Political Parties

 

It’s My Party

It's my party, and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to
Cry if I want to
You would cry too, if it happened to you

Are political parties making us cry?

The founding fathers did not anticipate the formation of political parties.  If they had, the Electoral Crisis of 1800 would never have happened. This was an inadvertent tie between the Democrat candidate for president and  Democrat candidate  for vice president.  That led to the adoption of Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution which implicitly acknowledged the existence of political parties by separating the election of the president from the election of the vice president. 

Single member districts were also not a constitutional requirement.  The constitution required that votes in the House of Representatives should be apportioned by a decennial Census. More than one representative per state could was expected.  But the Constitution was silent on whether those representatives would be proportionally elected in a state (i.e. at large) or whether those representatives should be for specific districts within a state.  Single member districts were the result of Congressional apportionment act of 1842.

The result of single member districts and a plurality system is, according to Duverger’s Law, two political parties.  If the winner is determined by plurality, merging any political parties that did not receive  a plurality was proposed as inevitable.  Consequently there are two political parties in the United States, while there are more than two parties in proportional systems of representation,  e.g. parliamentary systems in Europe.

A consequence of a two-party system is that supermajority votes become a way for one of those two parties to block the actions of the other party if it is a minority, but not a super-minority.  Thus a supermajority action, such as advise and consent; ending debate and bringing a bill to a vote, popularly known as the filibuster; etc. can be blocked by the political party that is a minority.  If votes for a supermajority were secret, then retaliation against the “defectors” could not be enforced by that political party. Thus supermajority votes might then serve their intended purpose, to make sure that actions of a majority do not come at the expense of the minority.  Actions to block votes by a majority, by the party that is a minority, but not a superminority, are the current impasse.

Just as the framers of the Constitution did not anticipate the formation of political parties, Congress did not anticipate the consequences of single representative districts.  There is a good reason for a single representative for a district.  It ensures that the representative is closer to the people being represented.  However the consequence of this single representative  per district  system is to makes it possible for  the minority party to block all actions of the majority party,  unless that majority party is also a supermajority.  Rather than change the electoral system, require that all supermajority votes ( e.g. advise and consent, declarations of war, ending filibusters, etc.), be by a secret ballot. This would recognize that there are 50 States, 100 Senators, and currently 435 Representatives, and not just 2 political parties. A secret ballot in supermajority votes should serve to unite us, rather than divide us. Will that portion of the minority that is also a superminority object? Of course, but the alternative may be to allow simple majority action in all cases instead of requiring a supermajority.  Let’s not eliminate the protections against a tyranny of the majority because we don’t want  a tyranny of the minority.

Capitalism

 

Mary Poppins - Fidelity Fiduciary Bank

You can purchase first and second trust deeds
Think of the foreclosures!
Bonds, chattels, dividends, shares
Bankruptcies, debtor sales, opportunities
All manner of private enterprise

Are the interests of investors the interests of society?

In economics, a production equation that determines the quantity of goods from a seller/producer is often given as

quantity=function(capital, labor). 

For example, if a child sells lemonade from a stand, the production function might include the cost of pitcher, the cost of the lemons, and the cost of the labor.  The lemons are the raw materials in making lemonade and do vary with the amount sold, but the pitcher is only purchased once.  Thus capital is the investment in the pitcher, which is a one-time cost, and costs of the lemons, which is a variable cost . The investment in the pitcher should have a return on investment, ROI, but the lemons don’t require the same return on investment, (e.g.  if you sell less, buy fewer lemons). Additionally economists classify goods as private (exclusive and priced) and common/public (exclusive and non-priced) goods.  You can’t make lemonade without water, a common good. Therefore the expanded production function should be

quantity= function(investment, private goods, public goods, labor).

Producers/sellers want to maximize the amount that they produce,  since revenue is quantity sold times price, and thus they will receive  more revenue.  If they reduce the unit cost for labor, then then can produce more goods. But slavery is illegal and there are minimum wage, maximum hours and child labor laws.  If the labor is not supplied by the producer, then society has an interest in requiring that there is a reasonable cost for that labor, to protect itself, other producers, and those laborers.  Similarly the cost of using common goods are regulated/priced by society to ensure that these common goods are used responsibly.  Producers should not lower the price of private goods. There are anti-trust and anti-competitive laws to prevent producers from lowering the price of private goods for only themselves.  If there were no controls on private goods, public goods, and/or labor, or these controls are violated, then the Return On Investment, ROI, could be higher.

But this is only from the perspective of the investors.  Society can, and often does, ensure a reasonable ROI, e.g. for regulated utilities, but it also can not ignore protecting private goods, public/common goods, and labor.  Protecting only the interests of investors is not in society’s interest. Supply side stimulus is NOT ensuing a higher ROI on investment, e.g. by reducing taxes on investment.  That is only an investment stimulus and ignores the other components of supply. Capitalism is support for free markets.  Those free markets do NOT consist only of investors.

Voting Rights

 

19th Amendment

They thought we were a joke
They tried to dash our hopes
With every word they spoke
They tried to revoke
A woman’s right to vote
But we made it

Restricting anyone’s right to vote is no joke.

In Georgia, a driver’s license can be renewed by mail. In Texas, a driver’s license renewal form is mailed to every driver, even if that driver does not intend to renew his license.  In Florida, it is not illegal for someone else to mail that driver’s license renewal form.  In Alabama, a photo ID is required to buy alcohol but it does not require a special photo ID.

A driver’s license allows a person to use a deadly weapon (e.g. a vehicle weighing many hundreds of pounds, which travels at high speeds) but that driver is expected to act responsibly.  Alcohol can be purchased by adults because they are expected to consume responsibly.  Renewal of a driver’s license is often not confined to business hours in recognition that many people are working or otherwise occupied hours during the RMV/DMV office hours.  I have paid my local, state, and federal income taxes by mail for over 60 years, and in fact I don’t know if, or how, they can be paid in person.

And yet voting is considered such a dangerous activity that the right to vote is restricted.  Mailing ballots to those who are registered, but may not choose to vote, is often prohibited.  Handling a ballot of another, by mail or in election drop boxes, is restricted.  The ID to vote does not include many forms of photo IDs.

Let’s be honest.  Voter restriction laws are enacted because the people who vote by mail, vote not during poll booth hours, or don’t have the right kind of proof of ID, etc. are the “wrong” people. If only the “right” people were voting, these restrictions would not have been enacted.

If these same restrictions were put on driver’s or other government licenses, paying taxes, buying alcohol or tobacco, etc. they would be viewed as a joke and would not be even considered. Placing restrictions on the right to vote is no less of a joke,…. but it is a very poor joke.

 

Debt Ceiling

 

Tomorrow

When I'm stuck a with day that's gray and lonely

I just stick out my chin and grin, and say, oh

The sun'll come out tomorrow

So you gotta hang on 'til tomorrow

Come what may

Tomorrow, tomorrow

I love ya tomorrow

You're always a day away.

It is shame that not everyone believes in tomorrow. 

“Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said if Democrats “want to tax, borrow and spend historic sums of money without our input, they’ll have to raise the debt limit without our help.”(NBC News  , Sahil Kapur, NBC News, Sept 25, 2021)Recommended

Debt is not inherently bad, despite what Republicans may say.  I have lived in my home since 1981 because I took out a mortgage ( long since paid off, but I was able to live in the house while I paid off that mortgage).  I have taken out loans to pay for all of my cars ( long since paid off, but I was able to drive while I paid off the loan.).  I took out student loans to attend college, (but I was able  to work and use those degrees while those loans were paid off). I took out loans for my children to attend college but those are also long paid off.  The point is debt that is an investment in the future is never bad.  I imagine that many Republicans own some corporate bonds, which is after all corporate debt, so just holler Emerson at them ( "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" and boy are they foolish.) 

The debt limit needs to be raised because the spending that has already been approved can not be paid by the taxes that have been collected. ( and do remember that Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017!).  This is not about new taxes or new spending.   It is about old spending and old taxes.

 One of my favorite scene in the movies is the bank run in It's a Wonderful Life.  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPkJH6BT7dM&t=42s.

Don't sell out to Mr. Potter.  I don't want to live in his slums. I want to invest in the future and I will get by on $17.50 as Mrs. Davis did in It’s a Wonderful Life.    Belief in the future used to be a bi-partisan issue.  Do Republicans really wanted to cede the future to Democrats.

Social Security

 

Illegal Smile

Last time I checked my bankroll
It was gettin' thin
Sometimes it seems like the bottom
Is the only place I've been
I chased a rainbow down a one-way street dead end
And all my friends turned out to be insurance salesmen

Is insurance a bad thing?

People who say that Social Security Insurance is a Ponzi scheme neither understand Insurance nor a Ponzi scheme.  Insurance is a method to pool risk.  And as I have written in previous postings, risk is the product of likelihood and consequences.  If there is one chance in a thousand of losing a home (e.g. the likelihood) and that home is worth $100,000 (e.g. the consequences) , then 999 individuals would have a cost of $0 and one unlucky individual would have a cost of $100,000.  But if those 1000 individuals pool their risk, they would each pay $100 and the manger of the risk pool ( e.g. an insurance company) would pay the $100,000 cost to replace the home. You would use your own money to pay into the risk pool ( i.e. the insurance company), but once you paid, it is no longer your money.

A Ponzi scheme is not insurance, it is an investment.  Your money is your money even after it has been invested.  You expect to get back your money plus a Return, e.g. interest, On that Investment,  ROI.  If both your investment and its ROI comes from the investments paid by others, then it is a Ponzi scheme. 

Saying that you have “paid” into Social Security is one way that the Social Security benefit is computed, but the amount that you paid is NOT your money and ceased being your money once you paid it.  That makes it insurance (which is after all its name) rather than an investment. The fact that the government is serving as the insurance company does not change this.  Just because you call it your money, doesn’t make it your money. It used to be your money but is no longer your money.  If it is not your money, then it can’t be a Ponzi scheme.

The fact that government required you to purchase this insurance ( and your “contribution” to Social Security IS a purchase), does not change this fact.  My favorite sign in the last few years was “Government keep your hands off my Social Security!”  The irony was lost on the carrier of that sign.

Reverse Engineering

 

Impossible

And if they said I'd find you beyond the rainbow's end
I would have said "Impossible, impossible, my friend"

To dream about what might have been
Is strange enough for me
But now it seems I'm living in
A dream too beautiful to be

So what is impossible?

“Man will never fly”.   “Bumble bees in flight violate the laws of aerodynamics ”.  “A man will never walk on the moon”  So said science at the time, according to how science understood it.  But engineers are asked to go beyond science all of the time.  Roman engineers built roads that we still use today, even though they did not yet have the benefit of Newton’s Laws.  The Sea Battalion, SeaBees,  the engineering arm of the US Navy, has the motto. "CAN DO" and the phrase "With willing hearts and skillful hands, the difficult we do at once, the impossible takes a bit longer." . 

Engineers are fine with doing the “impossible”, even if it takes a bit longer.  That is why man flies, bumblebees fly, man walked on the moon”, etc., because it really was possible.  Engineers observe something and then reverse engineer how it must have been done.

One of my favorite reverse engineering stories involves the original Star Trek ( yes, the William Shatner version). To make the Starship Enterprise seem more futuristic, there were automatic sliding doors in the corridors.  Today, this is commonplace. When I go to the supermarket, the front door automatically slides open when I approach it. However at the time of Star Trek, in the 1960s, these did not exist and a special effect created the illusion by having an off-screen technician manually slide the door.  But engineers looked at this effect and reverse-engineered how you would create an automatic sliding door, not knowing that in this case it was only a special effect.  If it doesn’t violate real laws of nature, and not just mankind’s current understanding of those laws, which is after all what science is, then reverse engineering may be useful.  Maybe the reason that scientists have to be careful about saying that something is impossible is because they were tired of engineers proving them wrong.

Economics III

 

Certs Jingle

Certs is a breath Mint
Certs is a candy Mint
Cert is two, two, two mints in one.

Is Keynesian or Monetary economics correct?

John Maynard Keynes supported progressive income taxes, state provided health care, retirement pensions, and  government deficits, and opposed high tariffs and the gold standard. Friedrich von Hayek, one of the founders of the Chicago School of Economics, opposed progressive income taxes, state provided health care, retirement pensions, and government deficits and supported high tariffs and the gold standard.  So who is right? They both could be considered to be correct. Keynes was describing a System Optimal solution and Hayek, a major proponent of Monetarism  along with Milton Friedman, was describing a User Optimal solution.

Differences between User Optimal solutions and System Optimal solutions are common.  For example, absent any ban on this behavior, taking goods from others is a User Optimal solution, e.g."Might makes right".  However those who are stronger have no incentive to produce goods, if they can simply take goods that others produce.  And those who are weaker have no incentive to produce goods, if those goods will only be taken from them.  Society wants to maximize the production of goods, and society has banned any stealing goods from others as one means to ensure that the User Optimal solution will be closer to the System Optimal solution, e.g. "Might for right"

Commandments, laws, regulations, policies, programs, etc. are society’s way of imposing shadow prices such that User Optimal solutions are closer to  System Optimal solutions.  Knowing what the User Optimal solutions are, and what the System Optimal solutions are, is necessary in order for society to enact commandments, laws, regulations, policies, programs, etc. that can bridge any gaps between System Optimal solutions and the User Optimal solutions.

Labels such as capitalism/free markets or socialism/Marxism/communism/collectivism serve little purpose.  Neither system is fully adopted anyway.  Capitalism requires a level playing field and perfect knowledge by both the producers/sellers and consumers/buyers.  But the playing field is not level, and knowledge is not perfect, and this why what we have is more properly regulated capitalism.  Similarly collectivism presumes that the system can plan for the best solution.  But there is no perfect system or solution, just the plans from the individuals managing the system, and one plan cannot work for every individual. In practice, there are no purely capitalist, or purely communist, economic systems. At best what we observed is regulated capitalism or unplanned socialism.

In practice society can regulate sellers and buyers.  It regulates the investment/capital used by producers. It regulates the goods that are used by producers, including common unpriced goods, and regulates labor ( i.e. no slavery,  minimum wages, a 40-hour work week, etc.).  It can regulate the quantity and prices of goods.  But the ownership of capital, goods, and labor can vary.  In the United States, all capital is owned by individuals, labor is owned by individuals, common goods are protected, but private goods are owned by individuals.  In Scandinavian socialism, the capital in some industries is owned by society, but the labor and private goods are owned by individuals.  In state socialism, the state can let individuals own some capital, but labor and outputs might belong to the state. If those managing the system have a higher standard of living than those subject to the system, then those managing the system are themselves following a User Optimal solution for themselves instead of a System Optimal solution for all.

So the question may not be is a solution capitalist or socialist?  It may be is the solution User Optimal or System Optimal?

Winning II

 

Step to the Rear

Will everyone here kindly step to the rear
And let a winner lead the way
Here's where we separate
The notes from the noise
The men from the boys
The rose from the poison ivy

So what does it take to be a winner?

The Ultimatum Game is an instrument in Economics and Game Theory. One player, the proposer, is given a sum of money, say $100. The proposer must split it with another player, the responder. Once the proposer makes his offer, the responder may accept it or reject it. If the responder accepts, the money is split according to the offer. If the responder rejects the offer, both players receive nothing.

A “fair” distribution would be a 50/50 split by the proposer.  That is not the User Optimal solution for the proposer.  The User Optimal solution of the proposer should be to offer the lowest non-zero amount and keep the balance. The User Optimal solution of the responder is to accept any non-zero offer by the proposer.  In the case of a $100 gift and integer offers, an offer of a $1 from the proposer to the responder should be accepted, since it would be the User Optimal solution of both players.

However in experiments, (Güth, Schmittberger, & Schwarze, 1982), responders typically rejected offers of less than 30%.  This was verified in different societies and cultural settings (Henrich, 2004) (Oosterbeek, 2004). Why did responders reject offers of less than 30% when that was not their User Optimal solution? With the User Optimal solution, a responder would at least have the offer, instead of both players having nothing.

The answer is that in that offer, the proposer is not only making an offer.  He is also conveying his expectation for repeating this game with the roles reversed, and if the game is repeated, then the proposer is conveying the discount rate that the proposer places on the future.  The System Optimal solution is the sum of the accepted offers in repeated games.  If the offer is 50/50 in each game, and the roles are reversed after each game, then after two games each player would have $100 and the System of all players would have $200.  If each player follows the User Optimal Solution in each game and makes an unfair offer and that offer is rejected, then after two games both players have $0 and the System has $0.

If the offer follows a User Optimal strategy and offers the bare minimum, then in addition to that offer the proposer is conveying information that he does not expect to ever repeat this game with the roles reversed OR if the roles are reversed and the game is repeated that he has a very high discount rate (i.e. places a very low value on the future).  The System Optimal solution requires that the game be repeated and that a reasonable discount rate is used to value that future.

If the offer is a 50/50 split then the offeror may be conveying that he does expect the game to be repeated with reversed roles or his discount rate is 0% CAGR.  If the offer is $30, then the proposer is also conveying that he expects the game to be repeated with roles reversed,but if it is repeated once per year then his discount rate is 40% CAGR, ( $50-$30)/$50.  When the responder rejects an offer, then the responder is responding not only for himself as a User, but for the System of all potential players.  By rejecting the offer, the responder is indicating that the proposer should be excluded from the System because the proposer either does not believe in a future, or if he does believe in the future he places a low value, i.e. a high discount rate, on that future.

Even though the System does not appear to have a role in the Ultimatum game, the responder is playing not only for themselves as a User,  but for the entire System. The winner is the System, not the player.

References

Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining". Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 3 (4), 367–388.

Henrich, J. R. (2004). Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies. Oxford University Press.

Oosterbeek, H. R. (2004). "Cultural Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis". Experimental Economics. 7 (2), 171–188.

 

 

Treason

 

Take Me To The Pilot

If you feel that it's real I'm on trial
And I'm here in your prison
Like a coin in your mint
I am dented and I'm spent with high treason

Did General Mark Miley commit treason?

In "Peril," the latest book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodard, he writes that in a pair of calls in 2020, General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of the Staff, twice assured his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. Former President Donald Trump and his allies have called that treasonous, accusing Milley of subverting the military chain of command, calling for consequences.

The charges of treason are telling because they indicate that former President Donald Trump and his allies don’t understand what constitutes treason. Treason is an action against the sovereign. In the United States, according to the Constitution, the People are the sovereign. General Milley, and former President Trump took an oath to protect the Constitution. The president is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, but an election does NOT make him the sovereign. Saying that General Milley’s actions were insubordination might have some basis, but it is not insubordination to oppose an action that is itself against the sovereign wishes of the United States.

 
The constitution grants the power to declare war, take an action against another sovereign nation such as China, to the Congress, not to the President. The reality of nuclear war is that actions must be taken faster than Congress can be expected to act, and thus the President can act if there is an immediate threat against the sovereign nation that is the United States. It is possible for a Commander-in-Chief to issue an order to attack despite NO imminent threat to the United States. Such an action would itself be treasonous. To oppose that action is NOT treason. It is the very definition of an action that is NOT treason. 

Donald Trump was not, and never will be, the sovereign of the United States, without an Amendment to its Constitution. The election of 2016 made him the president, not the sovereign. Any action to oppose the orders of Donald Trump, including reminding an enemy sovereign that Donald Trump is not the sovereign of the United States, is consistent with the oath to the constitution, and its sovereign, the people. A person might not agree with that action, but that does not make it treason.

Truth

 

Human Nature

If they say, "Why? Why?"
Just tell 'em that is human nature
Why, why does he do it that way?

Can we expect humans to speak the truth?

There is a considerable difference between speaking without error and telling lies.  Truth is not the absence of errors.  Truth is the absence of lies.  Lies are knowing the truth and still telling something that is known not to be the truth.  Errors are differences between what is thought to be the truth at one time, and what is know to be the truth at a later time.  To error is human, to forgive is divine. 

Humans are not divine.  We will make errors.  Those errors can be expressing with certainty, that something is impossible when it is merely improbable.  Saying that there will be no rain in a desert is not necessarily the truth. But if it does rain, that is an error, not a lie. 

Our understanding of the truth is changing.  Saying that the world is flat in ancient times might be an error, not a lie.  If someone today said  that the earth is flat they would be lying, or at least expressing an opinion that is inconsistent with the facts, truth.

Admitting that you made an error is a sign of integrity, not a sign of weakness.  Everyone can be expected to make an error.  If someone claims that they can not make an error, that is itself a lie.

President Biden  made errors in stating his policies, including those regarding Afghanistan. Saying that these errors are lies is itself a lie, particularly if the President admits the error.  Leaders can be expected to make a minimum number of errors.  They can not be expected to make no errors.  That would be to expect our leaders to not be human.

Vaccines and Masks

 

Good Lovin’

I was feeling so bad
I asked my family doctor just what I had
I said, "Doctor" (Doctor)
"Mr. M.D." (Doctor)
"Now can you tell me what's ailing me?" (Doctor)

……

"I got the fever, yeah, and you got the cure" (Got the cure)

What is the cure?

It is known that there is a difference between HIV( the virus) and AIDS (the disease).  It is known that not everyone who is infected with the HIV virus will get the disease.  We also know that a sure way to ensure that you will not get AIDS is to not contract the HIV virus.  We know that the HIV virus is difficult to contract.  It requires an exchange of bodily fluids between an infected and uninfected person.  That is why sharing intravenous needles, having unprotected sex, transfusions of untested blood, etc. are risky behaviors.  For at least one of those behaviors it is considered appropriate to use protection.  HIV, like all viruses, replicates by invading your body's cells.  Once within a cell, it can make copies of itself and can spread to others. We do not trust the HIV status of others. We may not trust that they have not engaged in risky behavior. People can have the HIV virus and either lie about their status, or not be aware that they have the virus.  A test only means that you did not have HIV at the time of the test.  It says nothing about any risky behavior that occured after the test. It is reasonable to assume that, unless proven otherwise, persons encountered might have HIV and not share needles with, have sex with, or accept blood transfusions from those people. If you are infected you can inadvertently spread it to others with whom you have unprotected sex, share needles, or transfuse untested blood, etc.  Thankfully we are unlikely to engage in these behaviors with casual strangers, our children, our parents, etc.

SARS-CoV-2 is the virus.  COVID-19 is the disease.  You can have the SARS-CoV-2 virus and not have the COVID-19 disease.  The virus is spread through the air.  Breathing the air expelled by an infected person can infect you.  Unprotected breathing is a risky behavior.  The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are very effective at preventing the cell from invading a cell, but they are not perfect.  The Moderna vaccine is 94.6% effective, which means that it is 5.6% ineffective.  People that have the vaccine are probably not infected, but they can be infected. Remember the vaccine is 5.6% ineffective.  It is reasonable to assume that unless proven otherwise that all persons encountered have the SARS-CoV-2 virus.  It is reasonable not to exchange air with those persons by wearing a mask. We are very likely to exchange air with casual strangers, our children, our parents, etc.

Heed the lessons from the AIDS epidemic.  Not wearing a mask is just as bad as not using protection during casual sex.  You may not exchange bodily fluids with persons whom you do not wish to get HIV, but you probably exchange breaths with everyone that you encounter.  Not accepting the vaccine means that you if you are infected with  SARS-CoV-2, it is 100% likely, not 5.6% likely to invade your cells.  If the virus can not invade cells, then it can not replicate.  If the virus can not replicate, it can not spread to others.  If you take precautions against getting HIV, please take even more precautions against getting SARS-CoV-2.  If you don’t get SARS-CoV-2 you can not spread it to others and you and they can not get COVID-19. Please wear a mask and get the vaccine.  If you don’t think going to a brothel and having unprotected sex is a good idea, then it is inconsistent to oppose masks and vaccines.  Please gimme some lovin’.

Texas II

 

Mind Your Business

Mindin' other people's business seems to be high-tone
But I got all that I can do just mindin' my own
And I'm gonna mind my own business (mind your own business)
Hey, mind your own business (mind your own business)
If you mind your business then you won't be mindin' mine

This is a country-western song.  Sing it along with me Texas.

If I approached a lawyer saying that I wished to file a civil suit in which I had experienced no economic costs (damages) but had experienced non-economic losses (pain and suffering), that lawyer would tell me that I had no case.  If I further said that I had no contract with the party that  I wished to sue, then I would be told that I also had no standing to file a civil case.  There is no civil case if I incurred only non-economic costs and I wished to sue someone with whom I had no contract.  If someone is offended by behavior which does not injure them, they would be told to mind their own business and put on their big-boy pants.

The United States has already experimented with making something a criminal rather than a civil offense by enacting a law. Prohibition made the sale and consumption of alcohol a criminal offense. In order to adopt a Constitutional Amendment, the proponents argued that society did incur economic costs ( the costs to society of lost wealth by, and the societal medical costs of dealing with, those who abused alcohol). The proponents neglected to mention the costs to society of prohibition (the disrespect of other laws by those who felt that they were not abusers but still wished to consume alcohol, and the growth of organized crime to help those to avoid the law, etc.).  Arguably the law also violated the protection in the Constitution against Cruel and Unusual punishments in that it criminalized and cruelly punished behavior for which there should be no punishment ( consumption but non-abuse of alcohol).

It is sad to see Texas ignore this lesson.  Not only should the punishment fit the crime, but just because something offends you, and you vote to make that behavior a crime, that does not mean that behavior is a crime. If something can not be a civil violation, enacting a law does not make it a criminal violation. Mind your own business!

The Supreme Court

 

If I Had a Hammer

Well I got a hammer, and I got a bell
And I got a song to sing all over this land
It's the hammer of JUSTICE, it's the bell of freedom
It's a song about love between my brothers and my sisters all over this land

How many seats should the Supreme Court have if they are to hammer out justice?

It is hard to divorce the question of the structure of the Supreme Court from the rancor over the hearings of Brent Kavanaugh, the hearings of Clarence Thomas, the denial of a hearing for Merrick Garland, the denial of a seat as Chief Justice to Abe Fortas, the denial of a seat as an Associate Justice to Robert Bork, the rushed hearings for Amy Coney Barrett, and the denial of  a stay in the Texas abortion case.  However, I am going to try. 

When the US Judiciary was established in 1789, there were three circuits (An aside. The name circuit goes back to a time when travel was hard and judges had to "ride the circuit" and travel to a trial, instead of having a permanent location and having trials "travel" to the judges)  There are now 11 Circuits ( 13 if you count DC and the Federal Circuit), an increase of 367% (or 437% if the circuits are 13).  In the Census of 1790, the population of the United States was 3.9 million.  As of the 2020 Census it was 331.4 million, an increase of 8435%.  There were 13 states in 1789 and that has increased to 50 today, an increase of 384%.  At two Senators per state, that percentage increase in Senators has been the same. In 1789 there were 65 representatives in the House.  There are now 435 representatives, an increase of 669%. There were 69 electoral votes cast in 1789.  There were 538 electoral votes cast in the election of 2020, an increase of 780%.  Over this same period the number of Justices on the Supreme Court has increased from 6 in 1789 to 9 today, an increase of 150%.  If the growth in the US has been more than 150%, shouldn’t the number of Justices on its Supreme Court be more than 9?

Even if there had been no rancor, a case could be made that the number of justices on the Supreme Court is not in keeping with the growth of the US.  Increasing the number of justices is not an evil packing of the court, any more than buying larger clothes for a growing child is evil. It is an acceptance of growth.

Texas

 

Here's to the State of Mississippi

Oh, here's to the land you've torn out the heart of
Mississippi, find yourself another country to be part of

We need to rewrite these lyrics to be about the state of Texas.

Don’t mess with Texas.  I won’t. But that is because I do not want to get near Texas and I hope that the mouth-breathing, racist, sexist, caste-ist, Texans stay in Texas and do not mess with me or anyone else in the rest of the United States.  It takes a lot to be lower than Mississippi, but Texas has more than achieved that.  

Add 2 seats based on the 2020 census?  According to the 14th Amendment ( Yes, Texas. There are more than 2 Amendments) it says that the population used in reapportionment has to be reduced by voters whose rights have been abridged.  I wonder if Texas has abridged the rights of any voters?

Lessons from Afghanistan

 

Exhuming McCarthy

Enemy sighted, enemy met, I'm addressing the realpolitik
You've seen start and you've seen quit
(I'm addressing the table of content)
I always thought of you as quick
Exhuming McCarthy
(Meet me at the book burning)

What lessons should we have learned from Afghanistan?

“Rule number one in war is that young men die.  Rule number two is that doctors can’t change rule number one.” This was a line of dialogue from the TV “comedy” M.A.S.H that it would be well to remember today.  We might not like what is happening in Afghanistan, but that doesn’t mean that we can change what is happening in Afghanistan.  We might be able to stop it, or reverse it, for a period of time, but we may not be able to change it forever.

That may be one of the lessons of Afghanistan.  The original mission, to retaliate against the attack on the World Trade Towers, got lost to the mission creep of nation building.  We achieved the original mission ong ago. The second mission was probably never realistic anyway.

Should the United States become isolationist?  Absolutely not. As long as we participate in global trade and need things from others in the globe, we have to protect our interests.  But our interests do not extend to the sovereign national rights of others. 

Should we deal with or trust those who punish those who practice other religions or women?  Maybe.  As much as we may not like it, or work to try and change it, others may still do things that offend us.

We can choose not to deal with those who practice those behaviors.

We can make it clear that we don’t condone those behaviors.

We can work to change those behaviors.  But,

We can not force a change in the those behaviors. 

What we may perceive as change may only last as long as we provide force.  That is not change. That is the illusion of change.

Another lesson might be to end any pretense that Realpolitik ever works.  There might not be a Taliban if the US had not supported the Mujahedeen in opposition to regime backed by the Soviet Union.  The Taliban might not have overrun Afghanistan in recent days if the US had not dealt with them in 2020 and chosen to release so many of their leaders.  “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is demonstrably false.  “If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas” is demonstrably true. Let's definitely not lie down with dogs that are not our friends.