Staticfree Blog

Robert B. Aderholt just can't get enough God in his government. So, like last year, he proposes an act to let church and state mix, if they desire. This year, it's the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004. Last year, it was the Ten Commandments Defense Act, but that must have been a bit too religious-sounding. Ah, I love conservative agendas. They really make me wonder why so many people feel they should control other people's lives and what they do with themselves.

I think I've determined one of the main problems with laws in the United States these days: there're too many superfluous laws. Take for example §61-1-6 of West Virginia Code: "It shall be unlawful for any person to have in his possession or to display any red or black flag, [ctd.]" What is the reason for this? Why is it there? And if it's superfluous, why should it remain? Or how about §61-10-25: "Engaging in work, labor or business, etc., on Sunday - - Prohibited." That's a bit arcane and is highly abused in these modern times. Why should it be permitted to exist still as actual law?

In the same way that both parties in a trial get defendants, in the same way that you free() your malloc()s, in the same way that republicans and democrats constantly battle, you need to balance out the dichotomy. Politicians spend their days creating new jobs and modifying old ones that come up, but what about the cruft? I believe that if you were to have someone who was paid to remove laws like this (mind you, through the same amount of debate that brought it into being in the first place) we'd have the potential for a more successful government.

Not to say that it would happen, but if you could decimate the set of extraneous laws, I've a feeling more people would actually bother to read the laws and realize what they are and aren't entitled to do. As they are, they're dauntingly numerous: a good few hundred laws that could probably be thinned down to effectively 2/3 to 1/2 as many. With fewer laws, the set of laws as a whole would be more manageable.

Paralleling laws to source code (which in a way they are: the code of conduct and organization of a complex system), programmers will often optimize or even rewrite entire sections of code in order to make the system work better holistically. Let's not just remove old, useless laws, let's consolidate! When programming, if you end up copying and pasting the same bit of code more than 2 times, you should probably turn it into a subroutine. The same should apply for laws: let the chapters parallel subroutines and tie them together better. The legal language is certainly robust enough to handle it and I'm sure lawyers would love it too.

I've mentioned this idea to others before and the main cause of concern they brought up was that the laws are there and not harming anyone, why not just leave well-enough alone? Well, the same reason a programmer will remove un-used subroutines from a program: there's no point in leaving it there and it only adds to the bloat. I say, hire someone to act as that programmer and clean up the mess. After all, it's only our laws we're talking here; it's not like they matter in our daily lives at all.

Three and Four
More, MORE, MORE!

Five and Six
Will this fix?
seven, eight, nine
your place or mine?

"It may sound simple to have some absolute rule that no foreign citizen may have access to certain fields of science, but in fact America has benefited enormously from talent that comes here from other countries to study in the United States," said [George Leventhal, policy analyst with the Association of American Universities]. "There's a long tradition of groundbreaking discoveries made in the U.S. by researchers born in other countries."

So's this one. ug. Canada's looking like a mighty fine country these days.

On an entirely less stupid note: We have robot pics! Physically, it's pretty much done. Now if the software were only the same...