A comment (media matters.com) on the graph of the WSJ -- It's old and early measurements, as I indicated are rough.



There are a large number of things people believe that either can be uantifiable or are mistaken. The following will state the true version of these.

  1. The recidivism rate of sex offenders was 3.5% ... a lower reoffense rate of almost any other type of crime (BJS: 5.3% arrested) , (Hawai'i: 2.3-5.7%) , Others higher




F.D.R. proposed to start working on passing the "Second Bill of Rights". It is evident that they would not be passed today, and perhaps should not be, but as a taking point, I wonder what would happen if these were passed, as negative rights, e.g. What laws, regulations... would actually be in VIOLATION to them?

The proposed rights are: "The right to..."

  1. A useful and remunerative job;
  2. Earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  3. Every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return that will give him and his family a decent living;
  4. Every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
  5. Every family to a decent home;
  6. Adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  7. Adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
  8. A good education.
See: Blog for America



The Palo Alto city council is considering extending the term limits of its members from 2 terms to 3. As I have been thinking about the problem of incumbency, I am opening this Blog entry to discuss the Palo Alto Term Limit proposal, and perhaps my own proposal for "gentle" limits:

My initial proposal is that there be no hard term limits but that it be harder and harder for incumbents to keep their office as their vote would be decreased by "N"*5% if they had served for "N" terms. Thus, for example, a person who had already served for 2 terms would have to get 10% more vote than his rivals to stay in office a third term.

See: Palo Alto Weekly on term limits
2003 City Council results

Comments, and previous proposals and links can be added as desired, and if I see any links that are related to this subject I may add them to this Blog entry.

Unrelated, but interesting:



The funding for PBS is proposed to be decreased from $400m to $300, and the president of PBS is suspected as a strong conservative.

If PBS continues to be funded, even 25% by the Federal government, then it will be open for funding cuts and changes in objectives, so I propose that the viewers take over the portion of the funding that the government is now supplying and the management, and thus its direction be determined by its funding viewers.

    First: I propose to give money to PBS under an UnMatching condition, e.g. for every dollar I contribute, I will require that PBS cut their government funding by half a dollar. In this way they will have an increase in their funding while still removing their dependance on the government.

    Second: I propose that PBS management be elected by their members. either by one person one vote, or by one dollar one vote (excluding coprorate advertisers).

In this way as the viewers can control the direction of PBS as their support increases relative to government funding.




States Rights Separation Act

    1) Hereafter all federal acts, bills, regulations shall only apply to interstate commerce and not be extended to state declared legal activities wholly within a state unless there is a separate section defining how they effect the internal state activities.

    2) These separate sections must separable in that they must be voted upon separately, be veto-able separately, as well as be able to be declared unconstitutionally separately.

    3) Specifically the laws dealing with marijuana shall not be extended to the states that have, or may, pass laws permitting such use.

    4) The congress may pass other specific sections to existing bills that limit their application to interstate commerce if they so choose.


I am suggesting that the proceeding "States Rights Separation Act", SRSA, be passed by the US government to allow the states to reasonably independent. It is my hope that it allow the congress to do what it does now, but still provide, as a default, that federal laws, regulations, etc. do not automatically limit the states.

This act allows the federal government to specify when they need the states follow a law, but otherwise it permits the states to enact their own laws.


I plan to submit this to my representatives, other blogs, and some lawyers to determine if this act is legal, how it should be re-written and if it is possible to have it passed by the congress.

It is hoped that there will be suggestions as to how the act might improved as well as comments that indicate approval or disapproval.

Also see:

The New Republic. on the decision

My opinion on the decision

New York Times news on the decision

Paul Compos on the decision

Nick Gillespie, of Reason magazine on the decision

Support: H.R. 2087, the "States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act" discussed over at the Drug War Rant

Wall Street Journal on the decision

The Talent Show on the decision

D. T. Armentano on the decision, Lew Rockwell


It is my "thought" that the Supreme court decision on the California vs.. Federal marijuana law is wrong in two areas. As I am not a law person, this thought is based on my ideas of right-ness and not law.

1) I personally think that the extension of the Congress’ Commerce Clause should not be extended to the commerce totally within a state even if it can be rationalized as somewhat effecting the flow of products between states. We see how this leads to the stretching of the national law into the area that one would logically think is the state's domain, and that our federal society would be better served if the federal government did not impose itself in the states affairs except perhaps where the state is restricting people's rights further than the constitution permits.

2) Secondarily, the use of the commerce clause to control activity within the state where the interstate activity is ILLEGAL seems even more a stretch. If one is to reject the general argument "1)" that it would be better if the federal government only controlled interstate commerce, then it seems reasonable that the federal goverment only has the right to control activity within a state where the activity leads to an increased violation of the interstate law. On the other hand, the California law, if properly enforced, will, if anything decrease the amount of illegal interstate traffic and thus assist the federal government in reducing the flow of illegal interstate drugs.

Thus, it seems to me that both on

a) general considerations, The commerce clause should not be extended to activities within the state that have only minor effects on interstate commerse, and on a

b) specific condition, that the California mariuana law may well decrease the illegal flow of mariuana, the Supreme court
"got it wrong"