What could one Senator do? If only one Senator wanted to try? What can any one person do? Maybe almost as much as one cartoonist?

Let’s start off by saying that I know perfectly well that one person by himself could never change history, but if no one person ever tried, then history would never change, evolution would end, and the world would come to a standstill.  So long as we let the people who appear richer, smarter, more handsome, more beautiful, or with better (or more expensive) resumés or better (or more expensive) wardrobes decide for us, we will always be little more than slaves.  

Let those of whom the tyrants have oppressed stand up and say “we are as good as you. We have a much greater right to make policy for ourselves than you do, and to judge what is right and wrong.”  Let us challenge and displace the petty controlling hobgoblins who dominate local and special interest majorities or apparent majorities (or supposedly “dominant, normative” positions, even on the internet).

If I were elected to the Senate, I would stand alone on a lot of the issues I would care most about, at least at first.  But the Senate is a great platform from which to preach. The United States Senate, like the Roman Senate of Classic Antiquity, was once described as the greatest forum of debate in the entire world.  

Rational speech could win over many converts on specific points, especially as there are many, many, 50-50 splits on issues in the Senate as is—and much party-line crossing and criss-crossing.  One Senator speaking new and fresh ideas could have an amazing impact, especially if he represented the most populous state in the nation, which would be the seventh most powerful economy in the world if it were its own country.

I would advocate the abolition of a great number of government agencies, especially the finance-regulation and money-changing agencies, commissions and sub-departments.  Environmentalists might find my hatred of government regulation offensive, until they realized that most of the great polluting industries and activities are made possible by government regulation.  The destruction of the countryside by suburban and ex-urban sprawl was made possible by the government sponsored explosion of “soft-money” credit, along with government promoted damn (excuse me, “dam”) construction and water diversion which creates precarious cities in the desert and semi-arid regions, which nature had not endowed with abundant natural water resources.  Get rid of government subsidies and false economy and nature will recover against the ruined cities in many areas of the United States.  These ruins can either be plowed under or left to the vicissitudes of nature like the ruins of vast cities in the Central American and Southeast Asian jungles.  Compaction or dispersal of the population due to economic realignment will lead to less flagrant consumption of fossil fuels.  

One Senator would be able to cast many votes which will align a sound, natural resource based monetary policy with sound environmental adjustment. Regulation of the kind we have now is just an attempt to put a few inefficient environmentally oriented brakes on a much more inefficient economic juggernaut leading, ultimately, to the nightmare of a Frankenstein-like monster environment fueled by the Frankenstein-monster economy.  

Similarly, social welfare advocates will at first be aghast at my contention that most of Federal Title 42, Public Health & Welfare, should be repealed—all except the civil rights provisions, which should be made race neutral and possibly transferred to Title 28.

How to transform welfare from a negative millstone around the neck of people everywhere is simple: government should support the diffusion of technologies of self-sufficiency rather than money.  This is the old “buy a family a fish they eat for a day—or if it’s a really big yellowfin tuna, maybe several days—but if you teach a family to fish, then (if they’re located in a good spot for it at least) they’ll eat forever.”  Now, since teaching families to fish is a “welfare solution” that won’t really work for the Apache, Navajo, and Zuni of Arizona-New Mexico, nor any of their Anglo or Hispanic neighbors, we should focus on what WILL work for them: teaching them how to install, and providing at low cost, home or neighborhood solar and wind generated energy technology.

The history of welfare, as I repeatedly comment, goes back to “Oriental Despotism” as the origin of communist totalitarianism in the meta-historical thesis of Karl A. Wittfogel and other Anthropological and Historical “Cultural Materialists.”  The basic evolutionary theory of Oriental Despotism runs something like this: “Evolution,” at least in the short term, always favors quantity over quality.  Concentration of power permits ecological intrusion and innovation into marginal areas (as defined by availability of water and good soil) at great effort and cost, meaning that only a powerful centralized government can achieve and maintain these innovative ecological intrusions.  However, from the standpoint of both the individual and the longue duree of human evolution, such innovations are ultimately maladaptive in the sense that the quality of life of the more numerous humans is radically reduced by the requirements of forced labor and coerced cooperation that ultimately lead to ecological collapse due to ecological degradation.  It is better to cut off the tyrannical power of despots before they expand their empires in area and population before the collapse.

Wisdom dictates that sound, practical principles of economic and natural conservation go hand-in-hand.  Humans have the power and ingenuity to destroy the world, but rational minds will put brakes on the process, at the same time respectfully regarding human liberty and individual autonomy.  

All policies which concentrate wealth, power, and decision-making in the hands of a few are unnatural, anti-evolutionary, and essentially sacrilegious, because evolution proceeds best in the presence of real diversity of ideas and options, where each option is tailored not to the world as a whole, but to each local set of circumstances and situations.  The law should exist to protect the people from, among other things, the tyranny of local majorities, and the tyranny of special interest groups over specialized industries and industrial, population settings.   

I knew an Eagle Scout leader once, one of the proudest acquaintances I can claim to have had in my life.  That man died on March 22, 2001 at the age of 90: his name William Hanna, a man who shaped the childhood imagination of my own and several other generations including my father’s and my son’s.   What is less remembered about Hanna is that he was an evolutionist and ecologist par excellence. Though remembered by the population at large for his moving picture cartoon creations, which covered the Stone Age through the Future and ecology, from bears to backstreet alleys and American Teenagers (e.g. the Flintstones, Jetsons, Tom & Jerry, Yogi Bear, Scooby Doo), Bill Hanna’s original training was in engineering, not art or entertainment.   Throughout his life he retained an incredibly practical mind as well as an amazing work ethic, trying out new flight simulating video games with my 7-8 year old son, Charlie, just a few months before Bill Hanna passed away.  

His common sense wisdom was something I treasured, and I would try to carry that wisdom to the Senate with me.  He commented about foreign policy that any intervention without truly rational self-interest was naked imperialism (Hanna was no fan of Desert Storm I in the early ’90s, which was quintessentially irrational intervention).  About ecological boondoggles he compared dams and mass-transit by air: these processes demand the maximum concentrations of effort and energy to achieve the easiest and most immediate gratification of needs with no thought to the overall impact that such concentrations of human and natural resources has on the population at large.  Hanna’s father was a railroad engineer who oversaw the installation of waterworks all over the United States, including New Mexico where Bill was born, and I think this must have shaped his thinking about many aspects of society, and his practical wisdom was always made apparent in his humor.

Without William Hanna, the American imagination, and probably my own, would have been very different.  So he is, without much doubt, a shining example of how much difference one person can make.  I certainly do not claim to be any kind of political equivalent to William Hanna, but I can claim to have a similar sense of practical justice as well as a similar sense of humor.   It is difficult to imagine the childhood culture of the United States without William Hanna’s creations.  I would like to take a seat in the Senate where I could advocate practical innovations at least as imaginative and as well-tailored to restructuring the techno-environmental and socio-economic reality of this nation.  

My son was always a special fan of “Scooby Doo” and in fact he has a “Scooby-Phone” at home to this day.  Scooby-Doo was about a great many things, but among them was debunking superstitions and silly fears based on those superstitions.  I don’t know exactly where I stand on ghosts and zombies but I know where I stand on the relationship between human society and nature—sound economics on the one side leads to sound ecological relations on the other side.  I know that the current monetary system is based on currency worth no more than ghostlike notes and zombie-like credit systems which defy the laws of nature and therefore threaten the natural life of man and all his fellow creatures.

People talk about regulation as the solution, but it is not: regulation is the cause.  If it were not for the regulations permitting the Federal Reserve Banking System, none of the wild economic rides of the 20th century, including the two World Wars, the Cold War, “Star Wars,”  and the War on Terrorism, would have been possible.  If the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) did not exist to “pre judge” and thereby prejudice the marketplace in favor of approved, registered securities, such as the original Mortgage Backed Securities drafting and editing whose registration statements I toiled for all too long at Cadwalader, Wickersham, & Taft (“CWT”) in 1993-4, practical businessmen never would have envisioned or created such “derivatives” as soon flooded the market and crashed the economy.  “Greater regulation” would simply have led to “greater boondoggles.”  

The art, the thought, the work CWT lawyers and paralegals put into SEC registration statements (justifications for buying and selling securities by the negative psychology of ridiculous disclaimers) for these early mortgage-backed securities was intense.  But at CWT, there was a young and very very junior (and extremely unpopular) associate who raised questions like, “doesn’t this process break the chain of title necessary for holder-in-due course” status.  That same associate (a former head of the Environmental Law Society at the University of Chicago Law School) questioned whether the environmental impact statements on individual houses or land plots were really as significant as the environmental impact of the suburbs themselves, and asked what were the economic consequences of first globbing all the mortgages together and then redividing them.   And finally, above all, this certain young and very junior and very unpopular associate at CWT questioned whether it were not a monumental breach of fiduciary duty inherent for a law firm to create, out of a planned breach in common law chains of title, such a massively imbalanced set of transactions which could as easily backfire on our clients as enrich them.  Well, as you can imagine, that associate (I shan’t mention any names here) was accused of stupidity, not understanding the economic brilliance of the New World Order, of being a dark impediment to progress, of flirting with office girls too much… and he was finally marginalized after many warnings and ultimately terminated.

That same associate as a United States Senator from California would be regarded by “the good old boys & girls” of the Senatorial club very suspiciously.  They might not even let poor Rudolph join in any Reindeer games….  But who knew that the securitized mortgage bubble would burst and threaten to take the world economy with it, along with the remaining strands of individual freedom, family, private property, and the State?  Who knows what will happen some foggy winter’s night?  

As I have mentioned, if I run for Senate, I will be facing the vast personal wealth of Dianne Feinstein, along with the big money interests, especially the banking and financial industries, who back every serious senatorial campaign, winning or losing.  

No banks or investment houses are going to support any candidate who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, and all its collateral back-up organizations such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Social Security Administration—especially a convicted social security number mis-stater.*  

No major law firms (but I’m hoping more than a few marginalized lawyers) will support a disbarred attorney who advocates disbarring the entire profession of law, by which I mean freeing the profession from the bonds of State Supreme Court licensure and career control.

No more specialized law firms practicing family law would ever support a senatorial candidate who would free parents from the strictures of Title 42 USC §666 which (in plain violation of the Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments) requires the States to set standards for the enforcement of child support** or any of the other draconian Federal Social Welfare Laws which in essence makes state family and property law subordinate to Federal law.

So once again, I send out my invitation to the people who are not making millions out of the financial meltdown, who fear for the future of this Country—consider supporting a real renegade, not just a maverick but a genuine black sheep willing to don a Red Wolf’s Cloak and fight to save his fellows from the real wolves, all of whom are wearing pin-striped suits and difficult to distinguish from the pigs.

*One goofy but sensationally vulgar Maoist conformity website pretending to be a forum for popular scatalogical viewpoints keeps publishing a social security number and claiming that I misstated three digits of my social security number rather than two (wow, wouldn’t that have just made the crime SOOO much more serious)—but that website, ironically and inexplicably, keeps stating my social security number incorrectly (THANK GOD!).   Marking any person with a number as his primary identity is positively inhuman sacrilegious in my opinion.  No one understood this better than George Orwell when he created the character 6079 Smith W, except perhaps the authors of “V-for-Vendetta” about the life and heroic resurrection of the prisoner from Cell Number V (Roman 5) at Larkhill, mystically located by Stonehenge on the Salisbury Plain.



§ 666 Requirement of statutorily prescribed procedures to improve effectiveness

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s