from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E96A16F16
	for <jm@localhost>; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:55:28 +0100 (IST)
from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:55:28 +0100 (IST)
from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id 3C7DB2940D4; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
from mail.evergo.net (unknown [206.191.151.2]) by xent.com
    (Postfix) with SMTP id 1FA202940D3 for <fork@xent.com>; Tue,
    24 Sep 2002 08:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0
	tests=AWL,IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT
	version=2.50-cvs
From fork-admin@xent.com  Tue Sep 24 17:55:28 2002

Yes, it is.  You just want to be called a liberal when you really
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 5:12 AM
> "The opinion that EITHER we are spending too much OR we have too much

from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 070DF16F03
	for <jm@localhost>; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:55:30 +0100 (IST)
from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:55:30 +0100 (IST)
from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org
    (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8OGAEC11404 for <jm@jmason.org>;
    Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:10:14 +0100
from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id ACE072940DA; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
from imo-r09.mx.aol.com (imo-r09.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.105])
    by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 522F329409A for <fork@xent.com>;
    Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
from ThosStew@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.)
    id 2.1a3.92f0d57 (4418) for <fork@xent.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:09:26
    -0400 (EDT)
No, hits=0.0 required=5.0
	tests=AWL,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,NO_REAL_NAME
	version=2.50-cvs
From fork-admin@xent.com  Tue Sep 24 17:55:30 2002

In a message dated 9/24/2002 11:24:58 AM, jamesr@best.com writes:
>This situation wouldn't have happened in the first place if California
>didn't have economically insane regulations.  They created a regulatory
>climate that facilitated this.  So yes, it is the product of
>over-regulation.
>
Which is to say, if you reduce the argument to absurdity, that law causes
crime.
(Yes, I agree that badly written law can make life so frustrating that people
have little choice but to subvery it if they want to get anything done. This
is also true of corporate policies, and all other attempts to regulate
conduct by rules. Rules just don't work well when situations are fluid or
ambiguous. But I don't think that the misbehavior of energy companies in
California can properly be called well-intentioned lawbreaking by parties who
were trying to do the right thing but could do so only by falling afoul of
some technicality.)
If you want to get to root causes, we should probably go to the slaying of
Abel by Cain. Perhaps we can figure out what went wrong then, and roll our
learning forward through history and create a FoRKtopia.
Nonpartisanly, which is to say casting stones on all houses, whether
bicameral or unicameral, built on sand or on rock, to the left of them or to
the right of them, of glass or brick or twig or straw,
Tom