Bad genes and genetic mutations;

In genetics there are mutations that are recessive, whether or not they assist or detract from survival. One of the arguments that obfuscated the Darwinian status of Hitler's Super-Race was the observation that both Blue Eyes AND Blond Hair are recessive genetic traits. In fact, I have heard that statistically, Red Hair may "go under" soon. In that context, I would like to talk about two separate tendencies that have been demonstrated as having genetic components. I'll ask if they might be recessive or dominant, and in either case how they have influenced Evolution. A dominant gene of a dis-advantageous trait should impede proliferation, under the theory of natural selection, while a recessive gene of an advantageous trait might fail by evolutionary accident. The two behaviors I have under consideration are alcoholism and homosexuality. Alcoholism is a genetic trait that is dis-advantageous, and is not thought to have influenced evolution because alcohol itself has only recently become available. The genetic component is such, that IF you have the trait, you develop alcoholism with undue ease in person and undue frequency in populations. Despite the fact that a genetic pre-disposition changes ODDS, lacking the gene is no guarantee of exception to the rule: almost anyone can, "by dint of much effort," adapt his system to require alcohol for metabolism. After that, enforcing choice by intellect on the decision is to overcome a constant chronic injury. Under these conditions, I think it is worthwhile to ask if alcoholism is a dominant or recessive gene. I have left genetic homosexuality to be last, not least, for context. Does the genetic predisposition eventuate the practice? Are all practitioners subject to the gene? Is it a dominant or recessive trait? On the off chance it is BOTH recessive and dis-advantageous (superficially by inhibiting reproduction,) how has it survived Evolutionarily? Is it possible, as Christians seem to demand, that any individual can exercise choice over it, despite genetic predisposition or other acquisition of the trait?

Homosexuality and Marriage;

My personal views on homosexuality are that, just as Calvinist Christianity is characterized as "schizophrenia," homosexuality can be regarded as self destructive behavior." That may be just as rude as calling a sucking habit "oral fixation," but it does not mean that it is untrue. Self destructive behavior is not illegal, but it is perhaps a bad thing to codify in association to marriage. Freud himself had an oral fixation, but was not a homophobe. In fact some might argue he was a "homophiliac" or "heterophobe."

The above went missing from this blog or its parent without explanation. As the military moves to extend the "Don't ask, don't tell," rule to those who are out of the closet, I would suggest that a soldier doesn't voluntarily self-destruct, and no self respecting soldier would brag about self destructing. However, my theory that it is self destructive is not testable.

Banking as more than APR income;

The reserve ratio in the Banking industry is the ratio between the amount of capital that a bank must have on hand and the amount of money it can lend. China has changed the reserve ratio to control the money supply instead of depending solely on changing the Prime rate.

Since the reserve ratio is as low as 10% or lower, consider starting a Bank as a money making proposition. I could start with $100, and promptly loan out $1000. At a 6% return, would make %60 in the first year. This means that my venture would pay back more than half in the first year, and 3 times over after the first 5 years. If I could borrow at Prime rate, and loan at 25%, profits should be excellent.

To prevent a run on the banks, you could argue that they should maintain the reserve ratio in cash at the bank. This would ensure cash circulation and ensure public confidence in Banking as a whole. If a bank's assets fall below the reserve ratio, this indicates a Greed that may not be properly suited to the rational economic system.

Note: Cash is the bane of the DEA's existence. There are people who argue that a cashless system would solve that problem without consequence. I argue that I could not spend a digital token during a power blackout. I need something I can hold in my hand.

How to detect a faulty election;

Recently Texas' Republican Primary featured three potential Republican candidates: Rick Perry, Kay Hutchison and Debrah Medina.

The polls predicted that Medina would play spoiler, with a runoff election later between Rick Perry and Kay Hutchison. To my surprise, Rick Perry won with 51%. I don't know if this was within the margin of error of the Polls. Conspiracy theorists can cry foul: either the winner or an outside influence "fixed" the election.

Iraq had a recent election too. It is more subject to accusations of tampering than Texas. To ratify the election a statistical study with a statistically significant sample size that is truly random, should yield results that agree with the vote - again with a small margin of error. If differences are statistically significant, then the election should be ruled invalid and re-done. This is only theoretical, because of secret ballot provisions. If only volunteers are polled, the sample cannot be random. However, since 30 -120 is a statistically large sample for one variable, statistics ARE worthwhile.

I don't seriously think Texas' election was fixed, but we could profit from more Scantron ballots, and a paper trail for early voting. Iraq could profit from hand held counter clickers for the ballot counters.

If we go to electronic voting, we should do so in context of a discussion of Direct Democracy, and bear in mind that shipping a 12 B_illion count ballot box around the internet with utter electronic security fails to accomplish the goal.

Post Script: Another application of the statistical study of votes is that of the extant batch of ballots. A random study of ballots should agree with the total count. If it does not, the count is faulty.

Deficit spending or highway robbery?

I personally haven't had anything original AND substantive to report since June 09, hence a long silence. Here goes nuthin :-)

The 2010 Obama Federal Budget projects 1.3 T_rillion in pure deficit. The DEBT now exceeds 12 T_rillion. I did the following on my calculator:

1.3 [exp] 12 / 300 [exp] 6 =

It faithfully blinked back 5000, informing me that 536 Washington Politicians are borrowing $5,000, for each and every man, woman and child living in the country, above and beyond that which we payed them in taxes for ONE YEAR to successfully Govern us!

Friends: That's not government, it's TELEVANGELISM!
CAVEAT\Warning: Obama's not crying too much about it, but he inherited a lot of obligations from a lame duck Bush. Anybody care to tell me where to look to see a W. deficit report?

What influences certain movies to "get made?"

Screenwriters pour heart and soul into their product.
The market "demands," offerings with mercurial predictability.

The task of the studio appears to answer:

1. What is the market asking for?
2. What screenplay answers this demand?
3. Does this meet my studio agenda?

No individual controls the system, but these three appear to be the Triumvirate of movie making; variously Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches of Hollywood.

Principle of a hash explicated;

To understand the principle of a hash, consider taking a Bible or a Quaran and, from start to finish, collecting only the 3rd letter of every word three letters long or longer.

It should be expected that every time you perform this operation you will get the same characteristic grouping of letters. The same operation on another copy of the same book will give the same value, but you could choose Forbes magazine for your source instead.

Reversing a hash is comparable to taking just the hash file and a dictionary and attempting to recreate the original volume without hints or clues. It is more legitimately illustrated by limiting the input to one page, and including all Forbes magazines of all months ever issued as potential sources.

Good hashes have been devised that yield specific lengths exactly - MD5 yields exactly 128 bits or 16 ASCII characters.

An example of a use for a hash is in ATM pin numbers. When you enter your pin at the Point of Sale device, instead of sending the PIN value, a good banker hashes it before transmitting. If the hash matches the hash in the database, your pin is good.

The reason this is an improvement on encryption is that if the bank's table is compromised, a hash table does not yield a list of valid pins with account numbers.

A mode of communication;

We have many means of communication, and many mediums. We also have much to say. This blog provides for anonymous moderated comment, for example.

I am referring to persuasive speech when I use the word "mode." The method I am fumbling into words is one I first observed in "The Da Vinci Code." The fiction lays claim to so many inaccuracies from trivia to epic catalog that books have been written in commentary.

The point is this. If you can monologue an audience long enough that your mistakes can no longer be addressed in dignified order, you may (in the end) say anything you wish without credible rebuttal.

I have no name for this mode of communication, but I cite another example here. I also see this mode of communication commonly in political commentary on television.

What is a Democratic Republic;

"The Democratic People's Republic of fill-in-the-blank (Congo for example,)" appeals to all that is noblest and best in philosophies of Government.

Of the two, the Democracy of Athens is better understood than the Republic of Rome.

An Athenian could be part of a number of ecclesias, a Church a gang or a club, but entered upon (direct) Democracy only in the city gates. From recorded oratory of Socrates and Aristotle, sanity was not guaranteed... it was occasionally an oratocracy.

By contrast Plato's Republic represented all classes of society hierarchically, but not necessarily proportionately (or fairly?) To add to the confusion there was no written "Constitution," until 1786 for which the US may be justifiably proud.

Despite flaws and weaknesses, historically the tortured wheels of justice turned farther in Republics than Democracies, Kingdoms or Communes. Look no farther than Socrates' trial.

A glance at Latin Proverbs of Philosophy and Government will show that Italian Latins left many warnings behind as their civilization fell, trade ships leaving Rome empty without exception.

Here is a list, I recommend Plato, Cicero, Horace and even Juvenal.

Positive law is not addressed directly by Democracy; In a Republic the highest of the high is "under law." Positive law depends on manipulation and subversion of choice by a benevolent tyrant, and fails upon his death - see 'The education of Cyrus,' by Xenophon.

From these historic foundations I have always chosen the GOP to defend the constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. These are embarrassing times to be Republican. The party has strayed. It needs to return to the fundamentals of Republic; America under God and under law, with liberty and justice for all.

There are no words;

An entry for which there are no words? Shouldn't it be blank? This entry is a call to greater articulation. Poe wrote "I have never had a thought which I could not set down in words with even more distinctness than that which I conceived it..." Tales Of Mystery and Imagination by Alan Parson's Project.

To say, "There are no words," is either to draw back from the horror of fresh injury or to simply refuse to exert the effort, depending on your vantage point in space and time.

For those for whom "there are no words..."
"You cannot imagine;" your imagination is too lazy.
"You cannot understand;" put it into words, I will attend.
"You have no idea;" globalism is based on shared ideas. Share your idea.
"You don't know;" is that such a good thing? Teach me!

There are no words? Will you attempt to write them now, or grope for them years from now when they are lost in the sands of time?

There are no words... my words are too harsh for your innocence, too rough for your tender sensibilities, too weathered for your sheltered reality.

If there truly "are no words," then I am sorry, because you are lonely for a confidant who can share them with you. I have been lonely too; I grieve your loss. I too once said, "there are no words!"

An analysis of Blowfish cribbed from 'Pengo.'

An explanation of why I believe in the Blowfish algorithm (minted by Bruce Schneier in 1995.)

Blowfish is a Feistel network. I would like to begin with a discussion of a much simpler Feistel network, older and better investigated. Having talked about it, I will note how similarities between Vigenere and Blowfish give me confidence that Blowfish is reliable.

I first learned Vigenere as a lossy version, but later learned a lossless implementation in 'The Code Book,' by Simon Singh. I wrote an implementation of the lossless kind in GFA BASIC on an Atari 520ST, around 1995. I used it in the following manner to conclude that Vigenere is not a 'group.'

I made a message of 6 E's. I used looping to build a file containing 6 character key space of cryptograms of 'eeeeee,' exhaustively - IE; the file comprised a table of all possible encryptions of the 'eeeeee' message with a six character password.

I then used my knowledge (acquired by experimentation,) that double encrypting with Vigenere results in the unicity distance spreading entropy over the product of the prime factors of the key lengths. IE; a two character password and a three character password give a six character repeating pattern if you run all e's through the Turing Machine. However, a 10 char password and a 6 char password would yield a 5 x 2 x 3 = 30 char unicity distance.

I then searched the "cryptogram space" file, for the resulting 6 char string and found that it was mathematically absent. I was intuitively dismayed that a pattern similar to the naked human eye was present, brought to my attention by a portion matching my 1 step cryptogram, and the remainder matching the first chars of the next entry in the 2 step file. I am not completely sure what to make of this.

I'll now denote that Vigenere is cryptanalyzed by lining up the message in rows of unicity distance length, and performing statistical analysis on the resulting 'Rogue's Gallery' of substitution ciphers. To summarize, Vigenere is a set f(x) such that f(x) yields q and f(q) yields k, but there exists no value 'g' such that f(g) yields k.

By comparison, Blowfish is a Feistel network in not 2, but 16 rounds. The most important question I can ask about Blowfish is, If f(x) yields f'(x) and f'(x) yields f2(x) ... f15(x) yields f16(x) (badly noted, but asking for human understanding,) IS THERE a (or some,) Y such that f(y) yields f16(x). If there is not, we can argue that Blowfish is not a group, leaving us to wonder if there is even an analog of statistical analysis that can be employed on some binary rogues gallery to cryptanalyze it?

Under those conditions, things would still be difficult for cryptanalysis because the implementation with which I am familiar does not neglect aggressive compression before encryption, as an efficiency measure. Goodbye statistical characteristics.

To compound the difficulties, experimentation on the resulting block cipher does the following;a string of e's yields an apparent substitution simplicity. Introduce exactly 1 q in the 'stream,' of e's and observe that (specifically in the 56 bit implementation,) the resulting entropy cascades over three characters. I suppose that means three blocks, leaving me mystified as to how it actually decrypts. The relevant conclusion is that comparing letter pairs really doesn't get me anywhere with it either.

I have a cognitive dissonance that results from asking 'what is the unicity distance of (a block cipher) Blowfish.' I blindly trust the current AES as a black box because it is no longer new. The implementation I use has a random number generator written by 'some Polack.' Since NSA tried to sabotage AES, I infer they can't really break it conveniently.

In closing, please note that Blowfish derivative, TwoFish, is now an AES candidate with NIST.

J. Swift on communication and veracity - why lie?

This is excerpted from Gulliver's Travels, Part IV, Chapter 4. Gulliver finds himself (a curious application of the active voice:-) in a land where the top of the food chain is occupied by the Equine species. Houyhnhnms are horses, and bipeds are Yahoos, with many Cretan characteristics.

MY MASTER heard me with great Appearances of Uneasiness in his Countenance, because Doubting, or not believing, are so little known in this Country, that the Inhabitants cannot tell how to behave themselves under such Circumstances. And I remember in frequent Discourses with my Master concerning the Nature of Manhood, in other Parts of the World, having occasion to talk of Lying, and false Representation, it was with much Difficulty that he comprehended what I meant, although he had otherwise a most acute Judgment. For he argued thus: That the Use of Speech was to make us understand one another, and to receive Information of Facts; now if anyone said the Thing which was not, these Ends were Defeated; because I cannot properly be said to understand him; and I am so far from receiving Information, that he leaves me worse than in Ignorance, for I am led to believe a Thing Black when it is White, and Short when it is Long. And these were all the Notions he had concerning that Faculty of Lying, so perfectly well understood among human Creatures.

Theories of Justice: An incomplete listing;

I spoke momentarily of "tit-for-tat," in absence of _any_other_ system or theory of Justice.

Perhaps an exhaustive list of my stock and store is as follows, but I do not suppose that T-for-T is the ONLY one.

1. The "dexterity test," whereby an individual is chosen (either elected or volunteer,) to cut the Pie. This individual is spurred to fair and equal subdivision by the knowledge, agreed upon before the first cut, that s/he will enjoy the last choice of slices.

2. The "reductio ad absurdum" analysis: Upon any deliberated action, the animator is asked to speculate (and finally justify his action-s-) by answering the question, "What if _everyone_ unilaterally did [x action,] because of same stimulus?"

3. The "reflexive introspection," lesson: An individual is disciplined, not by the deliberated punitive measure of an expert, but rather is acquainted with the consequences of his/her actions, and required to articulate, accountably, "What is a fair and just recompense of reward for that offense?" This is usually well assisted, by executing reductio ad absurdum on trite recommendations.

4. Last but not least, "Tit for Tat:" an individual is required to evaluate, "You did [x.] I have now done [x] to you. Can you improve outcomes if I reliably mirror your actions?" Since justice is the subject under discussion, a fair assessment of the language of the Jewish Jesus might be required. Mt 7:[12] "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them:..." & Lk 6:[31] "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."

The more common, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," is not available in the Bible. I cannot speak authoritatively about the Talmud. I avoid Mishnah, Hadith and I suppose that self consistency would indict some portion of the Christian Cannon by that logic. Please feel free to comment... I get them on email :-)

ABC News Cites Torture - A reaction;

Congress had a hearing that determined that America is not guilty of torture. If it is the first of its kind, I'd be surprised; it cannot be the last...

...for the following reason:

To lack the resolve to torture Internationally, is to invite mischief. A terrorist who is guaranteed ALL American privileges of citizenship at trial, including pain and suffering damages, (with mental anguish punitive phase,) repeats, Judicially, the offenses that must have precipitated the trial.

The A_theist C_ivil L_iberties U_nion took the position that what we did was misrepresented. "It was TORTURE," they say, "not NOT TORTURE!"

When asked if we had gone too far, Dick Cheney went on the record for "No, we didn't."

I'd rather face a terrorist in the street who had to satisfy Dick Cheney's yard-stick for "Too far in retribution to terrorism," than the ACLU's measuring stick for how well terrorists should be treated. In a mechanized system of true "tit for tat," (the atheist -and also Mathematical- way of talking about Judeo-Christian "an eye for an eye,") the terrorist could not prevail. Tit-for-tat, when slavishly followed plays to stale-mate so reliably that very few decisive outcomes need be feared. "Nothing's gonna happen."

Again, speaking Mathematically, tit-for-tat CAN BE decisively WON. However, in ALL cases (prove me wrong,) when faced with certain defeat, a tit-for-tat player may freely depart from the tit-for-tat strategy by anticipating defeat, and play to victory in a stunningly small number of moves, IF he is not mechanistically bound to following the tit-for-tat agreement.

The terrorist is not bound by law. As such, stripping him of the euthanistic quality of the death penalty, in the name of defeating ALL Martyrs, is wrong. I compensate by advocating reinstatement of Habeas Corpus, and embarrassing ALL the abusers who arrested people without ANY evidence unilaterally.

Again, torturing terrorists may be necessary as a deterrent, but I cannot advocate making it SOP. However, is it going too far, to take militarily self-destructive (non-leading,) "machines," and dedicating them to the sole purpose of deterrent? No human being alive cannot understand the regulating authority of the Colt Peacemaker.

Responsibility should not be laid upon those without authority. Given authority to act, the forceful animator _should_ be held accountable. The latitude he enjoys during the interim, should be commensurate to virtue of his _character_. Do we have equal political will to hold those responsible, who injured these enemies with such injustice that we are NEGLIGENT if we release them ALIVE? They certainly enjoyed latitude.

Power reliably corrupts. Absolute power has apparently corrupted even God. The argument to abuse is no argument against the proper use.

Psychology;

Psychology depends from a mathematical anchor, just like many other fields of analysis draw a mystical infallibility from Computer Programs.

Those proofs that depend from Correlation:

Correlation does not prove causality. The Tobacco industry can be relied upon to wake anew to the truth of it for many years to come. Despite this, Causality so commonly demonstrates correlation that true randomness is currently impossible for computer programs. If a phenomenon correlates to a statistical event or class of actions, then psychology commonly says that one causes the other, with specific qualifications.

Those proofs that depend from null hypothesis testing.

Take 72 nubile non-pubescent 10 - 11 year olds, and 72 17 - 18 years olds, and distribute them randomly into control and experimental groups. By all means, execute the selective process of female gender on the group so that the hypothesis (to follow,) may be rigorously verified by physical presence of the hymen. Then test the correct null hypothesis that PROVES "nubile non-pubescent individuals are virgins."

ANY corrections necessary to my methodology, indict the divine reliability of "Null-hypothesis testing."

Statistics itself depends on the correctness of the fundamental statement, "The Normal distribution applies." For example, why SHOULD the NORMAL distribution, rather than a Square, a Skewed, a Poussin or a Bi-modal distribution apply to the expected outcomes from repeatedly rolling 32 6-sided dice?

I am a math student to this day, and I revere what can be built syllogisticly from random sampling, once the correctly applicable distribution has been ascertained. The math is not at fault.

Those proofs that depend from analysis:

There remains the discussion of Freud and his progeny. Freud himself had many accusations that put his subject on the defensive. "You are Oedipal," "you are (latently) Homosexual," "you have unresolved guilt about Universal Masturbation," "you are Passive aggressive," "you haven't faced your self-flagellating self-loathing," or "you are Orally fixated," are several. IF I had an adequate definition for "oral fixation," I could authoritatively say that "Freud had an oral fixation." Until then, "...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." I can _prove_ I am not passive aggressive. I am overtly or aggressively aggressive. It's easier to be violent than to disprove the bland assertion that I am passively aggressive. I submit that, in large numbers, PhD Psychologists are "passively aggressive." They just don't noise it about.

Once a person is sufficiently on the defensive, the shrink reliably shows that this has the "Je ne sais quoi," of normality, and all problems proceed from childhood abuse. It's common enough they can't miss. Exceptions to the rule cover any exceptions to the rule. Once "normal," a person is responsible for paying the shrink while he labors to "break through," like a Scientologist being "clear." If a person is very logical, and learns to cope well, he can be released back into the wild, with only Chiropractic tune-ups thereafter.

A special exception is the Religiously convicted. If one has faith in God, it becomes a superstitious lability. Under these circumstances, "they," treat the patient like a willful Academic rival who may become violent. The rule is "Don't challenge the irrational (religious) fantasy," or he _will_ decompensate, become violent and lose all hope of coping with reality. All future interactions become subject to the definition of passive aggressive.

In closing, the TRULY ABUSED can be assisted in only one way: "What lie can I tell this patient so that he will permanently feel better?"

All real coping skills and assistance are rendered in this framework, or they commit you involuntarily.

Pychologists;

Made you look. The Jivaro adherents of the PhD community may thank a particularly abusive member of the tribe for scarring me in such a way that the next article becomes necessary to propagate. I have a "learned mistake," that calls them "Javiro," and me a man-eating lion that has tasted "Javiro" blood.

The motive arises out of ethnic hatred of them like Asian Indians. I do not attempt to injure individuals, but rather the underpinnings of the RICOH conspiracy entity that is Psychology.

I answer q's about the RICOH aspect below, and later. At this time, I hasten to put my reasoned attack on their underpinnings on the record in my next article, while it's red hot on my mind.

Now that THAT unpleasantness is out of the way, we may return to a discussion of WHY I hate them as a class of persons who have taken up Academic arms against me.

First, please ascertain the recidivism rate of rapists. (near 100%.)
Now, please ascertain what is the likelyhood of a normal abused child to "re-"offend. (near 100% - beaking the cycle isn't _natural_; it requires an evolved outlook.)

With these statistics firmly established (in memory if not "for the record,") let us proceed to an experiment.

Choose an absolutely 100% INNOCENT of-age male control. Select a convicted (male) felon as another control. Select an of-age child abuse "victim," who also raped his sister at a young (juvenile - not "of age") age. Select three middle schools in (select a valid US State.) Send each of the subjects by random order to a middle school between 10:30 and 12:30, 12:30 and 2:30 and 2:30 and 4:30 respectively. The subject is instructed to ask a single random schoolgirl subject to availability, "Can you get your teacher another piece of chalk?" Then, regardless of the response, conclude the interaction as normally as possible and leave.

Follow this hard on by an anonymous communication to authorities at the Texas Child Protective Services to the effect, "Mr. [x] was [here], speaking to an under age child."

Q: For a reality check, where does the TCPS stop being negligent?
a) When they notify the school in question by US Post.
b) When they notify the institution, administration and staff.
c) When they notify the parents of the juvenile in question.
d) Are the parents negligent when they fail to notify friends and local loved ones, including Church members?

My forgiving sister had a shrink. I call her "Isis."

A picture of me, making a POLITICAL mistake;

Washington D.C. is historic for employing the hub and spoke method of minimizing the mean transit time for ALL packages. Before the plans for District of Columbia were laid out, St. Petersberg (Southeast of Murmansk,) Russia, and Amsterdam, Holland were the only beneficiaries of the historic mathematical economy. The outermost ring is called the "beltway," and it personifies an abstract philosophical divide, abbreviated "Outside the Beltway."

In rural America, when a railroad crossing is not arranged as an underpass or an overpass, the side of town that has to wait for trains to pass in order to gain access to commerce is less desirable. This is abbreviated, "the wrong side of the tracks," and I herein submit that being from "outside the beltway," amounts politically to being from "the wrong side of the tracks."

I have offended reliably and in enduring ways as follows: I employed a politically flawed algorithm. This is as profound a failing as attempting to mechanize or automate the acquisition of a date, and I have no individual whose car I may wash, or to whom I may present a bouquet of flowers in apology. Upon favorable receipt, I could not expect to present the results at a bank for consideration, any more than a young lady's favor advantages me at a coffee shop.

Whatever colorful language you attribute to my estate, it gives me "nothing to lose," politically, but also no possible means of gain or political advancement. I estimate that only God's rebuke to my comment that "It is impossible to rehabilitate me," can overcome the odds.

My mistake is documented here. Learn if possible. The chick's ain't diggin' it!

Step 1. Have idea.
Step 2. Reason that a good idea stands on it's own merit. Bypass early resistance by simply shopping it around indiscriminately.
Step 3. Present it US mail to an aide in an office, mistakenly believing that Senators, Congressmen and important people in general, read their own correspondence.
Step 4. After an imagined adequate latency, document in a publicly available way that you submitted the suggestion: I have posted letters verbatim.

Step 4 offends with certainty and finality, for one of two reasons.
a) The idea "was not followed up on," and the good idea indicts the system for ignoring it.
b) The idea _WAS_ followed up on, but attributions are such that the letter embarrasses un-named co-conspirators. Under these conditions even genuine gratitude that an idea could not be killed in historical timing (simply by a fight over credit,) does not adequately reimburse the political lackey who took the hit.

I believe that the varying degrees of passion and sincerity with which I am disliked or hated do NOT bely the universality of it. I fail in the end to gratify "them," with bitterness if possible, and seek my own avenue to redemption. God Bless America, God help me :-)

DVR - 20/20 Gun Control

Without preamble, my promised analysis of 20/20's Gun Control episode cannot be informed by Television. The DVR that displayed a "splash," screen when I awoke around 0545 hrs is (to borrow German,) "kaput." If it had even shown a commercial since, I could invest in a theory that the Russians were targeting me for starting rumors that the Russian Mafia poisons agreements with the Triad!

Instead I must profess that a technician is promised for a Sunday afternoon... a likely story, I'll admit, but there's no charge.

Since my article cannot be informed by the 20/20 News Magazine, I pose q's upon which I had intended to take notes, and leave the well roundness of my article to hazard its own risk, as the Television Producer surely must have done when he began his own pioneering documentation.

I CAN inform the compilation from facts: please proclaim the victor of the well roundedness competition fairly, and may the best investigator win.

I reconstruct lost notes from memory.

Machiavelli was a Hawk. His stated motive for his treatise was that the Prince should wage war on Lomabardy and Tuscany. While this may not comprise the totality of his motive, it was certainly more than pretext... he intended advantage to the Principality where he resided (Chapter 26.) As such, he should be regarded as incentivized to represent arms to their best advantage in turn.

The Prince did not take his advice. As I recall, his name can still be established, but Machiavelli lives on in greater infamous notoriety.

Memory doesn't serve to cite a place wherein Machiavelli addressed resolve, or its necessity as a deterrent to Conquistadors. In my experience, most people determine the import and weight that should be given to a point, by the time a speaker spends on it, and the number of repetitions he allots it. My rhetoric isn't up to it, go figure. Resolve.

Chapter 6 of The Prince addresses "New Principalities acquired by one's own arms." Chapter 7 addresses "New Principalities acquired by the arms of others (or by good fortune.)" Independently noted is the comment,

"We have seen above how necessary it is for a prince to have his foundations well laid, otherwise it follows of necessity he will go to ruin. The chief foundations of all states, new as well as old or composite, are good laws and good arms; and as there cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed, it follows that where they are well armed they have good laws. I shall leave the laws out of the discussion and shall speak of the arms."

In another place he asserts opinion that should offer insight to the Machiavellian Hawk:

"Therefore, as I have said, a new prince in a new principality has always distributed arms. Histories are full of examples. But when a prince acquires a new state, which he adds as a province to his old one, then it is necessary to disarm the men of that state, except those who have been his adherents in acquiring it; and these again, with time and opportunity, should be rendered soft and effeminate; and matters should be managed in such a way that all the armed men in the state shall be your own soldiers who in your old state were living near you."

I'm not restricting myself solely to "Big M," but he said much of substance. He closes his book with the observation that,

"With us there is great justice, because that war is just which is necessary, and arms are hallowed when there is no other hope but in them."

...arms are only hallowed when taken up for the cause of Justice, albeit allowing for a certain moral flexibility in determining the _reason_ the war in question is "Just." Instead of calling the historic author an imbecile, I affirm he was correct about the consecrating power of Justice. In history, was Rome's conquest Just? What of the Crusades? Contrast this with USA's shared motive with India, for repulsing the British. Can Al Quaida appeal to Justice? What about Bush 41 in Kuwait?

Hmmm... I perceive I am rationalizing War, not discussing Gun Control. He was a _persuasive_ Hawk, how did he ever fail? [If stopping War is the motive and reason of the Gun Control argument, please amend the Constitution to omit "...to provide for the common defense," NOT the 2nd Article of the Bill of Rights.]

The murder rate in the US of A is higher than anywhere else. I don't know what "per capita" numbers actually mean - they are ALWAYS fractional, but ours are higher than anywhere else. [I will attempt to end with an argument that appeals to logical expedient, and aver BOTH human interest/emotional appeal AND Exigencies of State.] Launching ALL firearms available Globally to Jupiter WILL not STOP MURDER. Given the extreme emotional disturbance that makes me forget the difference between right and wrong, I can murder with my bare hands, I don't need a sidearm.

Syllogistically:

IF murder is the reason we are doing [x],

THEN doing [x] should be sufficient to end all murder,

...or the whole syllogism fails the test of tautology. I think we can agree that sending ALL arms to Jupiter cannot be done (for whatever expedient reason.)

Clearly an open mind needs the conversation to say more... I have suggested War and Murder rate as two motives for Gun control. Did 20/20 suggest others?

Law Enforcement is a reason for Gun ownership that supersedes even 2nd Amendment discussions.

Historically, England never armed the populace. English Bobbies carried the legendary Bobby stick, and without fear for their lives, hailed the fleeing criminal, "Stop, in the name of the LAW!" This differs from the traditional Continental "Stop, or I'll SHOOT!" by the following contrast. Who says "Stop, or I'll... say STOP again!"

Harking back to M., the comment to the effect "new regimes arm the populace while old regimes _dis_arm them suggests a syllogism compiled from the statement:

If the regime disarms me, it must be old, whereas if it arms me it must be new.

The actual contra-positive should go like this:

Old Regimes disarm, and I am being disarmed, therefore the regime cannot be new. To the logician, reality must allow: President Obama is "New" regime... he cannot qualify as an old one. Therefore he is not the actual source of my disarmament.

IF I _am_ being disarmed, no NEW regime can be at fault. Rather, of all available possibilities, I must regard extant OLD regimes as valid candidates. The rest of the discussion turns upon the definition of a "regime." I fail to define the territory of debate, but definition of terms reliably portends the victor of its annexation. I move on with this parting observation: Schools of thought can have regimes.

Machiavelli's language may not be sufficiently rigorous for the whole exercise, it might suggest that "If I am being disarmed, the Principality is a province being added to an older one," instead. Please simply learn what may be learned.

An example of a Country that was armed and then disarmed is Maoist China. The revolution was violent, sudden and over. The Maoist revolt of 1990 Nepal proved that firearms do not monopolize violence. It was a machete rebellion.

Reiterating, England never armed the populace. A frontier country that disarmed is Australia. We could profitably check with them how the pilot program is going... are the Kangaroos and Hyena's cooperating? How about the 5ts, and organized crime? Canada had a frontier tradition that is no longer evident... maybe they can shed light on disarmament; I've always heard it said that they looked to the South for National Security. Trite or not, how true is it?

I'll put the heart and soul of my standpoint here, just before my concluding comments. This is the environment into which the 20/20 presentation would have been poured. IF we make Gun Ownership ILLEGAL, we merely reserve the RIGHT to carry to those not otherwise bound by law. Predicating law on a jaundiced view of the alternative, is to fall to the failing addressed by the Latin Proverb:

"Abusus non tollit usum."

Translation: "Abuse is no argument against proper use", legal phrase meaning that just because something can be abused there is no reason for putting an end to its legitimate use.

If the days of Imperial Conquest are over and gone, the days of leveling such accusations against Superpowers are not. An available overcompensation is to disarm everyone (in violation of the Bill of Rights.) I am not prepared to say that Hegemonic motives are reserved to those whose grasp might reasonably attain it.

Meanwhile, I feel like I've launched out (in the above commentary,) and answered suggestions that were never made. Anybody care to share a copy of the 20/20 episode in question?

The University of Congress: De-credential me;

My local University provides a Curriculum that brings students up to speed in a discipline in 4 yrs. To do so, students take 4 or 5 subjects a semester. The County Community College District also provides degrees; two year degrees in their case. These accredit one with an Associate's Degree.

My question is this: Of all the Congressional PhD's conferred since 1786, whose Thesis was the best?

Juvenal's question is: How many extensions can I get? [He likes spending the stipend for weekend partying... he arrived independently wealthy.]

Some sources are so suspect they discredit content;

Marx is an example:

Wikipedia quote:

Together these compose the mode of production, and Marx distinguished historical eras in terms of distinct modes of production. For example, he observed that European societies had progressed from a feudal mode of production to a capitalist mode of production. Marx believed that under capitalism, the means of production change more rapidly than the relations of production (for example, we develop a new technology, such as the Internet, and only later do we develop laws to regulate that technology). Marx regarded this mismatch between (economic) base and (social) superstructure as a major source of social disruption and conflict.

I search "reg" on page. This bears on my discussion of Pareto perfect systems subject to abuse. I estimate that we SHOULD still develop them. What do YOU think?