law and philosophy

I sit on a board of trustees and was recently added to the bylaws committee. (Finally somebody listened to me when I said "I write precise technical specifications for a living and I'd like to help".) There are some changes we need to make this year, so the committee was charged with looking at everything. As long as we have to call a membership vote on bylaws changes anyway, the theory goes, we may as well try to address anything else that's posing problems.

I am in my element. :-) But it turns out that there are some "me against everybody else" differences in philosophy, so it's been educational all around. For example:

Me: This "examples" passage is just advice, not law. It doesn't belong.
Them: It's good advice.
Me: There should be no unnecessary words in law. This half-page doesn't accomplish anything.
Them: It's not like the difference between 15 pages and 14 is really going to matter.
Me: !!!

They explained that the intent of the actual law might not be clear; I said if not then we needed to clarify the law. They said people might still need examples; I said we were free to provide supplementary documents if anybody thought it was necessary. (Federalist papers, anybody?) Fundamentally, I believe that law should contain only what is truly necessary, with the result that it is short enough that we can expect stake-holders to read, comprehend, and remember it, and so that we leave to policy what should be covered by policy.

In the end they conceded the specific point of discussion, but I don't think we have achieved understanding. My point wasn't just to win this particular argument but to bring them around to a different way of thinking. So there is more work to be done here.

Some may remember that back when the principality of AEthelmearc was forming, I was one of the ones on the law committee arguing that our laws ought to fit on on 8.5 x 11" piece of paper in a reasonable font size, too. (For the kingdom I was willing to grant a second sheet of paper.) We lost that one, alas.

another under-appreciated TV show

I just finished watching Day Break, which is kind of like a cross between a crime/conspiracy drama and Groundhog Day (in the science-fiction sense, not the romantic-comedy sense). The main character, Detective Brett Hopper, wakes up one morning to find he's been framed for murder, so he sets out to clear his name, uncover the truth, and protect his family (who are getting some attention because of the first two). The twist is that he keeps reliving the same day over and over again, with his memories (and injuries) intact. Changes he makes in one iteration affect the next (and can be reverted by subsequent actions).

The show was canceled after 6 episodes aired; 13 had been made and eventually came out on DVD (which I've been watching via Netflix). The final episode reaches a satisfying ending while leaving doors open; I presume it was intended to be the finale of a short season when it was made. So it fared better than many shows that get canceled early in that it tells a story rather than just the first few chapters of a story. It had potential, though, and it would have been interesting to see a second season.

The episodes that were made do not, however, provide any insight into what is causing the time loop. I wonder if we were ever going to learn about that or if it was just meant to be one of the givens of the show.