Token

Token
Birthday
December 31
Title
Rex Der Hause
Company
Ministry of Truth
Bio
and you will stop. don't MAKE IT HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!! let it grow This the faith my Father taught me - and my Father in LAW taght my mate. So let it be written. So let it be done.... otherwise..... Hurry along you don't want to be LATE Butt.. Buttt.. I"M not going anywhere.... and NEITHER are YOU oh....sillyme, NO , not late in the sense of your silly temporal sytem which doesn't even allow me to show my true age.. Late as in the LATE MR DENT I men LATE in it's TRUE sence, you know DEAD..... Bit of THREAT actually come to think of it..... silly things to use to try to control a warrior priest, so I forget sometimes that it actually works on some Humans

Token's Links

Salon.com
MARCH 29, 2012 10:45AM

A Systems Analysis of the Justice System

Rate: 10 Flag

 

 

Systems analysis is the study of sets of interacting entities, including computer systems analysis. This field is closely related to requirements analysis or operations research. It is also "an explicit formal inquiry carried out to help someone (referred to as the decision maker) identify a better course of action and make a better decision than he might otherwise have made."[1]

The terms analysis and synthesis come from Greek where they mean respectively "to take apart" and "to put together". These terms are in scientific disciplines from mathematics and logic to economics and psychology to denote similar investigative procedures. Analysis is defined as the procedure by which we break down an intellectual or substantial whole into parts. Synthesis is defined as the procedure by which we combine separate elements or components in order to form a coherent whole.[2] Systems analysis researchers apply methodology to the analysis of systems involved to form an overall picture. System analysis is used in every field where there is a work of developing something. Analysis can also be defined as a series of components that perform organic function together

Wikipedia.

 

I've just set out to type this morning, not really sure where it's going – you're welcome to come along and “Critique”.

Two things happened last evening, that set me in the mood to analyze our Justice system.

I am “christian” only by the courtesy of those members of the church I attend, who haven't called me out on it yet. But, I was raised in a Methodist congregation, I now belong to a Methodist congregation, so I pass for Moreorlessa Methodist. ( and that in itself is kind of a “Methodist” thing)

In actuality, I am a member of a strong community of faith, that just uses the term “methodist” as a kind of “Token” bookmark for where to look for us. ( Like your “address” is a starting point to look for you. ) As a community, we believe in the love of the universe, and the Justice of all things. When someone gets out the “Methodist” “Rulebook” and cries “Foul” we tend to pay enough attention to the person to unruffle feathers ( much like calming a crying and frightened child) and then those of us who were doing what we were doing in pursuit of the doctrine of “God as Love” go back to doing what we were doing. I admit, this does tend to ruffle and frighten some of the “younger” members, but the elders have a pretty good grasp of the situation. We tend and teach our children. We believe in US.

If you still need a rule book, you don't know what you're doing. If you still need things “put into words” you don't understand what you are feeling. We all (the elders) know what we mean when we use the term “Justice”. It is like unto the terms “Peace”, and “Harmony”, “balanced” and “Fair”

And, of course, “Maybe some day you'll join us, and the world can live as one” (Just Imagine)

Which, we further understand, is nonsense, because wanting the world to live as MY “ONE” is precisely what causes all the strife in the first place. Most people have their own idea of what “ONE” is. Of who each and every “ONE” uniquely “IS”. And each and every “ONE” is uniquely equipped to decide which “ONE” he/she/it will “BE”. Each is a “Quantum of “Being” Each contains a “Quantum of “SELF”. That “Quantum of SELF” possesses a “Quantum of “Free Will”

The greatest “gift” of “The Universe”/God? /the collective un/sub conscious etc, etc. of course, IS “BEING”, and the universal Agape Love that sustains being. The second greatest gift is “Free Will”. Uniquely among all the animals of earth ( well, not really, but for the sake of argument) Human Beings have the capacity for “Free Will”. ( Our legal system doesn't even recognize “free will” in cats, for christ's sake- so waddya gonna do? —you work with the Data (gift) given)

I digress (step away) …..

Last night our church dedicated itself to a new “outreach” to bring the members of our sectarian community the “Good News” of their “free WiFi” connection to the “Cloud” and the availability of our “technicians” to get them “hooked up” ( It wasn't phrased EXACTLY like that, but you get the drift) We are inviting everyone (especially those homeless, poor and abandoned by society) to join us on Easter, for a free physical and spiritual recharging, with an emphasis on free “modem” checkups, to be certain that the equipment that was installed at birth is functioning and tuned to their own individual SELF adjusting Cloud “receiver”. This is not an “induction” or “indoctrination” it will simply be an education in tuning your own individual WiFi receiver (which you may or may not believe you have) so that you can question YOUR “Christ”* in HD and living color (* also known as “Jiminy Cricket”, conscience, clear still voice) once you get that hooked up and functioning, you may or may not choose to partake of our community of faith. You are invited.

We seek “Justice” ( Balance, Harmony, Peace, Love) but everyone has to go by their own GPS, so we're just offering “Tune Ups”, not instruction manuals.

So, last night I accepted a mission of faith.

I also got a call from a Lawyer who is willing to represent Mike. (Mike is a long story that some of you know, and I'm not going to elaborate on here. ) She is young and fresh and idealistic and Christian, and was contacted by the chairman of the local democrat party, with whom I've been conspiring to evict the republican officials involved in the “mike” saga, from their jobs. ( I'm nominally a republican, but some people piss me off)

Anyway, this dear creature, who sounds about twelve, will undoubtedly be able to “get Mike Off”. Which led me to reflect that once you get Lawyers involved, all prospects of “justice” vanish.

She will play by the Rules. The Rules set up by the very people who have persecuted Mike since last September. She will get them to leave Mike alone (Legally- I've already got them wishing they'd never started this piss fight- the local police want no part of it and wouldn't see Mike if he walked into the police station )

Mike wants “Justice”. Mike wants “Vindication”. Time's when he's done something wrong, he's admitted it. This time he didn't do anything wrong. Mike is one of those simple souls who still trusts the Justice system to dispense justice. I think we can all agree that what is daily dispensed from our “Law Enforcement Professionals” sure doesn't smell like “justice”.

And that's the problem. It is absurd to me that people think that they can arrive at “Justice” by torturing the meaning of “Laws”. Our legal system is simply a digital program, designed to give an approximation of “justice” in any situation . That “approximation MUST then be refined by a “Justice” and “12 persons good and true” to determine the actual shape of “Justice”.

It is Madness to have turned this system over to Law Enforcement Professionals (LEPers) and expect that the product will be “Justice”- Quite the opposite. Unguided “Law Enfocement” ALWAYS results in CHAOS. (eg. If you have an emergency requiring action in the next 30 seconds, and it takes you 3 minutes to read the instruction sheet......you may have a problem)

an unmonitored DIGITAL system ( eg Our system of Laws) will ALWAYS “crash”. QED.

Those who deny this tautology are in the position of large muscular high school football players arguing against the existence of calculus, from having taken and not understood a tenth grade algebra course. Large Muscular Teen agers can be an aggravation of the soul. (Cf Law Enforcement Professionals) Hence, the invention of “the Club” ( or more (or less) humanely, "Rat Hockey").

Anyway, I am presented with a Quandary about which I would like your advice. I'm not inclined to just let Ms.Deeds (the prosecutor) of Fairborn Municipal Court, get away with her misdeeds ( I swear you can't make this stuff up!) Yet I'm not sure I want to invest the time required to humiliate and disbar her. I want to do the Catauqua.

That said, I ask the help of any Graphic artists who might be reading this, in collaboration in a “Graphic Novel” detailing MsDeeds of Fairborn Municipal Court and her Misdeeds. Judge Beth Root is the presiding “justice” So we are left to explore her Mdeeds. We know that the Root of all Evil is Injustice, and the Root of all Injustice in Fairborn is MsDeeeds. What we have yet to determine is whether the Evil of Root is only Little MsDeeds or whether the Evil of Root lies in Larger Misdeeds. (Graphic Artists PM me for details- the court is Fairborn Municipal Court, Fairborn Ohio, the case is TRC1108700)

So, any critique would be appreciated. What I am trying to sort out for participation in the “Catauqua” are those who realize that law is just a “program” for the production of “Justice” and those who think that “Law Enforcement” is the formula for the production of “Justice “itself.

Thanks

Bob

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Lots to consider here. Thanks!

r.
I hve not been following Mike's story closely or, if I did at one time, I no longer remember the details. I gather, however, that the point of the Mike story for your purposes here is as a Parable for the High Church of Token, albeit a factual parable that actually takes place. The Moral of said Parable, presumably, is that there are times when Law does not approximate Justice, in spite of its purpose, and that officials of the Law tend to side with the Law rather than Justice, even though the whole raison d'etre (from the French, meaning "Grape of Wrath") of the Law is to support Justice, so that those who use Law independently of Justice are guilty of, by Divine purpose, corrupting (from the Latin, Corr, meaning center, as in Apple Corr, and Rupt, meaning Break Apart Into Lots Of Itsy Bitsy Pieces) Justice, the result being the Scales (from the Italian Scala, meaning large ornate building where one listens to opera in a city named for a chocolate-filled Pepperidge Farm cookie) of Justice are Out Of Joint (a loose translation of the Latin expression Ex Cannibis).

I think I'm getting the hang of this Chautaqua thing.

In terms of the actual content of what I think your thesis is, Of Course.

But, and there is a but,
Not everyone out there is all that bright,
and
Not everyone out there is all that ethical.

So, you've got populations who aren't particularly good at determining justice and you've got populations who shouldn't be trusted to determine justice. Under these two circumstances, subjectivity doesn't work. You need more objective standards for logistical reasons.

Which brings us back to Do, Do, Do, Do, (pronounced Doe);
well,
which brings us back to Law.

To code.

To approximations, because we need a mechanism with which to approach justice as universally as possible.

There would be better ways of constructing law. If I were writing law, I'd probably put in a Stated Purpose in new laws such that, if someone were tempted to really corrupt the application of a law in a way that has nothing to do with the way the law was intended to be used, there would be a fall-back position so that the answer wouldn't be - "Loophole's there; until we close it, people will fit through it," but, instead, "The Stated Purpose clearly indicates this is a misuse of the law."
It certainly would help if you could talk with his attorney. And before you talk with the attorney, it would be a very good idea to read the specific parts of the Ohio legal code before your conference. While you're reading the parts of the code that your friend is charged with, you should be making notes so that you can ask the attorney about.

In Oregon, all state laws are in a law library at the county building. You might be able to find the laws on the internet as well or in another public library, like a university or law school.
When on is guilty and pleads not so much chaos. When one is innocent and won't plea--- CHAOS TO THE EXTREME. Prosecutors and cops and judges will align to assure that you are not aquitted or that charges are not dropped cause they hate to get sued.
I know of many Ms. Deeds. I want to take some more time to read this piece before I comment further but I commend you for trying to expose the the layman what kind of system really is at play. Regards to Mike.

The press, movies, tv just give the public such wrong impressions. You have your movies and articles here and there but way too few.
The civil courts are no better, believe you me. You can't imagine the bullshit I'm going through when I have a slam dunk case. Judges just want to protect thier cronies. If they don't they get transferred, or worse.
Jonathan

I look forward to your comments

Kosher

I'm trying to play a good “househusband” and get some cleaning done, just watching a South Park marathon I recorded last night currently “The HumancentiPad” (see http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s15e01-humancentipad ) as good an argument as I've seen in a while about the hazards of “contract law”- anyway-
I can't tell whether my cavalier attitude toward “The Law” irritates you or not, so I'll just plunge ahead- and the point of “Le Chautauqua” IS “You can't make this stuff up”-- I get “resonance" all the time from Latin and German “Harmonics” in English words and phrases- I'd be interested to hear your resonances from Hebrew and Yiddish. MsDeeds is embarrassingly “apt” precisely because that is how she behaves.

I've expounded on “Lawyers” vs “Warriors” before, and I believe I've stated that my “innate” nature toward people who quote law at me is to consult my inner sense of “justice” and apply any needed force or balance to adjust their attitude to atonement. That said, “Law” makes for a more ordered and predictable, hence more peaceful and less interesting society. I'm not advocating the abolishment of “Law” I'm simply stating that we are supposed to obey laws in order to dispense “Justice”, and what is coming out is noticeably NOT “justice” I'm not asking you to consult MY “Better Nature” ( Christ?) about this, I'm asking you to consult YOURS ( I know you have one).

As a long time writer of computer code, I can tell you definitively that our “legal” system has become a rat's nest of “Spaghetti code” patches that need to be reworked. Before doing that, We must have firmly in mind what we hope to accomplish. You don't “Down” the system without having a flow chart and a backup.

Fernsy

You can't fight the idiots. What you can do is realize that the one thing that destroys them utterly is Public Humiliation. They can't frighten people who are laughing AT them.
ONL

We're way beyond the "legal" stage here. The one thing that the prosecutor and judge dare not have is a public trial that exposes their actions in this case.
Not angry. Understand the problem. But also understand the necessity of a soluton that minimizes subjectivity.

I wasn't 100% flippant here. Part of the problem is that the first impulse is to follow code, even when code has what you called "spaghetti patches." Sometimes the code doesn't lead you to your intended destination and sometimes people use the code specifically to avoid their intended destination, which is a pretty good definition of "loophole." What enables interpretation of law that follows code rather than not? The fact that the code itself is the primary key to the destination. What I'm saying might be helpful is, when you make a new law, State the destination. "We are writing this law as an attempt to accomplish the following:..." You know, letter of the law vs. spirit of the law, only don't make the judges guess the spirit. Tell them outright.

Would that work?
Kosher

Don't misunderstand. We absolutely need Law- but we need to recognize the intent, and also correct what is not working. An "intent clause" would be very helpful, as would "Sunset laws" that must be reviewed and renewed at intervals. What I'm saying is that there are things that are difficult if not impossible to legislate. Unfortunately, compassion is one of them. You and I both agree that it is wrong to let any child go hungry or unclothed. you might say it is the job of "government" to see to their needs. I would say that that is precisely what gets us into the whole "Worthy Poor" vs "Unworthy" poor debate, which doesn't get anyone clothed or fed.

i would say it is a "Christian" Duty to see to the needs of the poor, you might say it is a "Jewish" duty. We both agree it is a "Human" duty. i can't "legislate" my fellow T-partiers into being good "Christians" but I sure as hell can and do "Shame" them into it. I realize that that is a "Rural" solution. it is a nonetheless an extremely effective one.

What I'm saying is, look, we all agree that the law as presently handled by those who have made it their life's work to keep the "Majesty of the Law" beyond the reach and understanding of common people isn't resulting in anything the common people recognize as "Justice' (They do know what "justice" is, ask Fernsy) ( not that she is any more common than I am).

before you take a system down you need to ask a couple of things. One is "Why" well, because it isn't working, and two, it's going to CRASH. I just want us all who know what a "Better Nature" ( dare I say "Conscience?") is, to be prepared to assume some guidance roles during the overhaul ( Not to help people recognize "MY" truth, but to teach them to recognize their own truth.

Hopefully, after the overhaul, the old system will run as it was meant to. And that include Laws that result in Liberty and Justice for all.
Glad to see the Chautauqua going, "Herr R". Will keep my comment short. I have no particular ?"skills"? to offer (such as all that lovely sounding art work you've inquired about). I sure do care what's going to happen to Mike, though, and am glad you're weaving that into the more abstract/discussion intent. And, hey, special aside to Kosh for "a lotta reasons"; Jonathan similarly, and Fernsy just because ("just because??!!) you have such a great big warm heart. Looking forward to seeing how this Chautauqua evolves! R
Is this where you really want to spend your resources?

You are right. Mike will never find justice in the sense of a fair shake.

The system wasn't set up for the Mike's of the world.

Ever heard the phrase, "boiling the ocean" ?
Is this where you really want to spend your resources?

You are right. Mike will never find justice in the sense of a fair shake.

The system wasn't set up for the Mike's of the world.

Ever heard the phrase, "boiling the ocean" ?
P.S. Blog page title: Are you asking "the why of" their error? And if so, which of "us" and "them" is which?? ;-)
Nick

Not "boiling the Ocean', boiling MsDeeds ( and any who would rescue her. Pour encourage les autres. Everyone needs a Hobby.

marte

Yes, and all off us. as in "we have met the enemy and he is us"
"Gotcha"! ;-) Or -- oops ... wrong connotation. Got IT. Good one! ;-)
Actually "The Law" acts exactly as it was/is intended to act. The 'real' intent, that is, not the mask it hides behind.

The purpose of Law is to ensure injustice. It was/is not intended to dispense "Justice." It has a twofold methodology; First it is always to favour those of property, wealth, power and who are "connected" and/or are charged with dispensing it; Second it is to do the above while pretending to dispense Justice.

The first part of this purpose is usually more important than the second part but occasions do arise when "the pubic" discovers some gross injustice that has been or is about to be perpetrated and will not easily countenance a mere appearance of justice but insists on something of more substance.

Those involved in the justice system when that happens then find that they must twist the real purpose of Law into something that actually produces near justice in most cases and (*gasp!*) actual justice in some very rare instances.

There have been cases where, by mere coincidence, the cause of justice has been served when the cause of injustice has been intended. Such cases are always held up as "Shining Examples" of how the Law provides "justice" to all, all the time. Completely missed by those who do this is the understanding that such cases would not need to be held up as examples if they were not so doggone rare! They would not, in fact, be "examples" of any kind in a system of Law that routinely produced justice.

I know nothing of your case but just thought I'd stick my two cents worth in..........

ᴼᴥƪ
.
Herr,True wishes for Mike to find justice.I think Justice should be aρροinted and handled by comρuters.Enter the data of the case,simρle enforce laws and the verdict..Simρle as that...As much as human are in the justice system there will be no justice.Courts,Lawyers,Justice are big costs...and there is nothing funny when you loose your right -when you are right -cause you do not have to ρay for a lawyer..I hate this system..Hate is not a big enough word to have all the feelings that I feel.Hate is not much of an argument or a creative feeling but I can not stand with my mind and heart the injustice and the not working of laws when there are so many laws.Your work here is to be thought of ...it is a character making matter the one you deal here.Difficult issue but your writing is excellent.If manners maketh man as someone said,then I want justice to be my character.So as not do what they have done to me and have the strength to judge my self before being judged.You gave me lots to think about.Thank you for this.Rated with Best regards.
I don't know how much I agree with Sky. Partially, lately more. As oppressive as some of the Founding Fathers were, I'm really not sure what they were universally after was a Grand Deception - something to protect the monied while pretending to protect everyone. How the Law was added to, interpreted, and especially enforced had more to do with protecting the monied. At this point, Law is mostly about that because of how laws are now being written - submitted verbatim by corporate interests.

Meaning I don't think Sky started out right but I think we're getting to what he's describing in a hurry. It took a recent column by Paul Krugman to teach me something about where the GOP is going. I thought they were mainly anti-government because they didn't believe in that kind of intrusiveness in some cases; at this point I'm beginning to realize that they aren't anti-intrusiveness at all; they just want intrusiveness privatized. That, by the way, is an extremely scary prospect because it leaves the general public with no recourse at all.
@kosher,
Look more closely at who could vote, who could hold office, etc., etc., as the Founding Fathers set things up. As a Canadian, I didn't have the advantage of being brain-washed into thinking of American Founding Fathers as near gods who foresaw all contingencies, had only noble motives, loved all people as their children, and had the ability to set up the basic rules of a nation so well that they are immutable and infallible so I see things a bit differently than my southern cousins do.

Their concept was clearly to make themselves and their coterie of friends the masters of this new nation. Democracy was openly despised by some and not thought well of by the rest. Women were disenfranchised second class citizens, black people were not citizens, and un-propertied men not much above black people.

The intent was clear; men of property and 'substance' and 'good family' were to run the nation for their own benefit. The laws they proposed were all intended to support that idea. They set up a Republic - NOT a democracy.

Both the GOP and the "progressives" are against HALF of the idea of intrusiveness. They hate the idea of "them others" intruding on their personal freedom - but they love the idea of intruding on the freedoms of those others. Both sides make it abundantly clear that if either should gain the necessary power to do so, they will force "those others" to "do it our way", or else!

Both sides use the same weapon - Law.
.
I'm not talking about the Founding Fathers being saints. However, I don't know if I can claim they disenfranchised anyone because no one was enfranchised to begin with; it would be more accurate to say that they enfranchised fewer people than they should have but more than had been previously. Given the mores of the period, I think their focus was in total probably more upward than downward. The mechanisms they put in place led to more egalitarianism. The truth is that we have a lot more egalitarianism than we used to. A ton more. Not where we should be, in some ways we're still progressing and in others going backward, and I'd certainly say that in terms of economic egalitarianism we are sliding backward so fast we could end up off the mountain any minute, but the Law still isn't completely about disenfranchisement. That allegation is just wrong.
[r] Bob/Rudy :), thanks for this. I don't know the details of your Mike's issues, but I know how Alice in Wonderland upside down the legal system and the law enforcement system can be.

I know that I can't watch Judge Judy for more than three minutes without feeling totally appalled and enraged by her colossal egomaniacal bullying.

Isn't it interesting that most of America watches Law & Order multiple hours each week. Gotta find a sense of justice and empathy somewhere, I guess. And look at how the law is being discarded in DC and with our military all over the world, international law defied and defiled.

I once had evidence that would clear a man held overnight in jail in NYC and when I begged the ADA to heed it, she had made up her mind to a different scenario as told by a charming and vulnerable-appearing acquaintance of mine who was lying and I had solid proof she was. The ADA was so ferociously stubborn I felt like a pesky mosquito trying to get her to heed it. She broke down and heard me after a serious amount of time and I think it may have had more to do with a superior who was less naive, manipulatable and a better listener to the facts. But hey, look at the power this seemingly "sweet" but ultimately "scary" power broker had!

I often think of that "if" poem, about standing within one's truth.

I recently was on grand jury duty for a month and it was exciting at times and very disturbing at others. The pressure of deciding the guilt of someone, though grand jury is deciding on having a jury trial not on ultimate guilt. The pressure of being in a group of people who sometimes seemed to reflect one's values and other times were on a totally different channel. Hard to be part of a minority vote at times.

I also watched a disturbing kind of cronyism begin to happen among clusters of people in the grand jury who began to reinforce each other and it felt dangerous to me. A kind of sub-group-think that might have enthralled any independent thoughts and feelings about the situation among them for that nice fuzzy feeling of cronyism among members.

Anyway, twisting and exploiting gamesmanship technicality of the law and insulting and abusing its true essence is what is happening more and more often at all levels of our governance. There are still champions out there, but hey, they sure are getting shoved into a a smaller minority it would seem.

Champion on, Bob!

best, libby
@kosher,
My friend, I thought you knew better than to try to slip in a "straw man" on me so crudely. I defy you to tell me where I ever said that "the law is completely about disenfranchisement."

May I also point out that Law did not begin in Amerika by any means. I made no mention of your American Founding Fathers at all in my original comment - the one to which you responded and introduced them to the discussion - and did not, in fact, have them particularly in mind when making that comment. They are just a few Johnny-come-latelies in the Law making history of the world. And any egalitarianism that came out of their "Laws" was most likely introduced as a means of inducing people to fight the Brits and clearing the way for those Founding Fathers to set up their own government. If you had lived in the America of the Founding Fathers you'd have not been overly pleased at all, I venture to guess.

Let me state my position more clearly, if I am able. Law is ALWAYS created for the benefit of those who create it. Just as power is ALWAYS used for the benefit of those who wield it. No one - and I mean NO ONE - has ever sat down to create a law that was intended to help someone else, in a case that was against the law framer's interests, in a courtroom.

Those with the power to create laws do so primarily in their own interests. That the law can sometimes be used to win a case against the framers of the Law is purely coincidental and is usually carefully guarded against by those framers of law.

When Mr. Joe Lunchpail gets into a position to make Law, I expect him to do the exact same thing; make laws that support his interests. Law, like any other kind of power, is always used in the interests of those who "own" it.

Even in those instances where the populace is able to force laws into existence that are of benefit to them, there are usually loop-holes left so as to ensure that the adverse effect of such laws, upon those beneficiaries of the law, is minimized as much as possible.

This has ben so since the first very large, strong cave-man created a Law that said that he eats first from every kill the group makes. He backed up his Law with his club, I expect. From that day forward all Law has essentially done the same thing - established that those with power are afforded better treatment than those without power and enhanced the power of those who have it.

That some individuals with the power of Law on their side, choose to not use it in every case does not change the fact that it is there for them to use as, and when, they wish to.
.
@kosher,
You might like to read a poem by Langston Hughes that Foolish Monkey posted today. It is here - "LET AMERICA BE AMERICA AGAIN"

;-)
.
STATHI, Skypixie0, and Kosher

The thing about writing code is that it can be most readily judged on whether the written code does what it is written to do. Beyond that, the judgment is of the efficiency and elegance ( Quality?) that the program displays in accomplishing its task ( A Program which performs its task in 5 lines is more efficient than one that takes 150 lines, but the more efficient may not be as precise, etc. - “Elegance” or “Quality” is the perception of the “Best” way for the task to be accomplished.

One must note that “Best” does not remain “Best” for all purposes. A program that pays your bills by letting anyone who claims a debt “write” himself a “check” from your bank account, would certainly ease your need to worry about forgetting to pay bills. In the real world, it lacks a certain “security”-- yet this is what owners of joint checking accounts “grant” to each other.

The “Constitution” is not so much a “program” as a “Meta” program” it is a program that aids in the writing of “laws” that will both endure, and be respected by persons of “Free Will”. That it doesn't grant “Free Will” choices to persons of limited “Free Will” ( Women, Slaves) is an artifact of the times, not a deficiency in the program. It works for those who now, admittedly “late”, are granted access to the program- I would point out that those who grant access are like unto the money changers and priests of the temple, How they perform their functions is not an “evil” of the program itself. The document governs the behavior of persons of “Free Will” who nevertheless are aware of their standing and relationship to the rest of their community and to Being itself. (God). In the circumstances that applied when the program was written, it was and is tremendously “Elegant” and of the utmost Quality.

Any program may be thwarted in its operation by the people who are operating the machine on which the program runs. I remotely troubleshot county government computers in the '90's over the phone lines via 28.8 modem. The biggest problem was always getting someone in the clerks office to hook up the modem, since most of our clients didn't at that time give the computer its own dedicated phone line, it most often shared ta line with a fax machine, and had to be manually reconnected.

That was bad enough without factoring in the paranoid County Clerks who kept the modem locked in a drawer, lest anyone get on their machine and “steal” “Their data” I always wondered just what part of the public records they kept they were most worried about people seeing..... Obviously some of the court cases made interesting reading..

I digress

Our problem at present is whether we wish to note that the program ( The Constitution) still functions rather elegantly, once unencrusted from all the crap with which the Lawyers in congress and bureaucracy have seen fit to encrust it , or whether we fall into the mini micro management of “social justice” and parceling out the “Swag” looted from the dead carcass of our republic.

Our decision is to either clean off the Constitution and carry on as a nation of “Free Will” individuals governed both by an elegantly tailored set of restrictions on the power to tyrannize, and an innate sense of the wholeness of our community and of all things, or whether we fall to the current practice of letting large and small gangs of lawyers chew the program to rags. Once the rats have chewed out the wiring of the machine, it will be hard to run ANY program.
Libby

You can't make this stuff up- it's there in all things. What I'm doing now is rather like a particularly interesting video game, but I'm just spending a boring afternoon, waiting for my parents to come pick me up to go home.

Thanks for your understanding and support

Bob