IN THE HEAD, FROM FEET AWAY, WITH A TEAR-GAS SHELL, in Oakland, California, then he and his would-be rescuers get FLASH-BANGED, by the same (yes) PIGS:



This is BARBARISM.

And don't you think that if Occupy Oakland protesters had shot a policeman in the head, and then contemptuously flash-banged his body as he lay there, that they would've been in custody, well-beaten, that very night?

Or the morgue?

Justice and law, it seems, are quite different in America, depending on whether you're wealthy, a banker, a politician, a judge, a lawyer, a policeman

Or the rest of us.


Keywords: aristocracy, barbarism, OccupyOakland, OccupyWallStreet, #OWS, plutocracy, slavery, US Day of Rage, #USDOR

Thursday, October 06, 2011

Beyond Plutocracy and Its Two-Plutocratic-Party System:
A Populist Amendment

This is the rough draft of a populist Amendment I promised to publish several days ago as an example of what might be considered in the two-phase strategy I have recommended to rescue America from the plutocratic abyss in which we presently are drowning.

Mr. Mark Jones of USDOR questioned a list of classes of citizens to be excluded from serving as Representatives, jurors and ethics commissioners (other than lawyers), and also a lower age-limit for Representatives, and I've dropped both (that list was expanding unto infinity anyway, and so I've decided to trust in the laws of probability and the good sense of the American people instead).

Perhaps the most innovative aspect of the following is its establishment of a Fourth Estate, the ethics commissions.

At any rate, here is


A Populist Amendment


1. a. The President of the United States shall be elected in secret ballot by a majority of all adult citizens in the United States, but if no candidate receive such majority vote, or if that majority is less than ten percent greater than the next highest candidate percentage, or if the Presidential office be vacated through resignation, physical but not psychological or psychiatric incapacitation, conviction of a felony, impeachment, or removal for unethical behavior, then the President shall be appointed and serve as described below, the Vice President in such case serving as President pro tem.

b. The Governors of the several States and Territories shall be elected, or appointed and serve, similarly to the President.

c. Executives—President or Governors—permanent, temporary or acting shall recuse themselves from signing into law or vetoing any measure with regard to which there exists a personal, familial, social or financial conflict of interest, and any wilful and knowing non-recusal shall instantly disqualify for office, and be treated as the gravest of ethical violations necessitating removal from office, and further prosecuted as the highest-level felony, and upon prosecution and conviction punished even unto death and revocation of corporate charter and total confiscation of assets of all principal conspirators including organizations in the worst cases.

d. Executives shall have line-item veto power over legislative riders and bundled and omnibus bills.

e. The power of pardon, reprieve or commutation is hereby withdrawn from the Executives and given to the Houses of Representatives as described below.

2. a. The legislatures of the United States and of the several States and Territories thereof shall each consist of two Houses, a Senate in which each State or electoral district is given equal representation, and a House of Representatives in which each is given representation proportional to its population.

b. Senators shall be at least three-quarters of the modal (most frequent) lifespan in age, and shall each have served at least one full and honorable term as Representative, although Senators already serving at the time of ratification of this Amendment shall not be subject to these qualifications, and shall be elected in secret ballot by a majority of all adult citizens in their respective districts, but if no candidate receive such majority vote, or if that majority is less than ten percent greater than the next highest competitor, or if the Senatorial office be vacated through resignation, physical but not psychological or psychiatric incapacitation, conviction of a felony, impeachment, or removal for unethical behavior, then a Senator shall be appointed and serve as described below.

c. Representatives shall be selected on a yearly basis by random lottery from among the adult citizens of their respective electoral districts, and if the Representative office be vacated through resignation, physical but not psychological or psychiatric incapacitation, conviction of a felony, impeachment, or removal for unethical behavior, a new Representative shall be elected by random lottery in the ordinary way.

d. The House of Representatives may by a three-quarters vote of all Representatives and the consent of the Executive, or by a seventeen-twentieths vote of all Representatives alone, pass, modify or repeal any law—other than this Constitution and its Amendments—or treaty or court ruling.

e. All electoral and other political and legal including juridical and ethical districting shall be delimited by the respective House of Representatives.

f. The House of Representatives may appoint by a three-quarters vote of all Representatives or remove by a four-fifths vote of all Representatives the Vice Executive, Cabinet officers, department, agency, division or branch heads, or any inferior Executive branch managers it deems fit.

g. The House of Representatives, meeting in a committee of the whole convened specifically for that purpose, shall have power by a two-thirds vote of all Representatives to grant commutation, reprieve or pardon for any offense under the laws of their jurisdiction other than political-corruption or financial offenses or offenses prosecuted under authority of this Amendment.

h. If no candidate for Executive attain a majority vote of all adult citizens, or more than a ten percent majority greater than the next highest competitor, or if the Executive office be vacated through resignation, physical but not psychological or psychiatric incapacitation, disqualification, conviction of a felony, impeachment, or removal for unethical behavior, the respective House of Representatives shall appoint the new Executive from itself, to serve in consultation with and at the pleasure of that House, and a new Representative selected by lottery from the respective district to replace that appointed.

i. If no candidate for Senate attain a majority vote of all adult citizens, or more than a ten percent majority greater than the next highest competitor, or if the Senatorial office be vacated through resignation, physical but not psychological or psychiatric incapacitation, disqualification, conviction of a felony, impeachment, or removal for unethical behavior, the respective delegation from the respective State or Territory or district of the respective House of Representatives shall appoint that officer from itself, to serve in consultation with and at the pleasure of that delegation, and a new Representative selected by lottery from that respective district to replace that appointed.

j. Neither Executive nor Senate nor Judiciary shall have any power of appointment, censure or removal over Representatives.

k. All national treaties must be approved by the Federal House of Representatives, and any treaties adopted previous to the adoption of this Amendment may be repealed by a two-thirds vote of all Federal Representatives.

l. Legislators whether elected, selected or appointed shall recuse themselves from voting on any measure with regard to which there exists a personal, familial, social or financial conflict of interest, and any wilful and knowing non-recusal shall instantly disqualify for office, and be treated as the gravest of ethical violations necessitating removal from office, and further prosecuted as the highest-level felony, and upon prosecution and conviction punished even unto death and revocation of corporate charter and total confiscation of assets of all principal conspirators including organizations in the worst cases.

m. There shall be no legislative riders or bundled or omnibus bills, and any submission thereof shall be treated as an attempt to subvert the authority and duty of legislators and Executive alike, and any wilful and knowing violation of this prohibition shall instantly disqualify for office, and be treated as the gravest of ethical violations necessitating removal from office, and further prosecuted as the highest-level felony, and upon prosecution and conviction punished even unto death and revocation of corporate charter and total confiscation of assets of all principal conspirators including organizations in the worst cases.

n. The Senate may impeach officials and the House try such impeachments, in mirror order to the original process.

o. The Executive offices and all those of both Houses shall be staffed by the civil service, and Federal Senatorial and Representative home-district offices by the civil services of their respective States.

p. Both Houses of each legislature shall record and publish on the Internet the recordings and verbatim transcripts of their proceedings on a Federally-maintained, freely- and publicly-accessible, ordinarily-formatted (e.g., xhtml) Internet archive.

q. There shall be no franking of, nor any other executive or legislative sending or broadcasting of, unsolicited advertising, solicitations, messages, gifts, tokens or materials of any sort.

3. Every public oversight commission shall be selected on a yearly basis by random lottery from among the adult citizens of the electoral districts of the geographic region overseen by that commission.

4. Cities and towns and counties and parishes shall be governed by commissions selected on a yearly basis by random lottery from among their adult citizens.

5. a. All trials shall be passed on and if accepted referred to the respective courts by grand juries the jurors of which have been selected by random lottery from among the adult citizens of the respective juridical districts.

b. All trial facts, law, verdicts and sentences shall be found by jury selected by random lottery from among the adult citizens of the respective juridical districts.

c. All appeals at each appellate level up to and including the supreme shall be passed on and if accepted referred to the respective appellate courts by grand appellate juries the jurors of which have been selected by random lottery from among the adult citizens of the respective juridical districts.

d. All trial and appellate lawyers and judges shall be selected on a case-by-case basis by random lottery from the pool of lawyers attached to the respective and inferior courts, and any compensated intervention in such trials by other lawyers shall result in their instant disbarment, and further prosecuted as the highest-level felony, and upon prosecution and conviction punished even unto death and revocation of corporate charter and total confiscation of assets of all principal conspirators including organizations in the worst cases.

e. There shall be no administrative law courts.

6. a. The ethics of every Federal, State and Territorial executive department, agency, division and branch, and each House of every legislature, and every civil service, and every profession at the Federal and State or Territorial levels, and corporate behavior at the Federal and State or Territorial levels, and every securities exchange or market, shall be policed by a standing ethics committee the commissioners of which have been selected by random lottery on a yearly basis from among the adult citizens of the respective electoral districts of the respective geographic region, but no citizens of other countries shall be so commissioned.

b. Ethics commissioners shall recuse themselves from voting on any measure with regard to which there exists a personal, familial, social or financial conflict of interest, and any wilful and knowing non-recusal shall instantly disqualify for office, and be treated as the gravest of ethical violations necessitating removal from office, and further prosecuted as the highest-level felony, and upon prosecution and conviction punished even unto death and revocation of corporate charter and total confiscation of assets of all principal conspirators including organizations in the worst cases.

c. Ethics complaints shall be passed on by the respective standing ethics committee and if accepted by that committee referred to an ethics commission newly-randomly-selected to adjudicate that complaint.

d. Ethics commissions shall operate in public and observe due process.

e. Ethics commissions shall have full powers to demote, fire or expel as appropriate, except that in the case of a Federal, State or Territorial Executive the commission shall make its case to a committee of the whole of the respective popular House for approval of that decision by a three-fifths vote of all Representatives; reclaim pensions and benefits, and disqualify for further office or employment, wholly or in part; and publicly report their findings and decisions.

f. Appeals from ethics commission findings other than upon Executives may be made to the courts.

g. All ethics committee actions shall be reported to a central, Federally-maintained, freely- and publicly-accessible, ordinarily-formatted (e.g., xhtml) Internet archive.

h. Ethical complaints about ethics commissioners shall be made to a standing central ethics committeee the commissioners of which have been selected by random lottery on a yearly basis from among the adult citizens of the respective electoral district and which shall pass on such complaints and if accepting them referring them to ethics commissions newly-randomly-selected for those complaints.

i. Ethics commissions shall have full power to subpena individuals and evidence, without any bar of secrecy or confidentiality; to find in and jail for contempt; and to refer for criminal trial bypassing grand-jury review.

7. All randomly-selected officials referred to above—jurors, lawyers and commissioners—shall be compensated the same as Representatives, prorated on a daily basis, and with expenses.

8. Any wilful and knowing electoral or selective-lottery fraud or tampering, including false inclusion or exclusion of candidates or voters, and issuing of false information as to election-dates or poll-locations, and wilful refusal to provide adequate election materials and accurate machineries, and conspiracy thereunto, shall be prosecuted by the Federal government as the highest-level felony, and upon conviction punished even unto death and revocation of corporate charter and total confiscation of assets of all principal conspirators including organizations in the worst cases.

9. This Constitution may be amended by vote of a majority of adult citizens in each of three-quarters of the States or a majority vote of three-quarters of the adult citizens of the United States.


[Additions needed: Each act by trial/appellate and ethics jury and directive commission must be confirmed by a second randomly-selected jury/commission; union ethics commissions; protection for citizen data/privacy; protection for citizen communications; protection for ethical/criminal whistleblowers; protection for recording/filming/videoing public events and police actions; Madisonian legislative nonexemption; term limits; and campaign finance reform.]

Wednesday, October 05, 2011

Beyond Plutocracy and Its Two-Plutocratic-Party System:
A Strategy

The splendid US Day of Rage / Occupy Wall Street movement is generating and accumulating steam as Americans Right, Left and Center seem to finally be waking up to their own and their childrens' futures as ever more oppressed and degenerate slaves under a plutocracy and its "two" plutocratic "parties" ever more arrogant, rapacious, corrupt and brutal (as I have touched on here and here), but there is considerable diversity of ideas on how to proceed from protest to meaningful reform.

The original Adbusters' demand was for a Presidential Commission to study how to get the power of money out of American politics, but I believe this is a weak and doomed idea, made to order for plutocratic temporizing until the heat's off, and for plutocratic gaming in any case so that no new genuinely radical (that is, actually effective) reforms could possibly make it out of any such Commission.

US Day of Rage favors a Constitutional Convention to report out at the least an Amendment reversing the corporate plutocratic United States Supreme Court's Citizens United decision and also limiting campaign contributions, but I can hardly regard without a chill a Convention at this time, gamed as it must be by the plutocracy and its "two" plutocratic "parties", so that surely at the very least no new genuinely radical (that is, actually effective) reforms could possibly make it out of any such Convention, nor anything that will be anything other than favorable to the plutocracy and its "two" plutocratic "parties", and possibly much worse than that.

So what do I recommend instead of either Commission or Convention?

Publicly-discussed and grassroots-organization-adopted single Amendments, when coupled with campaigns demanding candidates for the US Congress support those Amendments as well as public debates and recorded votes on them in Congress, seem to me to be the most promising, best-controlled and safest way forward out of the present plutocratic abyss in our country.

What Amendments, then? is the question.

I submit that there should be at least two:

First, a populist Amendment returning control of government to the people, getting government and the laws back out of the hands of the plutocracy and its "two" plutocratic "parties".

And then second a specifically antiplutocratic Amendment, remedying the dismal failure of our Constitution to address plutocracy (as I have touched on here and here), as it does aristocracy and theocracy.

The various reform forces not tools of or hopelessly co-opted by the plutocracy and its "two" plutocratic "parties" (unlike, say, MoveOn.org and the "Tea Party") should therefore initially discuss and eventually settle on the details of and finally push for the candidate pledges and votes for adoption of that first, populist Amendment.

I've already indicated a couple of ideas for such populist Amendment, and will shortly post a relatively complex rough draft of such, for such discussion.


Keywords: Amendments, Anonymous, aristocracy, Constitution, democracy, Occupy Wall Street, pledges, plutocracy, populism, theocracy, two-plutocratic-party system, US Day of Rage, Wikileaks

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

The World Struggle in Petto:
Cochabamba

The Bolivian government, under pressure from the World Bank to privatize water utilities, contracted with Aguas del Tunari, the major shareholder of which is Bechtel subsidiary International Water Ltd., to run the water system of Cochabamba, a water-starved region in central Bolivia. At the time, Cochabamba was served by an old and decaying system that did not reach areas of the countryside where many peasants lived. Aguas del Tunari, when it took over the system, raised rates, to up to three times what they had been, and began charging peasants for water they drew from their own wells. The government, in compliance with its contract with the company, passed a law that prohibited people from collecting water from local lagoons, rivers, and deltas, and even rainwater. The company confiscated people's alternative water systems, without compensation, and placed them under its control. All of these actions, including the rate increases—which imposed severe hardship on many—were justified by the company as necessary to meet contractually mandated profit levels.

People organized in the city and in the countryside, and demanded that the company leave, which it did, eventually, but only after bloody confrontations between citizens and the police and military.

The water corporation was deprivatized and returned to the people of Cochabamba. The nonprofit corporation, with a board of directors composed of local officials and representatives from unions and professional associations, is "not only transparent, but more just, more efficient, and encouraging of participation of the people in the solution to their problems."

Joel Bakan, The Corporation (2004)


Keywords: arrogance, brutality, Bechtel Corporation, corporations, corporocracy, corruption, democracy, deprivatization, directors, plutocracy, privatization, rapacity, republic, World Bank

Corporations Should Either Be Publicly Directed Or Lose Their Shareholder Liability-Limitation

Corporations have existed for some centuries, although very limited in numbers, purposes and durations until the nineteenth century (indeed, at the time of the US Declaration of Independence in 1776, they had been outlawed in Britain for half a century, under the Bubble Act), and one of the new advantages given to corporations toward the end of that century was limitation of liability of shareholders for corporate debt:

In other words, instead of shareholders being treated as partners each of which was liable for all corporate debt, shareholders' liabilities were limited by GOVERNMENT REGULATION to amounts corresponding to their shareholdings.

But the arrogance, the rapacity, the corruption and the brutality of the present-day corporocracy, American and global, makes it critical that these INSTITUTIONS be reined in.

And one way of doing this is giving corporations a choice:

Either their boards of directors are selected by random lottery on a yearly basis from among the citizens of the countries in which they do business, or they lose shareholder liability-limitation.


Keywords: arrogance, brutality, Bubble Act, corporations, corporocracy, corruption, deregulation, directors, liability, plutocracy, privatization, rapacity, shareholders

Thursday, September 01, 2011

Don't Fall for It Again:
An Open Letter to Jim Gilchrist and His Minuteman Project

Over and over and over again we see it:

When "either" Party is "out", it makes populist noises, such as pretending that if they're put back "in" they'll stem the flow of illegal immigrant labor that their owners whom they represent so desire.

But whether "in" or "out", "both" "Parties" represent only their owners and themselves:

Beyond Plutocracy and Its Two-Plutocratic-Party System
American working people have suffered attack after attack over the last several decades, "out-sourcing" of manufacturing jobs to countries where the workers are even more oppressed (we both probably remember when "conservatives" hated "Communist" China—"Communist" in quotes, since a hereditary absolute ruling party is neither Marxist nor Communist, and it's instructive how easily the "New Class" of the old Soviet Union slid and that of "Communist" China is sliding into good old-fashioned plutocrats somehow owning everything that used to be supposedly owned by the people)(Solzhenitsyn was firing up about that when he died); importation of illegal immigrant labor to take the lowest-level service jobs at levels of pay and benefits that Americans balk at, thus kicking out the underpinning of the wage-scale; and bubble after bubble run against the economy, even in food (what's a little malnutrition or starvation if someone can make a little money causing it?), climaxed by the Oil Bubble of 2006-8, which quite deliberately wrecked the economy of the world, in the greatest economic attack and act of war and war-crime and crime against humanity ever:

IMTOB

But please, please, please, in your admirable efforts on just one front against this plutocratic war against America and its people and land, don't fall for the "good Party/bad Party" BS the American plutocratic two-plutocratic-party-system flacks and thugs and media dish out:

The politicians and professionals of "both" "Parties" are the relentless and merciless and completely dishonest enemies of you and me and everyone else except their owners and themselves.

John Kennard

PS: The so-called "Libertarian" Party is even worse; when it comes to money, especially Big Money, they run with the plutocrats EVERY time.


Keywords: commodity speculation, Columbia University, Communism, "Communist" China, food bubbles, illegal immigrant labor, Jim Gilchrist, Marx, Milovan Djilas, Minuteman Project, "New Class", Oil Bubble, out-sourcing, plutocracy, Russia, Soviet Union, two-plutocratic-party system

Thursday, August 18, 2011

American Holodomor

In 1932-33, 6-7 MILLION Ukrainians starved to death as grain was taken from them by the Soviet government, in a brutal campaign of near-genocide intended to help finance the Stalinist Soviet war-economy and to break the Ukrainian peasantry and Ukrainian nationalism, a campaign called the "Holodomor".

From 2006 to 2008, the global plutocracy launched an economic attack on the world, the Oil Bubble of 2006-8, which deliberately wrecked the economy of the world, in an act of war against the world, a war-crime against the world, and a crime against all humanity.

Great suffering and misery have ensued from then down to now from that wrecking of the global economy, even as the perpetrators of that attack not only go free, uninvestigated and unprosecuted, but even have received government "bailouts" as their front-businesses have themselves suffered from the economic devastation, and of course have busily been snapping up all sorts of corporate bargains amid the rubble, so that the wealthiest of the world have come out of all of this wealthier than ever before, both absolutely and relatively, and with greater concentrations of wealth and ownership than ever before, in the Great Leap Forward for global plutocracy that all of this was intended to be all along.

As a direct result of this plutocratic attack on the world, a greater proportion of Americans are on food-relief ("food-stamps", although usually nowadays an Electronic Benefit Card is used) than ever before: 1 in 7. 46 MILLION Americans. About half of whom are children.

(While the American Obama Administration claims that food-relief is an "economic stimulus".)

And now over the last year there has been a roughly 50% increase in food-prices in the United States, with no corresponding increase in food-benefits, which means a 33% decrease in nutrition from those benefits.

A ONE-THIRD DROP IN NUTRITION for 46 MILLION AMERICANS, including 23 MILLION AMERICAN CHILDREN.

And guess what? in the Great Debate over what passes in Washington, DC, for "economics" a couple of weeks ago, none of this played any role at all.

You see, the owners of America, and their two-plutocratic-party system flacks and thugs, aren't in any danger of malnutrition, nor are their children facing any Brave-New-World-style mental blunting from malnutrition.

And that's who the two-plutocratic-party system represents:

Their owners and themselves.


Keywords: aristocracy, corruption, democracy, Harvest of Sorrow, Holodomor, legislature, plutocracy, pseudodemocracy, republic, Soviet Union, Stalin, two-plutocratic-party system, United States of America