Republicans VIII

 

The Party’s Over

The party's over
It's time to call it a day
They've burst your pretty balloon
And taken the moon away
It's time to wind up the masquerade
Just make your mind up the piper must be paid.

Is the Republican Party over?

A Venn Diagram is the perfect way to illustrate the Goldilocks principle, “Just Right”, when there are three outcomes from two diametrically opposed positions. The maximum condition is when the two positions intersect, overlap, and this creates three outcomes from the total of all conditions.  The first position that does not overlap is 1/3 of the total;  The area of the overlap, intersection of the first and second positions is 1/3 of the total. The area of the second position that does not overlap the intersection is 1/3 of the total. The total is thus always 1. The intersecting position might go by the name of Reagan Democrats or Rockefeller Republicans, etc. It is in this bi-partisan area that politics is most effective.

If one side becomes obsessed with ideologic purity and refuses membership to those who would work with the other position, the total will not change. In fact the excluded members may join with the other position. In this case the first position has 1/3 of the total. The second position has 2/3 of the total; the 1/3 that did not intersect with the other position PLUS the 1/3 that did previously  intersect. Excluding members because they were primaried out; were “RINOs”; spoke ill of other Republicans, etc. ........ or other  ideological tests ensure ideological purity becomes a self defeating effort.

Why has this become a problem for the  Republican Party? It goes back to its very beginnings. No individual Party member can be expected to have exactly the same position on every issue. If party membership is defined by only one issue, then there is the probability that membership would be offered to those with no other commonalities among its members. In the 1850s, the issue was the expansion of slavery into federal territories. The non-tax Whigs and the no-immigrant Know Nothings who may have had nothing in common with others who held anti-slavery positions were welcomed into the Republican Party. When slavery was abolished then the ideological position of the Party could become no-tax or no-immigrant, even and those who were anti slavery but pro-tax or pro-immigrant may be excluded from the party which they founded. It has taken almost two lifetimes, but the exclusion appears to have been accomplished. A party that excludes Richard Cheney, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger and Mitt Romney and vilifies Jon Mc Cain may be ideological pure, but it is guaranteeing its own defeat.

Lawrence O’Donnell remarked that today’s Republican Party has become a cult of personality. He observed that the policies espoused by the current Republican nominee for President whether it is JD Vance or Ron Desantis, or even Donald Trump, Jr. are widely deplored, and yet those same policies espoused by Donald Trump, Sr are admired by many.  He concluded that it is the personality not the policies that are being endorsed. And since personalities have a limited lifespan, but one has to ask when Donald Trump, St.  is no more, is the Republican Party over?

Absolute

 

All in One

One love (hear my plea)
One heart
Let's join together and I'll feel alright
Let's join together (thanks and Praise to the Lord)
And I'll feel alright (and I will feel alright)

Is there also only One Absolute?

If there is an absolute and its absence, for example absolute zero, then the question becomes how many absolutes are there?

While it is true that life=ln(0 ± (sinh(x)+cosh(x))), if an absolute can be approached but not obtained, then the behavior approaching that absolute is said to be exponential. Since both sinh and cosh can be stated as exponentials, the two solutions are x and ‑x. https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2024/09/sides.html

It is also true that while sinh(x) and cosh(x) are repeating functions,  they repeat only in imaginary planes every 2πi. These are also wave functions with positive and negative parts. They are positive during repeats of πi and are negative during the next following repeat of πi. Since it has already been said that the coefficient of the imaginary axis must confined to 0 in order to be real, this coefficient must be a relative zero not an absolute zero. Therefore x must practically be between 0 and π to be meaningful. Thus while it is true that one solution is x and one solution is -x, both solutions must have a coefficient of zero for the imaginary part in order to be real. That means that rather than a parabolic solution where the solution CAN be imaginary, this is more probably moving from one sheet of a two sheeted hyperboloid to the other sheet, The solution of x, and -x, therefore must also be between 0 and π. In that case, if the universe is one sheet of a two sheeted hyperboloid, then for  Pythagoras' Theorem to be true, then x as π must be the size of the universe. If c, a, and b are much less than the size of the universe then they are also much less than π. Then Pythagoras’ Theorem is c=√(a²+b²) is because the universe is locally flat while globally hyperbolic.

If the three dimensions of that hyperboloid are space, time and imagination, and imagination is confined to be zero in order to be real, this can also be stated that  negative coefficients of i are worse than real,  and positive coefficients of i are better than real. Time also can be defined as the past is negative, and the future is positive, if the present reality is 0. This means that both time and i, imagination, must also be infinite. This means that only space can be constrained to zero and real values and thus be absolute. If there is an absolute, for example absolute zero temperature, then the question becomes how many absolutes are there? Temperature is directly proportional to velocity, and velocity is merely the derivative of space with respect to time. This means that temperature and space are effectively the same thing. This suggests that if there is an absolute zero of temperature, this means that space has the same absolute zero. If the dimensions of time and i must NOT be absolute,  and the dimension of space has to be an absolute, then there is no such thing as negative space. What is from our flat perspective perceived as negative space is merely one sheet of a two sheeted hyperboloid and thus there is only one absolute, just as there is only one volume. The three dimensions of this volume are space, time, and imagination, and only space is absolute. Again, temperature is merely the derivative of space with respect to time. Absolute zero temperature means space is absolute. If neither time not i, imagination, can be absolute, then there is only one remaining dimension that can be absolute.

Beliefs

 

I Believe

I believe for every drop of rain that falls
A flower grows
I believe that somewhere in the darkest night
A candle glows
I believe for everyone who goes astray, someone will come
To show the way
I believe, I believe

What do you believe?

Must  followers of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math, STEM, disciplines be atheists? When I was first working, a co-worker said that someday since I was an engineer, I would stop believing in God and become an atheist.  Now almost 45 years later, it still has not happened.  I have instead realized that the position that was being put forward is merely one of nomenclature. Scientists believe in an absolute and the absence of an absolute.  For example they believe in a temperature of absolute zero. Theists believe in God and the absence of God.  Exchange absolute for God, and they are both saying the same thing. Technologists believe in an absolute, even though technologists have never obtained either an absolute or an absolute zero. Theists believe in God, even though theists have not seen God or the absence of God.

Instead what scientists and other technologists believe is that through research and study they can discover  how the absolute/God works, NOT that there is no absolute/God. If there are rules, those rules are the mind of God. The problem is the belief that understanding how rules works means that if you follow those same rules that YOU are then God. It does not mean that studying the rules, or personally testing those rules, means you don’t believe in the rules.  In the New Testament of the Christian Bible, when the Apostle Thomas doubts that the others have seen the Risen Christ he is not saying that there is no Risen Christ, only that he personally needs the proof that there is a Risen Christ. He won’t accept the word of others that there is a Risen Christ. Christ himself does NOT chastise Thomas for this doubt.  Christ instead appears before Thomas, and asks Thomas to inspect his wounds.  But Thomas did not say that by inspecting those wounds he had become the Risen Christ, only that he believed in the Risen Christ.

If the rules are those of the absolute/God, knowing those rules means that you believe in the rules, not that you ARE the rules.

Ceilings II

 

O Death

Well I am death, none can excel
I'll open the door to heaven or hell
Whoa, death someone would pray
Could you wait to call me another day

If life is a building, then birth is the floor and death is the ceiling.

The Bill of Rights to the US Constitution concentrates on establishing rights (ceilings and floors) on individuals beyond which the state can not operate. The Constitution itself also set some floors for its officers, but unfortunately did NOT set ceilings. This was done because the life expectancy at the time of writing of the Constitution was such that any ceilings that needed to exist would be beyond the limits that death already imposed. Thus a minimum age for as President as 35 years was written into the constitution, but no maximum age was established. At the time, life expectancy was only 40 years. Admittedly that was skewed by death in childhood but even a 35 year old might on average only be expected to live an additional 30 years in 1796. Thus setting a ceiling of 75 years for taking the oath of the presidency could be considered to be an unnecessary ceiling when death might come earlier.

However life expectancies have changed. It is now conceivable to live to 100 or more years. So if there is a floor, we can no longer count on death imposing a cut-off before a ceiling is needed. By never acknowledging that the People as individuals were giving to die, no ceilings were set. If instead the People collectively are expecting to live forever, then ceilings shouldn’t be ignored.

There should be ceilings on how old its officers could be in order to take their oaths. There should also be term limits on each of those offices, NOT lifetime appointments. Those terms can be long enough that they are generational, not as nominated by the present voters. If the adult voting age is 18 years, then an 18 year term limit is consistent with being a regent for most wards of the state before they achieve full voting status. The nomination of most federal officers is by the President. If a President is limited to two term, then most federal officers should also be limited to two terms, unless otherwise specified. Not acknowledging death, allows death to win.

Branding

 

You Don’t Know Me

You give your hand to me
And then you say hello
And I can hardly speak
My heart is beating so
And anyone can tell
You think you know me well
Well, you don't know me

Maybe to be known, you need better branding!

When I was  a young engineer, I was working on what became known in Boston on I-93, the South East Expressway as the Zipper lane. That was NOT what it was called by us engineers.  We called it the SEXway ( South East eXpressway) Reversible Movable Barrier Separated High Occupancy Vehicle Lane.  Rolls trippingly off the tongue doesn’t it! 😉

The basic concept is that confected, concrete Jersey barriers are stored against the median on both sides of the South East Expressway and moved as needed.  The traffic was highly directional during peak hours, northbound in the morning and southbound in the afternoon.  While the traffic was such that it warranted an additional lane during the peak hour in the peak direction, there was not the right of way to add an additional lane. But there was an extra lane in the reverse direction.  But that traffic was already going at expressway speeds in the opposite, off peak, direction so it could not be safely taken.  A lane could be taken if that lane was separated by a physical barrier, but then that barrier would be needed to be removed, and switched to the opposite side only hours later each day.  If only there was a physical barrier that could be moved twice a day when needed, and thus the concept of movable barriers was developed.  The barriers could be moved to create the lane in the early morning, and stored against the median in the afternoon.  In the afternoon, the process would need to be reversed in the opposite direction.  Once the kinks were worked out, a design was developed, and the barriers were put in place.  Because there was only a single lane, to entice and reward drivers to use this lane, and to prevent it from being overloaded upon opening, entry would be restricted to High Occupancy Vehicles (e.g. carpools and buses).  But there was still that name.

The branding of the lane was taken care of by the newspaper headline writers.  The machine that moved the connected barriers appeared like it was opening a big Zipper, when it was stored it appeared to be closing a Zipper, and the lane that it created allow you to Zip into Boston from the suburbs. Would it have been as successful under the original name?  Maybe.  But the Zipper lane by which it is known is MUCH better branding.  There is an article Parker Molloy dealing with another example.  What is formally known as  “coherence bias” by journalists might be better branded as “sane-washing”. The intent is cleaning up a speech by journalists which informs only about the policies, but does not convey about the character of the speaker.  The intent is good and is informative on policy but is depriving any information about character.  Knowing it is “coherence bias” is interesting.  Calling it “sane-washing” is not only better branding, ... it gives the reader the proper information.

Electoral College II

 
Alma Mater

Alma Mater, we hail thee
With loyal devotion
And bring to thine altar
Our off 'ring of praise

We love our college, but do we love the Electoral College?

The Electoral College was created  because the Slave States wanted to include slaves among the population that determines federal voting strength, but still wanted to control the vote of their slaves. The compromise was that federal voting strength was based an enslaved person being counted as 3/5 of a person, and the establishment of the Electoral College. Given that history, and the fact that slavery was abolished, does the  Electoral College serve any purpose today?

The Electoral College is also a reminder that the winner of a Presidential election also represents those states from which the winning candidate for President received no votes.The President represents not only all of the people, but he must represent ALL of the States as well. A President needs to be backed not only by a plurality of voters, but by a plurality of States as well.

The Electoral College membership is set as equal to the number of Congressional (House and Senate) seats,  plus a few electoral votes for federal districts and territories. It is arguable that the number of seats in the House, the largest share of Electoral College votes is out of whack, but that is a different matter and can and should be solved by a different process. https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2024/04/zero-sum.html. 

The problem is the size of the Electoral College, not the College itself.  Arguably, the Electoral College still serves a purpose and let us  bring "our off'ring of praise", and not call for its abolishment. 

Election 2024

 

Centerfield

Oh, put me in, coach

I'm ready to play today

Put me in, coach

I'm ready to play today

Look at me, I can be centerfield

How does a coach decide who will play?

It has been said that over a baseball season you will win 1/3 of your games and lose 1/3 of your games and it is what happens in that remaining 1/3 that determines the success of your season. In a season of 162 games, then you should lose no more than 2/3 of 162, or 108 games. Tell that to the 2024 Chicago White Sox! This statement should be in REGULATION games, those NOT going to extra innings, you will win 1/3, etc. Losses in extra innings only prove the point and tie breakers should be deducted from the total of 162 games played.

The reason is that there are three outcomes to every game win, loss, AND tie. The games that end in a tie after regulation are NOT being counted as ties. It is the same in any contest such as an election, but in elections policies AND character are being considered. 1/3 will chose one policy, 1/3 will chose the other policy, and 1/3 will chose character as the tie breaker because they can’t decide on policy alone. There are those elections that are only about policies. Arguably the 1972 election of Richard Nixon vs, George McGovern was on policy ( Nixon’s character was not widely known until AFTER the election.)  And the 1964 election of Lyndon Johnson vs, Barry Goldwater was on character. This means that unless the opinion on policies and character changed between 1964 and 1972, that 60% of the population prefer Republican policies and 60% of the voters will choose on character.

If we start with the premise that 1/3 will choose Republican policies, then that means that the Republican base is 33% of the electorate. Similarly 33% of the electorate will chose Democrat policies. This means that one-third will of the voters will be unwilling or unable to decide on policies alone and will revert to character as a tiebreaker. If 60% of those voters think that Kamala Harris has the better character, then she  should receive 60% of that 33.3%, or an additional 19.8%, for a total of 52.8% while  Donald Trump will only receive 40% of that 33.3% or an additional 13.3% for a total of 46.2%. A larger difference than that indicates that the character is more than an 60/40 split. But it must be remembered that a Harris victory does NOT mean a victory of Democratic policies. It only means that Harris won on character.

Debates and elections are illustrative of character, not policies. How you debate is more important than what you debate. Does this mean that the election has been decided?  It might be. (Pennsylvania started early voting on Sept 11^th. November 5^th is just the finish line.) But electoral college voting strength is not the popular vote. Play ball!