Another Point

Returning to my earlier theory of energy as currency (maybe dunamis is the right word, although I still like currer).

Its been suggested to me that I need to spell out the direct connection between my theory and food. Specifically, the food supply. I've stated that all goods and services can be described in terms of the energy expended in production and distribution.

Hmm. That's the first time I've used that word in this discussion, so I'll need to remember to make a point of diving it. Pressing on.

So we'll start, as always, with first principles. I've already talked about money and how it can be used as a marker representative of the energy available in the social system. So what exactly is food then? Well the short version is that food is a medium of delivering stored energy and specific types of metabolic mass to as organism. Complicated way to describe a Twinkie, innit? Pressing on...

Food basically comes in two forms for humans:meat and vegetables (that would include anything grown as a plant, kiddies) and really, meat-food is made by feeding plant-food to animals (which is brutally inefficient, but we'll get to that later) so if we can describe plant food adequately we have basically killed two stones with one bird.

Plants are basically just self-contained factories. They take in solar energy via photosynthesis and minerals via osmosis. With these two resources they construct more plant material, growing larger, expanding their roots and foliage to allow them to absorb more of the same resources and expand their operation. So we need to know how much solar energy, measurable in joules, a given type of plant needs to begin and maintain this process. A starting point, until more specific research can be done would be to measure the solar energy that hits a given square foot of soil. Additionally, we have to know how much energy is stored in the mass of the plant itself. That covers the organism itself but any farmer can tell you that this doesn't happen (on a commercial scale) all by itself. We need to take into account the various chemicals used, manual labor contributed and the fuel expended to power the equipment used in agriculture.

The first thing you should be thinking right now is, "That's all well and good, but how do we go about it?" Pick a spot.

No, seriously, pick a spot. Any spot will do. The thing about measurements is that you have start someplace; it doesn't matter all that much where, as long as you can use it as a point of reference. Personally I recommend using what I just mentioned above; measure the amount of energy delivered to a given square meter of ground and the amount of energy extractable from a mass of vegetation. These are fairly easy measurements that even simple farmers in 3rd world countries can perform. As with all other metrics, greater accuracy and precision will evolve on their own in the pursuit of greater efficiency and profitability.

Metrics is really what this is all about. Functionally, the question, "How much is it worth?" is not substantially different from, "Where is it?" and they can both be addressed in the same manner. Consider for a minute why the questions are asked in the first place; someone wants information that will allow them to make a decision with a predictable (preferably certain) outcome. Whether its navigation or calculation, the goal is always the same; getting from A to B. As with navigation though, you can't produce any useful results if you don't know as accurately as possible the relative positions (values) of all salient points. Additionally, in the specific instance of food stuffs, knowing the energy value of your goods allows you to use it as specie in economic exchanges.

The point I'm tyring make here is that what this theory does is provide the monetary equivalent of point zero in graphing. It tells you where you're at, in a real sense. Once you've got an accurate way to measure things, financially speaking, you can start looking for the relative values (positions) of everything else. It starts small and fuzzy but because the results are universal, reliable and (therefore) cumulative you can rely on a multitude of sources for input into an ever expanding library of applicable quantities. Go a step further and you can use modern comm-tech to take the whole process of measuring energy values viral. Imagine the equivalent of a global atlas, with the vast majority of relevant latitude and longitude points. Think of how that revolutionized navigation and imagine a similar apogee in economics.

Chestnuts

It should seem simple and straight forward. Do we, the people of the United States sanction the torture of other human beings or do we not? There seem, somehow, to be two answers depending on to whom you are speaking. Some answer an unequivocal no; they say that using force to coerce another human being is simply immoral and utterly irreconcilable with our principles. Other say that any act undertaken with the purpose of saving American lives (why do they always make that stipulation?) is perfectly acceptable.

Further complicating the matter is the point raised by Mr. Llewellyn King. The prospect of Congressional hearings, frankly does smack of attainder which is both unethical and unconstitutional. Additionally the implications of executive retribution would, at absolute best, serve to destabilize the authority of the Presidency; while accountability is vital to the proper functioning of our government, we cannot allow ourselves to start criminalizing the politics of outgoing administrations. A tangled web indeed.

The only decision we can make at this point is what to do going forward. First we need to determine if the law was broken. Frankly I can't see how anyone could argue otherwise. Part 1, Article 3, Section 1, Subsection A of the Geneva Convention (of which this nation is a primary signatory) states plainly that torture is proscribed. So, yes, the law was broken. Words fail to communicate my feelings to my own satisfaction. The person(s) responsible for this, simply put, are not safe in my presence.

Moving on, we have to address the issue of what the proper course is to resolve this. Its tempting to jump on the idea of a bipartisan commission of the legislature. Sounds democratic and post-partisan, etc. but the fact of it is, while such a commission might (I cannot sufficiently stress that word, might) be useful in generating investigative results, using the legislature to punish the players in this drama would be patently illegal under the constitution and set a very dangerous precedent for criminalizing the policies of political rivals after the fact.
What is it with me and drawn out sentences lately?

The proper place for any prosecution is, as Fearless Leader has stated, with Justice. That said the DoJ doesn't exactly have a pristine reputation at the moment and furthermore, Sec. Holder is a personal friend of Fearless Leader. I don't want to question either man's integrity but only the king of all fools would pretend that the supporters of the previous administration won't. There is also the little matter of the recent scandal regarding the mishandling of the Steven's prosecution. A favorite defence tactic of many attorneys is to attack the prosecution, undermining their credibility.

Assuming a successful prosecution, what the hell do we do with the guilty parties? I'm not certain they fall under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ and I'm unaware of any civilian conviction precedents. So then what?

Personally, I advocate stripping of all assets and the imposition of damnatio memoriae. Then again, I've made my position known.