Monday, September 24, 2007

Under the Color of Law

Inyo County

What to Do

It is imperative that persons begin to file complaints to the competent authorities. Under the Color of Law against code enforcement in the main are handled by the FBI. There is a contact for Under the Color of authority complaints at their website.
Currently Inyo County and the High Sierras are under serious attack. People have to begin to stand up for their rights.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being
an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under thistitle or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
technocrati tags:

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Minimax - In the Case of Future's Future's

In the Case of Future's Future's - Minimax

Big Pine CA
Dateline 9-12-07

One consideration of game theory and the Constitution is Minimax. In jurisprudence this is the choosing of the least damaging outcome as a baseline. In the consideration of strategic nuclear defense this is quite evident and is built around deterrence, second strike capabilities, and diplomacy. In general, constitutions provide for the framework of the government.

In the United States Constitution the Constitution itself simply organizes the structure of the government. This is a republican federalist model. There are 34 amendments that give substantitive rights to the individual. The 10th amendment returns rights to the states.The constitution is a perpetual association that is intended to conserve posterity for future's future's. It can only be changed from within itself.

Hence if a state that is legitimate has a civil war or a coup de tat and loses. The ensuing government is de facto or illegal. Hence we see game theory or defection in various nation-states. In Somalia the Islamic Courts decisively drove the standing government into Eithiopia. Ethiopia felt threatened by the Islamic Courts and invaded and reinstalled the older government.

Fidel Castro drove the corrupt Bautista government and mafias out of Cuba and replaced such with himself as autocratic ruler. The United Nations does not accept rule ad baculum or by force. However the old Soviet Bloc and modern China accept Revolution and by defection Cuba has mixed recognition and vis a vis protocols with the democracies lead by United States interests.

In Czechoslovakia the true intent of the dissolution of the social contract was clearly demonstrated with the civil division of the country into Czech and Slovakia.Hence in a theocracy the main goal is to develop the state to return the individual back to eternity. In civil states such appears to be the upholding of the rights of the individual and state. This usually has an equivalence in preventing tyranny and bad governance.

The Collective Begins With the Individual
Big Pine CA

In a direct parallel ISKCON is contemplating the development of a Constitution. In the United States Constitution the Constitution itself simply organizes the structure of the government. This is a republican federalist model Hence a central government that gives rights to the states with checks and balances. The latter is that there are three executive branches. That is the presidency, judicial, and legislative branches. The constitution creates a citizen then a president. The substantitive rights are in the Bill of Rights and the Amendments.Historically it is moot that defection in prisoner's dilemma has rendered this dysfunctional. Is this a nativistic or socialized deformity? It is both. Everything at the material level must have some basis in our genetics and structure than our relationship to the environment.

technorati tags:

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, September 01, 2007

Top Scientist Advocates Genocide for 90% of World Population

By Shawn Carlson, Ph.D on 26 Aug 2007

"HIV is no good, it is too slow to control human populations. Ebola zaire has potential. It kills nine out of ten humans." In late 2006, the Texas Academy of Science chose to honor one Professor Eric R. Pianka, an eminent ecologist who studies desert ecologies, with its 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist award. Professor Pianka used the occasion to champion the notion, apparently without sanction of the Academy, that the Earth can only be saved if ninety percent of the human beings alive today are purged from the planet. He championed airborne Ebola as the most efficient virus to accomplish this. And while he stopped short of calling for terrorist action to bring this result about, he clearly implied that this was a right and proper future for our species and our planet. Astonishingly, after advocating for a future in which more than 5,000,000,000 persons would die a slow and agonizing death, many members of the Texas Academy of Science stood to their feet and applauded.

I want to answer two questions here. Do academic institutions like the Texas Academy of Science have a duty to provide Professor Pianka a forum to advance these ideas? And what might the consequences be of allowing him to do so? My answer to the first question is a resounding "no." Furthermore, I am convinced that continuing to allow Professor Pianka unfettered access to impressionable students could one day lead to a loss of life that could make the Killing Fields of Southeast Asia look like a picnic ground.

Let me explain.

First, do Pianka's opinions deserve protection under the rubric of academic freedom? Well, that depends on whether this ideas are truly academic—that is, that they are consistent with the best understanding of our world that science has established.

Now consider Pianka's arguments.

Pianka claims that the natural world would be "better off" if there weren't so many humans. To see if that's true, we have to figure out just what constitutes the "natural world"? As an evolutionist, I see human beings as the products of the same natural forces that shaped all other life on earth. Our brains evolved on this planet subject to the same kinds of natural selection pressures as those that shaped peacock feathers. The same can be said of all of our social structures, our religions and every other aspect of what we are that helped us secure resources and propagate our species (the hammer and anvil of natural selection). In short, our institutions and our technology are every bit as much a part of the natural world as elk mating rituals and beaver dams. In fact, by evolving the ability to adapt the world to fit us , human beings have become better at securing resources and procreating than any other vertebrate on the planet. By this measure, we are evolution's most successful creation (amongst vertebrates). If extraterrestrials were asked to select nature's most successful vertebrate on the Earth they would certainly point to us.

technorati tags:

technocrati tags:

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,