I therefore propose the following: We give ourselves one week to pass a <BILL OF URGENCIES> detailing: 1.) the calamities that threaten all of us, as well as all the cg members we represent, and 2.) the steps we need to take to create a viable state that can respond to those and other threats.

These are the rules of LEX:

1. Any number can play.

2. Players take turns in alphabetical order.

3. On his or her turn, a player can propose a new rule or a change or repeal of an existing rule.

4. A proposal for a new rule or for change or repeal of an existing rule is adopted if and only if it is approved by a majority of the participants.

5: A player who fails to propose a new rule or rule change or repeal in accordance with rule #3 on his or her turn within 24 hours loses that turn; and a proposed new rule or rule change or repeal is ratified if and only if it is approved by a majority of the players voting within 24 hours after it is proposed.

6. [I]n the next world game with white pieces, all LEX players vow to vote 1. c4.

<AgentRgent>: It's up to you now.

By now all of you must have at least a glimmering of what LEX is about. It's a model of the democratic legislative and political processes. Or if you wish, it is a model of the British constitution. As you probably know, the U.K. doesn't have a written constitution. Their constitution consists of the entire corpus of British law since Magna Carta. Thus, every time Parliament passes a law, it is in fact amending the constitution, but it must do so within the framework of previously existing law. They do have a sort of supreme court, the "Law Lords," but their role in ruling on the constitutionality of laws is much more circumscribed than that of our Supreme Court.

As I said a few days ago, this is the first time I've tried playing LEX online, so this has been in the nature of an experiment. The conclusion I've drawn from the experiment is that in this mode LEX doesn't work very well. In my experience the game works best when everyone meets in a single room to vote or propose new legislation. (I like to use a whiteboard to keep a written record of the current status of the "constitution" and of proposed changes.) But in order to mimic the real-life legislative process, the participants should be able to get together in private to make deals and to form caucuses and conspiracies. (In a sense it is the ultimate "party game.") Because all communication here has been open, we have not been able to do that. When players are able to meet privately and join in cabals, however, that introduces an element of competition that has been lacking in the present game, and the action becomes quite cutthroat. Some individuals can acquire more power than the rest and the democracy can be replaced by a tyranny. (I think you realized that.)

Another conclusion I have drawn is that the game is far too slow when played this way. That too was a consequence of the way we communicated, since the only way to find out if someone had done something was to log into this forum, and none of us stayed logged in continuously.

But to sum it up, I think it's time to end the experiment. I therefore propose the following new rule:

6. This game is now over.

From very early on I could see two things:

(1) There would likely be "pork-barrel politics" involved and that would probably be needed to get anything done

(2) A good illustration of why, in our actual Congress, it is so hard to get things done

But on an open forum, where everybody can see everything that gets proposed, it keeps the "pork-barrel politics" and backroom deals from getting going

Thanks for this article, whose link you posted in the Tata Steel page. I have always wondered about our isolated northern neighbor in east asia, especially its nuclear capabilities.

<‘You haven’t seen the glint in the eyes of the South Korean military,’ she said. ‘They’re desperate to get hold of the North’s nuclear arsenal. That’s unacceptable.’ Why? ‘Because if a unified Korea becomes a nuclear power, it will be impossible to stop Japan from becoming one too and if you have China, Japan and a unified Korea as nuclear states, it shifts the relationship of forces against us.’ >

The above opinion came as a surprise to me. Yet it seems logical enough. I believe Japan would see a unified economically powerful Korea as a threat, especially if armed with nuclear weapons. USA in turn would see economically powerful nuclear armed north east asian countries as something uncomfortably uncontrollable.

I think China and Japan follow USA as the 2nd and 3rd biggest economies in the world, with South Korea on the way up. Regarding basic economy, this is in large part measured by industrial production of basic stuff; and in the past decade, China has become number one producer of modern civilization's top three structural metals (iron, aluminum, magnesium), not to mention zinc, mercury, gold, rare earths.. plus the most commonly produced industrial chemical- sulfuric acid. Regarding energy, only China, Japan, the Koreas, and India have constructed new nuclear plants since Chernobyl; and China and Japan are into active research in 4th generation nuclear plants.

I do not know if you like theater, but I recommend (Ovid's) "Metamorphoses" at the Constellation Theater (near 14th and T Streets)

[ http://constellationtheatre.org/met... ]

<al wazir: I decided to incorporate them ("a collection of vector formulas") in my opusculum >