Private Property

 

We Can Be Together

Come on all you people standing around
Our life's too fine to let it die
We can be together
All your private property is target for your enemy
And your enemy
Is we 

Is private property Godly and public property Godless? 

Communism is defined in the dictionary as “a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned, and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.” I happen to be a Marxist myself, but I aspire to follow Julius Henry “Groucho” Marx. Karl Marx also espoused that religion was the opiate of the people and his followers are considered to be Godless.  My college chaplain, who hardly could be called Godless, was a Franciscan priest who took a vow of poverty. He believed that all property was communal, public.  Thus while Communism might be claimed to be Godless, public property, can also be considered to be property owned by God’s people, and is thus by definition not Godless. 

Similarity private property is not Godly.  In fact, Christians believe that the “love of money
(a measure of private property) is the root of all evil”.  The Bible might have said that God gave man dominion over the earth, but that that should be taken to mean all mankind, and not an individual man. 

While I live in private property, I only have to take a few steps outside my door to be on public property, a street.  Even those who believe that private property is Godly, do not think that travelling on a public street is a Godless action.  

Neither private nor public property is Godless in its own right.  It is how that property is used, which determines whether it or not it is Godly.

Zero and Infinity

My Hero, Zero

You're here,

And nobody really knows

How wonderful you are.

Why we could never reach the star,

Without you, Zero, my hero,

Zero, how wonderful you are.

When we talk about zero or infinity, we should understand what is meant by these terms.

Zero is not just the smallest number.  It is the smaller than the smallest number that can be imagined.  The smallest observable length is the Planck Length, which is  1.62× 10-35 meters.  At the speed of light, it would take  3.34 times 10-9 seconds.  Zero length is even shorter than this length. Zero time is even shorter than this time.   

At the other extreme, infinity is not just the largest number, It is larger than the largest number that can be imagined.  If the Planck length is the smallest observable number, then the inverse of the Planck length, is 6.17 times  1034 meters, which is 1.7 times 1020 light years.  This also means that  it would that it would take 1.7 times 1020  years to travel this distance  at the speed of light.  An infinite length is even large than this length, and infinite time is larger than this time.

Zero and infinity are necessary for mathematics.  But just because something is a large number it does not mean that it is infinite.  Even if something is a small number, it is still greater than zero.  Whenever we deal with large or small numbers it is important to remember this.

Strategy and Tactics II

 

Love and Marriage

Love and marriage, love and marriage

They go together like a horse and carriage

This I tell you brother

You can't have one without the other.

Some things just go together.  But we shouldn't overemphasize one at the expense of the other.

Strategy and Tactics are often used in discussing military affairs.  If we lose every battle, we can’t expect to win the war, but according to the familiar adage  we don’t want to “win the battle (e.g. have a tactical victory) but lose the war (e.g. have a strategic defeat).”  There are those battles that are too costly to win,  i.e. Pyrrhic victories.  There are also strategic retreats where the battle may be lost in order to fight again and win the war. 

Pearl Harbor might have been a tactical victory for the Japanese, but it led to their strategic defeat. Dunkirk is remembered not as a tactical victory by the British, but as a strategic retreat that was an important part of the British victory in WWII. 

Planning, which is merely another name for strategy, is different than operations, which is merely another name for tactics.  They have different goals and time frames.  But both are needed.  It would be a mistake to have an operational success today, that leads to a long-term planning failure in the future.  Both planning and operations are needed in a successful organization.  You can’t have one without the other.

It's Relative

 

How Deep is the Ocean?

And if I ever lost you

How much would I cry?

How deep is the ocean?

How high is the sky?

Are large numbers useful?

Large numbers can be useful, if people understand the difference between relative and absolute values.  A large number by itself is an absolute measure  A large number in comparison with another large number is a relative measure.  To avoid confusion, an effort should be made to state something using both measures, and see if the perception changes.

The vaccination program for  COVID-19 was opened to persons over 65 in Massachusetts on February 18, 2021.  At that time, Governor Baker announced that this would open the vaccination to over one million people.  He further announced that 70,000 appointments would be available beginning on that date.

70,000 sounds like a large number and in absolute terms it is a large number.  However in relative terms it is 70,000 appointments for 1 million people or 7% of the eligible population.  That doesn’t sound so large.

Similarly if we hear that Tiffany’s is having a 50% percent off sale, it sounds like a great deal. But if stated in absolute terms, a $10,000 necklace is on sale for $5,000, that absolute number might only be a good deal if a person can afford that $5,000.

It is useful to state numbers as both relative and absolute values before making a judgement.  This might lead to different judgements being made.

Climate Change

 

Stormy Weather

Don't know why

There's no sun up in the sky

Stormy weather

Since my man and I ain't together

Keeps raining all of the time

There is a difference between weather and climate.

At this moment, there is artic weather in Texas.  Is this evidence that the climate in Texas is cooling, not warming?  Hardly.  Climate is the average of weather over a long period of time. If the weather is colder than is normal now, but has been hotter than normal on previous days, it is an indication that the weather is more variable, not that the climate is colder.  The time period matters.  If the only evidence is from the now, then yes Texas is experiencing Artic conditions.  However climate is about more than the weather right now.

Those who confuse climate with weather are ignoring both the evidence and the definitions. Just as a failure to convict by a supermajority at the February 2021 impeachment hearing should not be confused to be a finding of innocence by a majority at that same impeachment hearing.  Since some of the votes for acquittal were made on constitutional jurisdiction grounds, e.g. the public statements of Sen. McConnell, it can not be claimed that even the vote at impeachment trial was a verdict of innocence.  Even though the Senate apparently voted on the constitutional jurisdiction issue on February 9^th, at least some of the votes for acquittal were not based on the evidence but on constitutional jurisdiction grounds. Those might have voted guilty on the article of impeachment based solely on the evidence.  Additionally since the Senate also took an oath to impartially hear the evidence, and some Senators were either not impartial, or did not even pretend to listen to the evidence, then whether there was a supermajority of impartial Senators on the evidence, not the jurisdiction, was not determined.  

An acquittal in the O.J. Simpson case did not mean that O.J. Simpson could not be found guilty later either in civil court or the court of popular opinion.  A finding depends on the evidence, regardless of what the conditions are now, and on the definitions.  Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. An acquittal is NOT a finding of innocence.  Cold weather is NOT a finding of a colder climate.

Third Parties II

 

It Takes Two

It takes two, baby
It takes two, baby,
To make a dream come true
It just takes two 

It may take two, but what if there are more than two? 

A decision has to be made on: who serves in a government; who is served by a government; and who, and at what amount, is taxed by a government.  This presumes that there is a government, but those who advocate for no government need to explain whom will provide the benefits supported by a government. (We The People ….and all that jazz😉). 

Those who serve in, control, government need not include all members of society.  The US Constitution excludes persons from serving in certain offices based on their place of birth or age. ( e.g. a President must be a natural born citizen over 35 years old.)  Those served by the government need not be limited to those who can serve in the government  (e.g. spotted owls may be served by government, but no one expects them to serve in government).  Those who are taxed by the government need not be authorized by that government. ( e.g. The IRS estimates that about 6 million unauthorized immigrants file individual income tax returns each year. Research reviewed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicates that between 50 percent and 75 percent of unauthorized immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes.)

A political party must make decisions about whether it supports inclusive or exclusive government.  (e.g. who serves in, is served by, and/or is taxed by, government.) A political party must make a decision as to whether it supports a limited or a strong government.  ( the support for NO government by a political party, who are vying to run a government, is a non sequitur.)  While these decisions are continuous not binary, let’s assume that they are only binary.  Then there are potentially four groups of people.  The problem is that the US government by supporting single-ballot plurality-rule elections that are structured within single-member districts tends to favor a two-party system. That is Duverger’s Law.  Since there are potentially at least four groups, and only two parties, two groups may not find a party to represent them.

This dynamic might explain the tension that exist in society today.  Four groups are vying for the control of only two parties. Either groups agree to exist within a party, or they exclude themselves from any party.

 

Lies Count

 

Lies, Lies 

Lies, lies
I can't believe
A word you say
Lies, lies
Are gonna make
You sad someday

Someday, you're gonna be lonely

But you won't find me around

Lies, lies, breaking my heart 

Can we always tell when we are being told lies? 

Mark Twain popularized the phrase “There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies, and statistics”.  Statistics are hard to understand and while they are not lies themselves, if they are misunderstood, then they can become lies. 

A problem with statistics is that most of us do not understand the difference between absolute and relative amounts, and when to use each.  If we hear that vaccines have been administered to 10 million people, but we live in a country with a population of 330 million, while 10 million is a large absolute amount it is only 3% of the population, which is a small relative amount.  When we hear that the price of something is 50% off, that is its relative amount, but the absolute amount is still 50% of the original price, which still might be more than we can, or should, spend. 

A way to better use these statistics is to convert a relative amount into an absolute amount, or vice versa, and see if these new values change the opinion which the statistic was supporting.  If the opinion remains the same, then statistics didn’t lie.  If the opinion does change, then statistics were being used to lie. Lies might not count, but liars can count.

Third Parties

 

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. 

If those leaving the Republican Party form a third party, what will happen? 

Duverger’s Law explains why there are only two parties in the United States.  There may be third parties at any given point in time, but eventually there will only be two parties.  The interesting question  is who will leave the Republican Party and form a third party, and whether that third party eventually becomes the alternative to the Democratic Party. 

Those Republicans who opposed Donald Trump have threatened to leave, or are being pushed out, to form a new center right party.  Those who support Donald Trump have threatened to leave and form, what they are calling, a Patriots Party.   Who leaves, and/or who gets absorbed into another party, eventually will determine what happens in the long term.  Those who support the existing caste system, oppose immigration, and have a narrow view of whom government should be supporting, will not likely find a home in the Democratic Party.  They are the Trump supporters who currently are in the Republican Party.  The “Never Trumpers” might see a place as a conservative wing of a Democratic Party, but if the Republican party is dominated by Trump supporters, then they have to decide whether to continue to be included in that party.  If neither of these groups see a place in the Democratic Party, the less influential group is likely to simply stop supporting any party and no longer vote.  

In any event, if the current divisions continue in the Republican Party, then eventually the dominant group will become the Republican Party or its replacement, and the losers may no longer vote, have a party to represent them.  It is too early to say if that group will be those who believe in limited but inclusive government or those who believe in exclusive government, if there is to be any government at all. There are two binary decisions: Limited or strong government; inclusive or exclusive government. This defines four possible groups but we can only support a two party system.  Some group has to be left out of the party.

Profiles in Cowardice

Theme Song from High Noon 

I do not know what fate awaits me      

I only know I must be brave    

And I must face a man who hates me 

Or lie a coward, a craven coward        

Or lie a coward in my grave.

The Senate Impeachment trial not only showed us Profiles in Courage.  It also showed us Profiles in Cowardice. 

Much has been, and will be, written about the Profiles in Courage shown by Senators during the second Trump Impeachment Trial.  Senator Burr voted to convict despite voting previously that the trial was unconstitutional.  Yes, he previously announced his retirement, but Gary Cooper, the hero in High Noon, showed a sheriff displaying his courage on his retirement day.  The definition of an honest man is NOT one who stays bought.  Sen. Cassidy, as an impartial juror, voted not only to convict but also unexpectedly to find the trial constitutional, not because he would be rewarded for that vote, but because he was persuaded by the evidence. 

The remaining Senators who voted their conscience, not their party:  Sen. Romney, Sen. Collins, Sen. Murkowski, Sen. Sasse, Sen. Toomey, have and should be thanked for acting not in their own best interest but in the people’s best interest.

All Senators swore an oath to do impartial justice before the impeachment trial.  Those Senators who voted to object to the certification votes on January  6^th and who gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the people of the United States are cowards for falsely swearing that they could be impartial. 

Those senators who did not listen to the arguments at the trial, like Sen. Paul who famously doodled or Sen. Braun who read a newspaper, showed that they cowardly had no intention being impartial.

Those like Sen. Cruz who openly consorted with the President’s lawyers were hardly being impartial. If this had been a criminal trial this behavior would have been considered not just cowardly but as  jury tampering. 

Sen.  Graham went from saying “Count me out, enough is enough” on the floor of the Senate on January 6th, to cowardly voting to acquit on Feb 13,  to threatening Vice President  Harris with impeachment on national TV on February 14, which is a cowardly way to celebrate Black History month.

 
Sen. Lee cowardly interrupted the trial to say that he had been misquoted when a House impeachment manager said that he had been reported to have overheard Sen. Tuberville telling the President that the Vice President was being evacuated.  That cowardly act was undermined when Sen Tuberville admitted that is precisely what he told the president. 

But the crowning act of cowardice was that of Sen. McConnell, who ignored the vote of the Senate on February 9^th that the impeachment of a former official was constitutional, by saying that Donald Trump was guilty, but his vote to acquit was on the constitutional grounds that Donald Trump was no longer the President. Not only did Sen. McConnell ignore the vote on February 9^th, he clearly hoped that no one would remember that the Article of Impeachment was voted while Donald Trump was President, for acts he committed while President, and that the only reason  Donald Trump  was being tried while a private citizen is that Sen McConnell did not allow the Senate trial to begin while Donald Trump was the President.  Sen. McConnell is like the proverbial boy who kills his parents and then asks for sympathy because he is an orphan.  A coward and a hypocrite. 

Let us hope that these Profiles in Cowardice will be long remembered.  The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.

Republicans

 

Hound Dog

When they said you was high classed
Well, that was just a lie
Yeah, they said you was high classed
Well, that was just a lie
Yeah, you ain't never caught a rabbit
And you ain't no friend of mine

Are Republicans being Hound Dogs?

Benjamin Franklin was asked when he was leaving the Constitutional Convention, what kind of government had been formed, and he supposedly replied, “ A republic, if you can keep it.” By republic he meant a representative government, not an upper case “R” Republican government.   A question now is whether based on the behavior of Republicans in the recent impeachment trial we CAN keep it.

Republicans used to be the party of limited government, not the party that thought that “government is the problem”.  Republicans used to be the party of low taxes, not “no (new) taxes”.  Republicans used to be the party of moderation, not the party that thought that “moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue”.  Republicans used to believe that “power corrupts”, not staying in power at any cost.  According to Duverger’s Law, a  representative government, with only one representative per district, will ultimately from a two-party system.  However if one of those parties believes that there should be no government, then that party has no reason to compromise with the other party in that government, and thus effectively there is no government.

Republican elected officials take an oath to defend the US Constitution and its system of government.  If they do not believe in that government, then that oath is meaningless. 

 

Acquital?

 The Way We Were

Memories may be beautiful and yet

Much too painful to remember

We simply choose to forget

 

Something seems to be wrong with Sen. Mitch McConnell’s memory.

 
Sen. Mitch McConnell seems to be having a senior moment when it comes to  his vote for the acquittal of Donald Trump at the recent impeachment.  His position is that Donald Trump is responsible and he would have found him guilty but since he is a private citizen unfortunately as a Senator he  did not have constitutional jurisdiction.
 
I guess he forgot that the Senate voted 56 to 44 on Tuesday February 9^th, 2021 that this impeachment WAS constitutional.  I guess that he forgot that the crimes were committed when Donald Trump was the President.  And that the Articles of Impeachment were voted by the House on January 13^th, 2021 when Donald Trump was still the President but the Senate was in recess.  The former Majority Leader of the Senate at that time, who coincidentally had the same name as Sen. McConnell ;), decided not to return the Senate from recess so that the impeachment trial could begin before Donald Trump became a private citizen.  The vote on February 9^th that impeachment was constitutional acknowledged that Donald Trump was a private citizen, but that he was also a former federal official and the Senate had jurisdiction over impeachment of those private citizens who were also former federal officials.  If it was clear that impeachment also covered former federal officials perhaps the House could have had the time that the defense demanded to fully document, research and describe the crimes in the Articles of Impeachment.

It is sad that Sen. McConnell’s memory is failing.  I understand.  That happens when we get older, and it is happening to me.  Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment is in order to clear up this issue for him so that he can then vote his …cough, cough, cough... conscience. The Republican Senators are to be thanked for pointing out during questioning that that impeachment of former officials could be weaponized to again try to “lock her up”.  Perhaps the Articles of Impeachment of FORMER officials should require a supermajority of the House.  Impeachments should be limited to high crimes and misdemeanors committed while a federal official.  George Washington was a legal slave owner, and Bill of Attainders are already prohibited by the constitution. The minimum mandatory sentence for impeachment is  removal from office and the discretionary sentence is disqualification from holding future federal office.  Since holding a future office does require one to be alive, I think that George Washington is safe from Impeachment. But if Sen. McConnell and others are unsure,  perhaps that can be made clear in a constitutional amendment. 

And considering that the former President’s defense team seem confused about impeachment being a criminal trial covered by criminal law, which clearly it was not, perhaps the amendment can spell out that an impeachment trial is not a criminal trial and which rules apply.  Mr. van der Veen clearly was confused, which surprises me since he is an ambulance chaser who has primarily tried civil cases that have different rules than criminal cases, but maybe they do things different in “Philly”delphia. 

Incitement

 

You Made Me Love You

You made me love you
I didn't wanna do it
I didn't wanna do it
You made me want you
And all the time you knew it
I guess you always knew it

What determines a guilty verdict of incitement?

In a federal criminal trial, in order to convict, the prosecutor must show the defendant knowingly committed an overt act to further insurrection. A conviction carries up to 10 years in federal prison. (18 U.S.C. § 2383; Yates v. U.S., 354 U.S. 298 , 1957.)  An act of  incitement does not only occur BEFORE an insurrection.  If that overt act to further the insurrection occurs DURING the insurrection, then that also is  incitement. 

If Sen. Tuberville’s statements about his phone call with Donald Trump are true, then Donald Trump knew that an insurrection was taking place before he took an overt act, a tweet in which he said “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”.  This was an overt act which furthered the act of insurrection and placed the then Vice President’s life in danger.

This is an impeachment trial, not a criminal trial.  In addition to overt criminal acts, the high crimes and misdemeanors covered by impeachment, can be acts of dereliction of duty, such as not calling for assistance during the insurrection that demonstrate that the insurrection was likely to have been incited.

This IS the trial, not the arrest.  The House managers did not have to present this evidence before the vote on the Article of Impeachment.  The impeachment trial is where it is appropriate to hear evidence if the President knew that an insurrection was occurring .  If he did, then this tweet is an overt act to further the insurrection, and could be a federal criminal offense, not merely a political impeachable offense.

The defense team argued that there is more due process in a parking ticket.  I have received parking tickets.  I do not remember having, or expecting, due process from the parking officer. In fact, in all cases, the ticket was issued while I was not even present.  However, during the hearing on any parking ticket, I expected, and did receive, the due process to present evidence of my innocence.  Do I wish that the parking ticket had not been issued?  Cleary, because then I would not have even spend the time to attend a parking hearing.  But did I think my due process was violated because the parking officer did not hear that evidence before issuing the ticket? Absolutely not.  There is a difference between arrest and trial.  Due process is applicable only DURING the trial, not DURING the arrest.  

Impeachment IV

 

I Don't Want You Around Me Anymore

If you were half as smart as you think you are
The world would be a-standing at your door

But I, I won't be there cause I no longer care and

I don't want you around me anymore.

 

Are the Republican Senators at the impeachment trial being smart?

If the Republican Senators were smart they would vote to convict in the Second Impeachment trial of Donald Trump.  And since the mandatory sentence of removal from office is moot, they then could vote against the disqualification from future office.  Doing so would allow them to claim that they have a moral code, but also because they hope that his behavior would never be repeated, they are merciful. But this would anger the Trump supporters who want complete and total vindication, and at least 17 Republican Senators are unlikely to be smart.

The Trump supporters, like Donald Trump himself, do not value the future.  They favor victory now at all costs.  This is known as a Pyrrhic victory, that is a tactical victory but a strategic loss.    AKA winning the battle, but losing the war.  The causes of those who lost in these Pyrrhic victories are often won. We accept evolution and remember Clarence Darrow, but Darrow lost the Scopes Monkey Trial.  We know Galileo Galilei and that the  moons of Jupiter still move, but he lost his inquisition trial where the words “and yet it moves” are remembered.  Donald Trump may have be impeached at his trial, but Rep. Raskin and all of the House managers  have helped ensure that we will never forget and that we can hope that we will never allow the behavior of another President to be like Donald Trump.

 

Minimum Wage II

 Another Saturday Night

Another Saturday night and I ain't got nobody

I got some money 'cause I just got paid

How I wish I had someone to talk to

I'm in an awful way

Some money may not be a lot of money, if the job paid only the federal minimum wage.

The media has characterized the Biden administration proposal as raising the minimum wage to  $15 per hour.  However the wage increases to that amount over 5 years and the initial adjustment in 2021 only raises the minimum wage to $9.50. This basically restores the current federal minimum wage to the amount in 2017 Dollars.  The minimum wage was last set in 2009 and there has been inflation since that time. There should be bi-partisan support for this raise, especially since this is merely applying a Cost Of Living Adjustment, COLA,  to a 2009 statutory amount.

After 2025, the proposal requires a Cost Of Living Adjustment to its minimum wage of $15.  There has been bi-partisan support for COLAs in Social Security, IRS Tax Rates, and many other amounts stated in federal laws.  There should also be bi-partisan support for applying a COLA to any statutory  minimum wage.

The discussion of what the minimum wage should be, and let me state for the record I believe that it should be more than $9.50 in 2021 USD, is a separate discussion that should not change the fairness of applying a retroactive COLA to the current minimum wage and ensuring that the minimum wage will continue to be adjusted by a COLA forever in the future.

Impeachment III

 

My Back Pages

To memorizin' politics

Of ancient history

Flung down by corpse evangelists

Unthought of, though, somehow

Ah, but I was so much older than

I'm younger than that now 

Is the impeachment political.... or not?

 

The key issue of the impeachment trial of Donald Trump is whether he incited the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2012.  Before January 6^th,  there was no reason to “hang Mike Pence”.  He was the Vice President of the United States.  He was the running mate of Donald Trump.  If the election was certified, then he would no longer be the Vice President.  Mike Pence was specifically mentioned by Donald Trump seven times during his speech on Jan 6^th.  His displeasure with Mike Pence was expressed.  Mike Pence had written to the President that morning that he intended to certify the result which was not “doing the  the right thing” as defined by Donald Trump.  So the cry of “hang Mike Pence” on January 6^th could only come from the incitement by Donald Trump on the morning of January 6^th. 

This is not a civil or criminal trial.  The sentence of the Senate is limited to removal from office, which is as pointed out only a mandatory sentence and not applicable at this time, and disqualification from future office.  The constitution specifically requires that the sentence excludes any other civil or criminal  penalties. 

So will the votes at the impeachment trial be political?  Of course, because the sentence is also limited to a political one.  If the Republican Senators vote NOT Guilty as a verdict, they will be the ones that are ignoring the facts and making only a political vote.

Justice

 A Long Time Coming

There been times when I thought I couldn't last for long

But now I think I'm able to carry on

It's been a long time coming

But I know a change is gonna come, oh yes it will 

“The Arc of the Moral Universe is Long, But it Bends Toward Justice.”

Love of county is NEVER demonstrated by the hatred of anyone who we believe should not be part of our country.  The injustice of chattel slavery drove this country to a Civil War.  Because we did not know better, we did not repudiate our sins but erected monuments to the Confederate traitors and adopted Jim Crow laws.  We broke our promises to immigrants, native Americans, and people of color.  If we are to move past the divisions that threaten to rend this country today, shouldn’t we acknowledge out faults, vow to never forget them, and take measures to correct them. 

We can have nostalgia for the good things in the past, but not at the process of throwing away our future.  We can have nostalgia for the good things in our past, while still acknowledging that there were also bad things in that same past.

Change may not have come when Sam Cooke wrote his song in 1964, but change not only is gonna come now, it HAS to come now.  It may have taken a long time, but the time for justice is now.

Responsibility

Call Me Irresponsible

Call me irresponsible    

Call me unreliable         

Throw in undependable too

Chief Justice Roberts is at risk of being irresponsible.

On Tuesday, the Senate will begin the second Impeachment trial of Donald Trump.  The Presiding Officer will be Senator Leahy, not Chief Justice Roberts.  The Constitution requires that the Presiding Officer for  a Presidential Impeachment trial is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  The trial might be one  that Chief Justice Roberts finds disagreeable, but he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution   Does he have the options of declining to preside, or is he not accepting his responsibilities?

The President when the Article of Impeachment was voted was Donald Trump.  The President when the actions cited in the Article of Impeachment was Donald Trump.  While the mandatory sentence of a guilty verdict of impeachment is removal from office, and Donald Trump is NOT currently in office, it is not the only sentence.  The sentence can be disqualification from holding any federal office in the future.

This is not a case of sentence first, trial later.  Chief Justice Roberts must have the United States of America confused with Alice in Wonderland.  Given the actions that led to the Articles of Impeachment and the vote on the Articles of Impeachment, and the possible sentence, it is clear that this IS the impeachment trial of a President and  Chief Justice Roberts must preside.  To choose not to preside is irresponsible.

Impeachment II

The Times They Are A Changing

Come senators, congressmen

Please heed the call    

Don't stand in the doorway      

Don't block up the hall  

For he that gets hurt    

Will be he who has stalled       

The battle outside ragin'           

Will soon shake your windows

And rattle your walls    

For the times they are a-changin'

On Tuesday February 9th , the Senate must bear witness to the battle that was ragin’ on January 6th

The impeachment trial of Donald Trump will be an opportunity for the Senate to bear witness to the battle outside that was raging.  They will eventually be asked to determine whether  Donald Trump's actions incited that battle.  "Many fine people" have called that battle an insurrection.  Insurrections are an attempt to topple a government.  That the majority of the people of the United States voted that this was their government makes this an insurrection against the people.  The fact that the insurrection did no succeed does not make it any less an insurrection.

The outcome of the trial is not yet determined.  The Republican Senators have  indicated that the chances of rendering a guilty verdict are unlikely.   But that is not the most important part of the impeachment trial.  It will be an opportunity to use the Swahili word, Kushuhudia, to bear witness, which is an essential part of any healing process.  If we are to move past the battle that was raging, the Senators need to bear witness to the events of January 6^th.  Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  Let’s us hope we learn and never repeat this battle, outside or inside..

Passing for a Higher Class

 

Free  

When I'm free to be whatever I want to be,
Think what wonders I'll accomplish then!
When the master that I serve is me and just me--
Can you see me being equal with my countrymen? 

I am not free until all of my countrymen ( gender neutral) are free 

This is me.

• I am a feminist,
• My paternal grandfather was an illegal immigrant  (okay from Canada, but illegal is illegal),
• My maternal grandparents were legal immigrants from Poland, but never spoke English,
• I was baptized a Roman Catholic,
• I have a brother with MS who serves on a disability commission,
• I have a brother who is openly gay,
• My father was a high school drop-out,
• My father was a union member,
• I am a senior citizen,
• I struggle with mental illness, etc.

and by all rights I should be assigned to a low class. However by changing the first letter of my last name from a “B” to an “R”, it becomes the same as a former Republican President.  I have degrees from two Ivy League Universities.  My history and beliefs are not obvious from my appearance.  I know that I have been mistaken for, passed as, a  WASP on many occasions and been treated as such. 

During the Capitol Riot, Rep. Phillips ( D- MN), suggested that his Democratic colleagues move to the other side of the aisle so that they could blend in, but he then realized that many of his colleagues of color could not blend in and he understood privilege and systemic racism.

Slavery did not end with the Emancipation Proclamation.  It was quickly replaced by Jim Crow laws.  We are not free until all of our countrymen are free.  I should not accept passing for a higher class. We should all earn our places in society, not accept one.

Impeachment

 We’re  A Couple of Misfits

Why am I such a misfit?
I am not just a nitwit!    

They can't fire me, I QUIT!
Seems I don't fit in.

Can you escape firing by quitting?  And what does that have to do with the impeachment trial?

The upcoming impeachment trial should not focus on the constitutionality of trying a president who is no longer in office.  Despite that the fact that removal from office is a mandatory sentence, it is not the only possible sentence ( Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 of the United States Constitution defines the penalties of a guilty verdict of impeachment as being not only removal from office but also “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States”.  While Donald Trump may no longer be in an office from which he can be removed, he could be disqualified from holding any federal office in the future.  The defense that he is not in office seems to be a “You can’t fire me, I quit” defense.

While most of us will never be President, many of us will face the prospect of being fired.  While “You can’t fire me, I quit” may sound appealing, those who chose to quit before being fired are choosing this immediate personal gratification, and that may not be rational in the long term.  Those who are fired can receive unemployment insurance. Those who quit can not.  A search by future employers would probably discover the actions that led to “You can’t fire me, I quit”, so this is NOT hiding those actions.  While it might seem to be immediately gratifying, quitting to avoid being fired is never recommended. 

The impeachment trial may result in acquittal.  However it serves as the full disclosure of any alleged actions.  The defense should be I am not guilty of those actions, not “You can’t fire me, I quit.”

Public Services

    Be Our Guest

Be our guest    

Be our guest    

Put our service to the test       

Tie your napkin 'round your neck, Cherie    

And we provide the rest.

If businesses are expected to provide service,     
is there a difference between a business and a public service?

Business can choose their customers, set their own prices, and reap their own profits.  They have control over what offerings they provide and what costs to provide those services they incur.  If they fail to be profitable, those businesses can declare bankruptcy .  By contrast a public service has customers that are determined for it, can not realize their own profits, have no control over their offerings or costs, and can NOT declare bankruptcy, It is a public services NOT a business.  Those public services can be expected to operate efficiently, but that does not mean that they are a business.

The US Postal Service is just that… a public service, a government function, not a business.  Acting as if it was a business is not reasonable.   Public schools, prisons, etc. might chose to use private contactors to provide some of their functions, but that does not make them business.  The public, acting through its representative government, is responsible not only for the benefits but may have to provide subsidies to realize those benefits.

The business of government is to provide services that are determined by the government, not to be a business itself.  If services  required no subsidies but were guaranteed to be profitable, then presumably businesses would have provided those services.  Public services are those that the public requires but businesses won't provide.

Innovation

Crown of Creation

Life is change.
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways too often for my liking.
New worlds to gain.
My life is to survive and be alive
for you

Innovation requires changes.  But do we reward innovation?

I spent the first half of my career in public service, i.e. government, and the second half of my career in the private sector.  It is my experience that successful innovation was rewarded in the public sector only at the time of promotions or interviews for a new job.  If innovation failed, a government employee was likely to be  punished by being fired.  Under such a system the reasonable expected behavior is not to innovate, not to stick your neck out.

In the private sector, innovation can be rewarded at times other than promotions.  It can take the form of annual awards, performance bonuses, or other rewards.  If the goal of innovation is realistic, e.g. doesn’t violate real rules, then even failures can be, if not rewarded, then at least not punished.

This does not mean rewarding any effort.  A goal that is impossible, such as innovating by seeking a perpetual motion machine which would violate the laws of physics or an elixir that seeks to change lead into gold, is not a change that should be rewarded by anyone.  

If we expect change, then we have to reward efforts to change.

Winning

The Games People Play

Oh the games people play now
Every night and every day now 
Never meaning what they say now      
Never saying what they mean

People might not know they are playing games, but how they play can reveal a lot about them.

Game Theory is concerned about how people make decisions to win games.  The Ultimatum Game in behavioral economics is a very  simple game.  Player One is given an amount, say $100.  Player One must make an offer to a Player Two.  If Player Two accepts the offer, then they both get to keep their respective amounts.  If Player Two rejects that amount, then neither player gets to keep anything.

The User Optimal solution for a single non-repeating game is for Player One to offer as small an amount as possible.  Let’s assume that offer is $1.  Player Two, should accept that offer, because even $1 is better than nothing.

The System Optimal solution is for Player One to offer to split the money equally with Player Two, and for Player Two to accept that offer.  Then they both have $50.

It might sound like the User Optimal solution would be the one chosen.  However in practice those who were Player Two often rejected any offer that was less than $30.  Why?

Player One in the User Optimal solution assumed that the game would never be repeated, and by offering less than $30, both players walked away with nothing.  An offer of greater than $30 to Player Two would normally be accepted.  Player Two recognized that an offer of less than $30 indicated that Player One assumed that the game would never  to be repeated, and the roles would never be reversed.

The difference between the User Optimal offers and the minimum acceptable offer is what economists call the shadow price. This includes not only an acknowledgement that the game might be repeated and the roles reversed,  but also an indication of how Player One values the future.   I.e. what discount rate that Player One applies to future values. That $29 dollar difference is the future value of the $50 that would have been the System Optimal cost.  The fact that we value the future less than the present, i.e. apply a discount rate to future values, is reflected in the adage "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". 

So what discount rate does a shadow price of  $29 price imply?.  It implies a discount rate of 42%, if the game is repeated one time.  A $1 offer implies a 98% discount rate if the game is repeated once and the roles are reversed. Player Two won’t play with player One if those are the rules.

Minimum Wage

Working For a Living 

Bus boy, bartender, ladies of the night

Grease monkey, ex-junky, winner of the fight 

Walking on the streets, it's really all the same

Selling souls, rock n' roll, any other day  

Workin' for a livin' (workin')

Workin' for a livin' (workin')

Workin' for a livin', livin' and workin' 

I'm taking what they giving 'cause I'm working for a livin' 

If you work for a living, then should there be a minimum wage? 

A minimum wage  benefits society, which includes both the worker and his employer.  Under unregulated capitalism, the minimum wage should be zero. ( Under unregulated capitalism, there  also should be no child labor laws or overtime laws, but that is another subject.).  If the minimum wage is zero, eventually workers would no longer be able to live and work.  Not only would the employer have no workers, but he probably would have no customers because he probably sells his products to workers of other firms.  An employer who pays zero for wages might profit today, but it is an unsustainable business model, and will fail in the future. 

If it is accepted that there should be a minimum wage, then what should be that minimum wage?  In 2007, the Federal minimum wage was established as $7.25 per hour.  However there has been inflation since that time.  The Federal Reserve Bank has a goal to keep inflation at less than 2% per year. 

That increase has not been the same on all products.  Since 2007, and especially during the COVID pandemic, inflation has been higher in some consumer categories. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, food prices increased by 4% last year, while other products such as energy declined by 7%. 

According to the Consumer Price Index, a wage of $7.25 in 2007 US Dollars, USD,  would be worth only $5.82 in 2021 USD.  Has this real decrease resulted in an increase in jobs?   Most probably, since that wage is closer to zero and thus the cost of labor has decreased for each employer.  But that is not a sustainable model for society, or for those businesses who benefit at the present time.  Increasing the minimum wage to at least the previously accepted value should be justified.  However, that is only if the prices of all products grew at the same rate.  Since the price of those products most likely to be purchased by minimum wage workers has increased at rate higher than inflation, then a higher minimum wage than $9 per hour appears to protect society, including both workers and their employers. Additionally that rate should be indexed to increase, if prices increase.