Stewards

 

Everybody Wants to Rule the World 

Acting on your best behavior
Turn your back on Mother Nature
Everybody wants to rule the world 

Don't  turn your back please. Be a steward, NOT a ruler. 

In the  creation story in the Bible,  God in the English text appears to give man dominion over the Earth  (Genesis 1:28).  But the Bible was not written in English.  It was written in ancient languages and translated many times, eventually into English.  It is not reasonable to assume dominion is the correct concept and that has given Man the right to dominate and possess absolute control over the Earth.  If that is the case, then God has given his sovereignty over the Earth to Man, and this sovereignty is thus no longer God’s. Instead it is more reasonable to assume that God has retained his sovereignty and has merely made Man his steward and caretaker. This is in keeping with the Israelites’ belief in the Old Testament that the land in its entirety belongs to God and not to his people and that  “the Earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof” (Psalm 24:1). 

In fact, it is questionable that the Bible ever supports dominance of any group over any other group.  If we are supposed to be stewards, our brother’s keepers, Good Shepherds, etc. then dominance is never supported.  Dominance is not even the best game strategy, except in two player contests.  This does not mean being a pushover.  The best game  strategy is being tough but fair.  https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2021/05/tough-but-fair-beats-always-being-nasty.html.

Superman

 

Don’t Mess Around With Jim

You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with Jim

If you are tugging on Superman’s cape to ask for help, then that’s different.

Like Jerry Seinfeld, I am an enormous Superman fan.  Superman ( created by Jerome Siegel and Joe Shuster) fights for Truth, Justice, and the American Way or as I would prefer to say Certainty, Mercy and Pluralism.  The Superman origin story is a thinly veiled retelling of the Moses story where, instead of a baby being saved in a basket in the bulrushes of the Nile, he is saved in a rocket escaping the dying planet of Krypton.  He is adopted by the Kents and he grew up to bring oppressors to justice.  He believed in the government of the People, which was also true of Batman (created by Bob Kane, nee Kahn) until the 1980s, when those who disagreed with Batman must be crazy and were confined to Arkham Asylum, not jail. It went from a situation where both costumed heroes assisted the government, to one in the late 1980s where Superman supported a corrupt government and was opposed by an individualistic Batman (The Dark Knight Returns).  At the height of Superman’s popularity in the 1940s, he assisted the downtrodden by capturing oppressors FOR the government, functioning much like a Golem in Jewish folk tales.

In the most recent incarnation on TV, Superman and Lois, he has saved a Russian village from an avalanche and a North Korean submarine.  While these are often considered to be enemies of America, Superman is for what was once America’s shining example, its pluralism, supporting all, not just American WASPs.  For him love of country is NOT merely hatred of other countries.  He is  the living embodiment of “My county right or wrong. If it is right, keep it right. If it is wrong, make it right.”  “Might for Right", not “Might makes Right”

Choice III

 

Uncle John’s Band

I live in a silver mine and I call it beggar's tomb
I got me a violin and I beg you call the tune
Anybody's choice, I can hear your voice
Wo, oh, what I want to know, how does the song go

What are the limits of anybody’s choice?

You might seem stationary, but the Earth is rotating.  The Earth is also revolving about the Sun.  The Sun is revolving about the center of the Milky Way galaxy.  The Milky Way galaxy is expanding from the center of the universe, which is the Big Bang.   Thus while you seem stationary, it is only because it is the perspective from your moving frame of refence that is the Earth.  In an inertial frame of reference, which adjusts for all of the rotating, revolving and expanding, you are hardly stationary.

Black holes are singularities where light can not escape.  However if light, and matter, can not escape, then releasing energy can also not increase the entropy of the Universe. Thus Black Holes might function similar to the Big Bang, the origin of the universe in an inertial frame and serve as the transition between the current universe and the universe before the Big Bang. It appears that, prior to the Big Bang, hyperbolic geometry, was rotated by 90 degrees.  Thus a Black Hole might also involve not only a singularity where light can not escape, but also a rotation of any geometry by 90 degrees.

A black hole in three dimensional Minkowski space, where the dimensions are space, time and possibilities, would be at the same space, and same time in our conventional universe, but then the only rotation could be around the axis of possibilities. Thus it is suggested that if our portion of the universe is one of choice, then the portion of the universe prior to the Big Bang might have not allowed choice. 

The probability of a choice was given by Nobel Laureate Daniel McFadden as exp(x_aβ)/(exp(x_aβ)+exp(x_bβ), that is the probability of making a choice x_a, is a function of the utility of that choice and the utility of not  making that choice, x_b. This has a shape of a sigmoid curve.  It is also true that this looks very similar to the hyperbolic tangent, tanh, which is  

tanh(x)=(exp(x)-exp(-x))/(exp(x)+exp(-x)).

This says that x is a function approaching an absolute, which is what exponential behavior is, and  also approaching the opposite of that absolute.  As x becomes very large, exp(-x) becomes very small and the minus term in the numerator can be ignored.  If you also say that there is no opposite of an absolute, this same function would be ½*tanh(x)+½, where the negative absolute is eliminated by the constant (i.e. it is shifted up to being no absolute), and the amplitude of tanh is adjusted to reflect that there is an absolute, 1 and the absence of that absolute, 0.  This can also be shifted such that it is a normal distribution, where the median is equal to the mean is equal to the mode and it follows the 68/95/99 rule, and is ½*tanh(x-µ)+½, where µ is the mean location.  This is also the Cumulative Distribution Function of the logistics distribution, 1/(4*s)*tanh((x-µ)/(2*s))+½ , where s is 0.5.  Fifty percent, 0.5,  is also the probability of making an unbiased normal choice. If the Cumulative Distribution Function, CDF, is as above, then its Probability Density Function, PDF, also has a variance, σ² , given as s²π²/3. If  s =0.5 this means that if choice happened in a normal hyperbolic universe, then that choice has a standard deviation, σ, of .5π/√3=.9069. The  probability of making the same choice as the absolute when x= μ is 50%  If x is increasing to infinity, then by x= μ+3σ, 99.97% of everyone making a choice of the absolute will have made that choice.  

In a Black Hole not only does the relative mass become infinite but the relative time also becomes infinite.  If time is infinite and there is choice, then even if the PDF <1, then the CDF=1.

Debt Ceiling II

 

Burning Down The House

Ah, watch out
You might get what you're after
Cool babies
Strange but not a stranger
I'm an ordinary guy
Burning down the house.

Debt ceiling deal anyone?

In the game of chicken that is the debt ceiling negotiations, the House Freedom Caucus that installed Kevin McCarthy as Speaker is prepared to crash and burn the United States’ economy.  This should not be a surprise.  Since they do not view the elected sovereign of the United States as their sovereign, they also do not view the economy as their economy.  Uh, “This land is your land, this land is my land” and all that jazz.  There is not a Democratic economy and a Republican economy.  There is only the United States economy.  The sovereign of the United States is NOT the President.  The President, of either party, is only the current steward of the People and their economy. This is confusing the ceremonial sovereign, the President, with the actual sovereign, the People. If you crash the economy, then you are crashing the People’s economy. Why should we ever let you be stewards of that economy, if there is any economy left after you try to burn down the house.

Meetings

 

We’ll Meet Again

We'll meet again,
 Don't know where, don't know when,
But I know we'll meet again,
Some sunny day.

Math has something to add about this.

Meeting means that you are in the same place at the same time as another person.  That does not mean that the probability of your being in that same place at the same time as another is the same, but that your two probability distributions overlap.

Again depends on whether the event repeats. A normal random distribution is a logistics distribution, also known as the sech squared distribution because its Probability Density Function, PDF, uses the hyperbolic secant function,  1/(4s)*sech²((x-μ)/2s).  The mean location where you are is µ. The most probable location you will be is that location.  The odds of you being at location x is defined by the formula.  S is the range of the probabilities of your being at another location.  A standard normal distribution is one where there is a 50% probability of your being at the mean location, in which case s must be equal to 0.5.  If you and that other person share a very similar mean location, and you have met once, then there is a high probability that you will meet again, as shown in the graph on the left below.  But if your most probable locations,  are very different, i.e. you both are ordinarily not in the same place at the same time as shown in the graph on the right below, then the chances of your probability distributions overlapping in the first place was very small.  The “again” depends on the period in which these probability distributions repeat.

And this is where math comes in.  The most probable meeting, as you can imagine, is halfway between the most common locations, e.g. your homes.  This is true regardless of whether the other person is your neighbor or not.  This might be obvious from the graph on the right since the probability of a meeting is the product of the two Probability Density Functions, PDFs.  However, what might not be obvious, but it is also true, is that the probability of meeting at one person’s most common location, is the same as meeting at the other person’s most common location regardless of whether the other person is your neighbor or not. I.e. if the two PDFs are normally distributed, then the product of those PDFs is also normally distributed.  

But a hyperbolic secant function does NOT repeat in the real plane.  It has a period of 2πi, where i is the imaginary number, √-1.  This means that a random event only repeats in the imaginary plane.  This is unlike the conventional trigonometric function, sec(x), which repeats cyclically in the real plane with a period of 2π.  So if the meeting was truly a chance random encounter that had a very low probability of occurring in the first place, you may only meet again in an imaginary plane.  Random events do NOT repeat in the real plane.  A once in a lifetime event, will only occur once in your lifetime.  That “when” will occur again, but that may only be in your imagination.

Personhood

 

Hey Boss Man

Well, I'm gonna get me a boss man, one gonna treat me right
Work hard in the daytime, rest easy at night
Big boss man, can't you hear me when I call?
Well, you ain't so big, you're just tall, that's all

A person is a person no matter how tall.

The Decennial Census of the United States is used to apportion representation among the states.  This includes both wards of the state (children, women before the 19^th amendment, and chattel slaves before the 13th Amendment) and citizens of the state.  The census asks questions about the current sex, gender, of the wards and citizens, but it does not ask the sex at birth.  Similarly it does not ask the sexual orientation of the wards or citizens. So legally, the previous gender and the sexual orientation must not be matters that concern the standing of citizens or wards of the United States.

You may DOMINATE persons because of their current gender, their sexual orientation, etc.  But that only means that you DOMINATED that person, not that it is no longer a person. E.g. a taller person may DOMINATE  a smaller person, but that smaller person is STILL a person.

Wards of the state may be born and die between decennial census, but they are still wards of the state while they are alive.  They are considered to be wards of the state because, had they been alive at the time of the Decennial Census, they would have been included. Thus viable fetuses, who might also have been born have legal standing as wards of the People. But NONviable fetuses are not wards of the People.  They might be considered to be persons by some, but legally they are not wards of the People.

Corporations are also not reported in the US Census, so corporations must also not be considered People.  Corporations may consist of people, but the assets of the people holding shares in the corporation are considered to be separate from the assets of the corporation.  So the rights of the shareholders can only be assets of the corporation if they have been completely transferred to the corporation.  The rights of the People (e.g. Freedom of Speech) are not considered to be transferable, so while the individual has Freedom of Speech, if that individual is a shareholder of a corporation, then that corporation does not automatically share in that right.

Legal matters should be considered by certainty, not dominance.  A person that is dominated still has the same certainty as before.  A judge that is overseeing any matter on which that judge has an interest in the outcome might be on the dominant side of those outcomes, but he can not increase the certainty of that outcome.

You may dominate persons because of their current gender, their sexual orientation, etc.  But that only means that you dominated that person, not that it is not a person. A taller person may dominate  a smaller person, but that does not mean that  person is NOT a person. I’m with Dr. Seuss’ Horton The Elephant who said that  “A person is a person no matter how small”.

Projection?

 

Little Red Riding Hood

I'm gonna keep my sheep suit on,
‘Till I'm sure that you've been shown
That I can be trusted, walking with you alone.

But the fact that you are warning about wolves, may be a warning that you can’t ever be trusted.

A wolf in sheep’s clothing, is a name for someone who is trying to deceive to gain trust, i. e a wolf who is donning sheep’s clothing to hide among  the sheep.  A classic ruse of those in sheep’s clothing to gain the trust of the sheep, and to also make sure that  suspicion does not fall on themselves as a wolf, is to warn the sheep about wolves.   I wish that we could say that this is a modern insight, but Little Red Riding Hood and a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing are an ancient stories.  "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" is a line from the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare.  The warning against pickpockets, “Vultures”, in the classic movie Casablanca comes from a pickpocket. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW5bcI0ADCY.

The point being that those who warn us about a threat may not be doing so not for our protection, but for their own purposes to deceitfully gain our trust.  Let this be a warning.  If someone warns you about something very vigorously, it may be because they are guilty of the same behavior about which they are warning. The warning may not be real and only be a projection of their own bad behavior that is intended to distract you from their bad behavior.  

Consequences

 

My Hero

Don't the best of them bleed it out
While the rest of them peter out?
Truth or consequence, say it aloud
Use that evidence, race it around
There goes my hero
Watch him as he goes

If you don’t believe in Truth, then probably also don't believe in Consequences.

You may know Bob Barker as the host of the Price is Right game show before Drew Carey. It is true that Bob Barker hosted that show 1972 to 2007, but I am old enough to remember that Bill Cullen was the host of the Price is Right from 1956 and that Bob Barker was the host of Truth or Consequences from 1956 to 1975. And it is Consequences that is the topic of this post.

Risk is the product of likelihood, probability, AND consequences, not just the probability alone. The likelihood of being struck by lightning in a thunderstorm is extremely low, but the consequences are extremely dire (you might die) which is why the risk is considered to be high. Conversely the likelihood of getting wet in a rainstorm which is not a thunderstorm is very high, but the consequences are very low (being wet until you dry out), so the risk of being out in an ordinary rainstorm is considered to be very low. But if you don’t believe in the truth, it is probable that you also don’t believe in the consequences either. It is not news that Donald Trump and the QAnon crowd do not believe in the truth and that  certainly has done enough damage. But he also apparently does not believe in the consequences either.        
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-plays-down-consequences-us-default-could-be-maybe-nothing-2023-05-11/).

If you don’t believe in the truth that is one thing. If you also don’t believe in the consequences, you can understate the risk considerably and that can affect more than just yourself. If you engage in risky behavior and damage others besides yourself, then your denial of consequences affects more than just you. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and we may tolerate what you consider to be your truth, but if you don’t accept the consequences either, then that can affect us all.

Trial by Combat?

 

With God On Our Side

Through many a dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ was
Betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

Are you certain that God is on your side?

“Trial by combat” is not forbidden in the United States. However dueling, assault, battery, manslaughter, murder, etc. are illegal, so presumably trial by combat is also illegal. However the matter has never been adjudicated and in same rare instances, “trial by combat” is called upon to decide disputes ( e.g. a custody case in Iowa, a case by Staten Island lawyer,  Rudy Giuliani’s  famous call to settle the election dispute of 2022 by “trial by combat” at the rally before the January 6^th insurrection at the US Capitol).

Despite the familiarity with deciding battles in war by champions (e.g. David vs. Goliath, Achilles vs. Hector), trial by combat is NOT part of the code of Hammurabi, the Law of Moses, Roman Law, etc. Its origin can be traced to Germanic Tribal Law. The purpose of a trial is to achieve certainty. A “trial by combat” can not achieve certainty unless one also assumes that the victor is supported by God and is thus certain. But because trial by combat can only assure the dominance of the victor, it does not achieve the certainty of his position, “trial  by combat” is NOT how disputes are settled in the civilized world. (Which is perhaps still another reason to disbar Rudy Giuliani?)  Dominance is NOT certainty.

Which calls into question the way in which Supreme Court decisions are rendered. A 5-4 decision might seem to indicate certainty, but it could also only indicate dominance. Scientific certainty is a function of the Standard Deviation, the square root of the variance, σ, the Greek letter Sigma. Scientific certainty is 3 (times) Sigma, reflecting 99.97% certainty. Particle physics demands even higher levels of certainty, 5 Sigma, 99.9994%. But both of these are only attainable with a very large number observations. A smaller sample panel will achieve less certainty. Also a smaller panel presents the possibility of a hung panel, no certainty, or only the lowest acceptable certainty to a single dissenter. To prevent a hung panel or a least offensive decision, it is suggested that at least 2 panel members be allowed to dissent from any decision. On a 9 member bench, this would mean  a 7-2 decision which is 97.72% certain or a 6-3 decision which is 96.68% certain. A 5-4 decision can not be differentiated from a decision by dominance and should not be considered binding. An 8-1 decisions would be 98.88% certain and a 9-0 decision would of course be 100 % certain. Both should be allowed, but neither should not be required because they give too much power to a single dissenter and might thus represent the lowest acceptable decision, not a certain decision. A 5-4 decision is thus only a sight more civilized version of  “trial by combat”.

 

Hillbillies

 

Beverly Hillbillies Theme Song

Well now it's time to say good bye to Jed and all his kin.
And they would like to thank you folks fer kindly droppin in.
You're all invited back next week to this locality
To have a heapin helpin of their hospitality
Hillbilly that is. Set a spell, Take your shoes off.
Y'all come back now, y'hear?

And we need some of that hospitality!

Hillbilly is a derogatory term applied to the residents of Appalachia and the Ozarks  I have worked for the Appalachian Regional Commission as a consultant. There I learned that I married into a family that grew up on Appalachian Highway Corridor Z. One of the people whom I admire most in the world is Dolly Parton. I love the performers of American Roots music.  What I am about to say is NOT intended to disparage those people.

But it has to be noted that the leaders of the House Republican Freedom caucus are from Appalachia. The headquarters of the Aryan Nation, a white supremacist hate group, was for years in Appalachia. Marjorie Taylor Greene represents Northeastern Georgia, which is geographically in Appalachia. Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri is heavily supported by the Ozarks. Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio is famous for writing the Hillbilly Elegy.

One of the hallmarks of the People of the USA is a support for the system that is America, . This includes ALL Americans, including blacks, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and immigrants who are not heavily represented in Appalachia, the Ozarks, or rural America.  It depends on a belief in the truth, as it is presented.

The hollers of Appalachia, including those of my wife’s family, have limited resources to be exposed to others and learn the truth. News and rumors in these isolated mountain hollers mean that they are limited to the media that is presented to them. They may see only major cites on television, have seldom visited those cities, and a “If it bleeds, it leads” news media gives a distorted picture of what life is like in major metropolitan areas.

A fear of strangers, coupled with a media presence that presents them with a distorted picture of life and the residents of those cities, is a difficult barrier to overcome. But when confronted with those who are strangers, and correct information about those who are strangers, my experience is that “hillbillies” are incredibly welcoming and supportive. We need some of their hospitality, not to exclude them, Y'hear.

Enemies

 

You’ve Got A Friend in Me

You got troubles, I've got 'em too
There isn't anything I wouldn't do for you
We stick together and see it through
'Cause you've got a friend in me
You've got a friend in me

Is the enemy of your enemy your friend?

Your enemy is probably also your friend’s enemy. But that does not mean that the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Some recent historical examples.

Saddam Hussein was considered to be a friend of the United States when he was at war Iran, an enemy of the US. But this led him to believe that he could invade another friend of the United States, Kuwait. And because of that invasion, Saddam Hussein became our enemy in both Gulf Wars.

The Mujahedeen were fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. And that is why the United States believed that the Mujahedeen were our friends. That is until they expelled the Soviet Union from Afghanistan, became the Taliban, and gave shelter to Al Qaeda, our enemies.

Osama bin Laden was an admirer of the United States, until when fighting Saddam Hussein, the United States found it necessary to set up military bases in Saudia Arabia and other Muslim holy places. From the perspective of bin Landen that defiled those holy places. In retaliation he founded Al-Qaeda and sought support among the Taliban of Afghanistan.

Joseph Stalin signed a treaty with Nazi Germany and divided Poland with Nazi Germany. It was not until he was later attacked by Nazi Germany that that he became an ally of the United States. Afterwards, the Iron Curtain descended, and he again became an enemy of the United States.

In each instance the “friend” who bcame our enemy was NOT showing that  “There isn't anything I wouldn't do for you.” The "friend” was doing what is best for himself, his own User Optimal. A friend will benefit you even if that is not to his benefit, his own User Optimal. A friend does not ask what is in it for me. A friend asks what is in it for you. You can find common cause with an enemy if your User Optimals are the same. But a friend seeks to achieve YOUR User Optimal even when it is not HIS User Optimal.

The enemy of your enemy might be a friend. But it his actions with respect to you, not to your enemy, that determine whether he is a friend. In other words, “Ask not what your country he can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country him.”  That’s being a friend!

Judiciary

 

Here Come The Judge

Order in this courtroom, order in this courtroom
Judge, your Honorship, Hi sir
Did I hear you say "Order in the Court?"
Yes I said order in the court

But how many judges?

At the time of the drafting of the US Constitution, the life expectancy was about 40 years. The average tenure of a judicial appointment was 16 years. Thus at the time of nomination, any appointment even if it was intended to be for a limited time, was effectively a lifetime appointment. But there is a difference between a lifetime appointment and an infinite appointment. A fixed term, even if it is a very long term, makes it clear that a judicial appointment is NOT an infinite appointment.

The nomination clause in the constitution is for ambassadors and other officials that are expected to serve during the term of the President. But it also covers judicial nominations for the Supreme Court and every federal judgeship, and those by custom, are lifetime appointments. However it is only by custom. It appears to be constitutionally allowable to set a very long term on those appointments so that it is clear that they are not infinite appointments. The sovereign of the US is its People which of course has a lifetime longer than that of any judge. The term of any federal judge should be for a fixed number of years so that we do not get into "Après nous, le déluge" situations where judges accidentally forget that their appointment is NOT forever, and forever is longer than their life.

Any federal judge (with the exception of Justices of Supreme Court, which will be discussed later), who has served longer 16 years would have an expired term. When a previously appointed judge reaches a date of 16 years of service, their appointment should expire. Any new judges should  serve only for a term of 16 years.

A majority can be the will of the larger group, or just a random decision. To be certain that it reflects the will of the United States, which is a normal distribution, it should be expected to also follow the 68/95/99 rule. That is, a decision which has a certainty that 68% of the outcomes fall between the mean and one Standard Deviation; 95% of the outcomes fall between the mean and 2 standard deviations; and 99% of the outcomes (actually 99.97%) of the outcomes fall between the mean and 3 standard deviations.

The standard deviation of a normal distribution is approximately the mean divided by three. On any normal panel, the mean is 50% of the panel size. For an even number panel this mean will be an integer. For an odd number panel this mean will NOT be an integer. The standard deviation is 16.67% of the panel size. The certainty of a decision can be specified as the ratio of the size of the votes on the panel divided by the mean of the panel. For example, a 4-3 decision has a Z-score, the ratio of the decision to the mean of the panel, of 4/3.5, 1.14, is 87% certain, which means that it is more certain than a one judge decision which can only have a 50% certainty..

It is suggested that an appeal process should require a decision that INCREASES certainty. A decision that is no more certain than the original decision does not improve the certainty of the decision. The judicial process should also reflect CERTAINTY, not DOMINANCE. To make this clear, the Supreme Court should have an even number of justices so clearly a split SCOTUS does not, can not, ever reflect dominance. It is suggested that SCOTUS should have at least 10 members.  The reason is two fold.  If the court were to have 8 members it would require the removal of an existing justice, while 10 members could be achieved by adding a new justice.  Additionally, to be certain rather than dominant, decisions should  follow the 69/95/99 rule.  That is 68% of 8 members is 5.48 which would ordinarily be rounded down, become less certain, while 68% of 10 members would be 6.8 , which would round up to 7 and thus increase certainty.

It should  be required that neither the Supreme Court nor any appeals panel should require unanimous decisions. Otherwise, a single member could block the decisions of the group and that power should not be vested in a single individual.

An even number of members on the Supreme Court might sound strange but it is noted that the size of the SCOTUS was 6 members at the founding of the United States, was 10 members during the presidency of Abraham Lincoln and recently the size of the court was only 8 living members from the death of Antonin Scalia to the swearing in of Neil Gorsuch, a period of 14 months.  The most important decisions of the United States require a 2/3, almost a One Standard Deviation, 68%, vote. It is suggested that Supreme Court decisions should require at least 68% of its members to be binding.  For a 10 member court, this would be at least 7 members..

An even number of members of the Supreme Court of 10 would require increasing the size of the current bench by one Justice. The 16-year term, if implemented immediately, would give the next president the ability to nominate one plus every member who has served more than 16 years. Instead, it is proposed that the terms of the  Supreme Court Justices be staggered, much like the Senate, and that one member’s term expire in every non-federal election year. Thus the first nomination, if this were enacted now, would not be until 2025 and it would be for the 10^th seat. In 2027, Justice Thomas’ term, who has been on the SCOTUS since 1991, would expire. This would continue until 2043 when Justice Jackson’s term would expire. Each newly nominated Justice would serve only a 16-year term. This would mean that a one term president would ordinarily only get to nominate two SCOTUS members (not including filling unexpired terms). A two-term president would ordinarily get to nominate 4 Justices to the court. Unless a political party controlled the Executive Branch for 14 years, it would not get to also have nominated the 7 members needed for a binding decision ( 50% + one standard deviation). During the transition to 16 year terms,  in 2041 and 2043  the term of two justices rather than one would expire.  Since these years would occur during the term of a single president, it is suggested that the first term of the 10th justice nominated in 2025 should be for 20 years.

It is noted that a unanimous 12 member jury (an even integer!), is only 2 out of 4096 possible jury outcomes. ( An even split jury, a 6 to 6 vote, is 924 out of 4096, or 22.56%). This means that a unanimous jury with a Guilty verdict has a 99.98% (1 of 4096, the other unanimous outcome being a Not Guilty verdict) certainty of being correct, unless the evidence is false or the jury was tainted, which would mean that the Guilty jury verdict was only a false positive. To remedy any false positives, all jury decisions should be reversible. Since the death penalty is NOT reversible, it would not appear to ever be an appropriate judicial decision.

The Scorpion and the Frog

 

Together

Through thick and through thin,
All out or all in.
And whether it's win, place or show.
With you for me and me for you,
We'll muddle through whatever we do.
Together, wherever we go.

The group is stronger than the individual.

"A scorpion asks a frog to carry him over a river. The frog is afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, both would sink, and the scorpion would drown. The frog then agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When asked why, the scorpion points out that this is its nature."

This is a favorite cautionary story on why you should not trust others.  Those admiring the tale think that they are superior to both the stinging scorpion and the naïve frog.  However the people who admire this tale have a lot more in common with the scorpion than the frog.  The frog assumed that since he would not do anything to kill himself, the scorpion would do the same.  The frog is unlikely to approach the scorpion on land because that would be dangerous.  However the frog assumed that no one would be foolish enough to kill himself. It is told as a lesson to point out how foolish that frog was being.

This is a simple game where the scorpion has a goal to cross the river.  On each move the scorpion can sting or not sting and on that same move the frog can carry or not carry.  If the scorpion stings but the frog does not carry, the scorpion does not cross the river.  If the scorpion does not sting and the frog does not carry, the scorpion also does not cross the river.  If the scorpion stings and the frog carries, then the scorpion does not cross the river.  Only if the frog carries and the scorpion does not sting can the scorpion cross the river.

After the game play in the story, neither the frog nor the scorpion can ever play again. This is then by definition a game of only two.  But if the scorpion is playing for other scorpions and the frog is playing for other frogs, then stinging is NOT the best strategy.  The winning strategy in games with more than two players is the subject of an older blog post of mine.  https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2021/05/tough-but-fair-beats-always-being-nasty.html.  Or to borrow phrase,  the winning strategy is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".  Don’t ever walk alone.

Regulations II

 

Liar, Liar

Liar, liar, pants on fire
Your nose is longer than a telephone wire
Ask me, baby, why I'm sad
You been out all night, know you been bad
Don't tell me different, know it's a lie
Come kill me, honey, see how I cry

Aren’t regulations just a protection from lying?

A basic principle of User Optimal solutions (such as those favored by Libertarians), is that all Users have perfect knowledge.  In the absence of perfect knowledge, the assumption is that in any transaction, all parties of that transaction can be trusted.  Regulations are imposed because one of the parties in a  transaction may be lying, while the other parties think that party is telling the truth.  Regulations are not because there are untrustworthy parties in a transaction but because there might be untrustworthy parties in a transaction.  Regulations are merely a way of substituting for perfect knowledge.

Any group of users, such as the United States, wishes to achieve a System Optimal solution.  In an ideal world, this System Optimal solution will be the sum of all of the User Optimal solutions.  But this is only possible if they are indeed User Optimal solutions for every party in the transactions.  If one of the parties in a transaction is not trustworthy, that user will achieve THEIR User Optimal solution, but every other party of the transaction will NOT achieve their User Optimal solution.

For example, Bernie Madoff achieved his User Optimal solution, which in his case included lying, while he was operating his investment scheme.  The victims of Bernie Madoff did NOT achieve their User Optimal solutions.  That is why Bernie Madoff and his Ponzi investment scheme was a criminal offense.  This is also why there are regulations.  Those who rail against regulations are saying that they, and all parties in transactions, are trustworthy so why the regulations.  The problem is that not every party in a transactions might be trustworthy, and in order to protect society, society has to enact regulations.  Are regulations costly? YES? Are costs imposed on trustworthy parties? YES.  Should the cost be borne by the parties of those transactions? THAT SEEMS FAIRER THAN IMPOSING THOSE COSTS ON ALL OF SOCIETY INCLUDING THOSE WHO ARE NOT NOW, AND WILL NEVER BE, A PARTY TO THOSE TRANSACTIONS.  If the regulations are less costly than the consequences of untrustworthy transactions, they are worth it to society.

Regulations are not imposed arbitrarily.  There are Notices of Proposed Rule Makings, NPRMs,  and comment periods for every potential federal regulation. www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf.  
If there are objections to these regulations, that is the proper time and way to voice those objections.  If the comments were not properly considered, the laws for NPRMs and their comment periods can be revised, but that is not an excuse for no regulations.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be an arbiter of what is good for society, not for potentially untrustworthy users.  No regulations means that everyone can be trusted.  A nice position, but isn’t that being naïve?  Trust, but verify. Aren’t regulations verifying?

Nasty

 

Nasty Girl

Ohh (do you think I'm a nasty girl?)
Ohh (nasty)
Nasty girl (nasty girl)
Do you think I'm a nasty girl?
Ohh
I don't like this groove
Try and give me something I can croon to
Catch my drift?

Is Kaitlin Collins A Nasty Girl?

At the CNN Town Hall in New Hampshire with Donald Trump, where the audience must have been drawn from the parking lot crowd at Mar-a-Lago, the disgraced and disgraceful former President called Kaitlin Collins NASTY.  Should CNN have done that broadcast with that laugh track? NO. Was Kaitlin Collins asked by CNN to go into the Lions’ Den? YES.

Considering that Donald Trump has previously called Nancy Pelosi, Meghan Markel, Kamala Harris, April Ryan and Hillary Clinton nasty, Kaitlin is in good company.  If that is NASTY, then “More please”.

Perfection

 

Will The Circle Be Unbroken

Will the circle be unbroken
By and by Lord, by and by
There's a better home awaiting
In the sky Lord, in the sky

In case it isn’t obvious, the circle is God

The circle has long been a symbol of perfection, eternity, and of God.  It has no beginning and no end.  The Nicene Creed says that God is a trinity, 3, which creates confusion for the belief that there is but one God.  However the Trinity merely says that there are three aspects of that one God. The area of a circle is π*r(adius)² , the  circumference of circle is 2*π*r(adius),so it is common to use π as the symbol of a circle.

The major religions all seem to agree that life is about chaging our state from Unsaved to Saved.  (They of course disagree about how you get saved but they all still seem to say that there are these two states).  If there are two states,  Saved (1) and Unsaved (0), then the mean and median of these states is 0.5.  A normal distribution is the logistics distribution, also know as the sech-squared distribution.  It is has a range variable, s.  If there are two states, 0 and 1, and their median and mean is 0.5, then the range, s,  is 0.5, i.e. 0.5 + 0.5 = 1 and 0.5 - 0.5 =0.  The variance of the normal sech-squared distribution is s²*π²/3. In other words, Choice/Free Will, 0.5, squared multiplied by perfection, π, squared divided by 3.

A coincidence? Remember Einstein's quote that coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous.

Shame

 

It’s A Shame

It's a shame (shame) the way you mess around with your man
It's a shame (shame) the way you play with my emotions
It's a shame (shame) the way you mess around with your man
You're like a child at play, on a sunny day
'Cause you play with love, and then you throw it away

Have you no shame?

The exact words uttered by Joseph Welch to questions by Senator Joseph McCarthy during the Army hearings of 1954 were “Have you no sense of decency”. This was of course a rhetorical question directed to the audience of the hearings. Senator McCarthy of course had no sense of decency. A sense of decency, the ability to feel shame, means you value the opinion of the group more than you value your own opinion. Like the Orange Menace, Senator McCarthy cared not one whit about the opinions of the group. He only cared about his own opinions. Al Franken can resign from the Senate over an inappropriate photo. Abe Fortas can resign from the Supreme Court over a controversial $18,000 contribution that he refunded. Now that is shame!

And by the group, I mean the entire Nation, not just the group of supporters who share his opinion. The fact that Senator McCarthy was holding hearings charging lax security at a top-secret army facility was only an attempt to raise fear on the issue. A classic con artist stunt. “We’ve Got Trouble Right here in River City.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI_Oe-jtgdI. Henry Hill did not care at all about the pool hall. A digression. Captain Billy’s Whiz Bang magazine mentioned in the lyrics became Whiz Comics which debuted the original Captain Marvel. Shazam! THAT’S your idea of trouble? He only wanted to sell band uniforms. It starts when you’re always afraid.

Math III

 

Born Free

Stay free
Where no walls divide you
You're free as a roaring tide
So there's no need to hide

Is division the opposite of being free?

Engineers such as myself may not care about the difference between approaching and being. We primarily care about close enough. But we understand that there is a difference. Division by infinity approaches zero, but it is NOT zero. A mathematician and a physicist would give different answers. The limit of a constant k divided by x, k/x,  as it approaches zero is undefined according to a mathematician, because if k is zero, then k/0 is undefined. If k is equal to zero, a physicist would  say 0/0 is 1 because the formula k/x approaches 1 as x approaches zero from the positive side. However if it were approached beginning from negative infinity, them its limit would be -1. So at 0 there is a discontinuity, but there is also a paradox because the limit is both -1 and 1.  Engineers like me don’t generally deal with negative numbers, and we have no dog in this fight, but work it out guys please. Discontinuities, abrupt changes in the slope of an equation, that we can handle. Paradoxes, contradictory values at the same value, typically indicate that a deeper truth is not yet understood. The fact that this involves division might be significant

As mathematicians and binary machine language computer programmers can tell you, multiplication is easy, division is hard. Multiplication of a by b, where a is the multiplicand and b is the multiplier, is the product ab. To get that product, you add the multiplicand to itself multiplier times. So multiplication and addition are easily linked. Also multiplication does not involve a change of case. If a and b are both integers then their product, ab, will also be an integer.

Division is not linked to subtraction in the same manner. If multiplication is just repeated addition, division is NOT repeated subtraction. Also division involves a change of case. The division of two integers will result in a rational number. It is even worse for roots. The root of an integer or a rational number can be an irrational number. Multiplication, or raising a number to a power, is a series of additions with no change of case. Division, or taking a root, is not a series of subtractions and it involves a change of case. The biblical injunction is “Be Fruitful and Multiply.”  “Divide and conquer” was said by Julius Caesar. I knew that there was a problem understanding that whole Render onto Caesar and God thing, but those who promote dividing us have at least made it clear on which side they are.

Math II

 

I Believe

Everytime I hear a newborn baby cry,
Or touch a leaf, or see the sky,
Then I know why, I believe!

Do Christian Nationalists believe in God?

Christian Nationalists have preached the belief that theirs is the only correct way and thus they believe in a government of “My way or the highway” rather than ‘All roads lead to Rome.”  Mathematically they believe in a Cumulative Distribution Function, CDF, that is 0 before a point  e.g.  “A Come to Jesus Moment,” µ, and is 1 after that point. But they also believe that there should be no variance, whose square root is σ, and their Probability Distribution Function, PDF, is the only PDF with the correct CDF. In fact it is not.

A normal logistics PDF for any value of x is  ¼*1/s*sech²((x-µ)/2s). Its CDF is ½+½*tanh((x-µ)/2s). It has a variance, σ², of s²π²/3. Its CDF is also 0 before a point, µ-3*σ, and is 1 after a point, µ+3*σ. Thus the difference between the Christian Nationalist, and a normal distribution is the value of the variance, σ². Christian Nationalists believe it can only be zero, while according to mathematics, normally it can be any nonzero number.

If you accept the premise that before µ , the “Come to Jesus” moment,  you were not saved, did not accept God/Jesus, and after µ you were saved, but you also believe that there is no variance, σ=0, then  you also have to believe that s = 0. The problem is that those people have confused variance with error. God has no error, but he does have a variance. In fact, according to a normal logistics function, when s= 0.5, which is also the mean and median of the CDF of Christian Nationalists, the variance is not zero but is perfection, God, π², divided into three parts, 3, times choice squared, s²= 0.25.  If you believe that your variance is zero, but God’s variance is not zero, you must also not believe in God. So please don’t call yourselves Christian Nationalists. Be honest and call yourselves Anti-Christian Nationalists.

Math

 

Let’s Do It (Let’s Fall In Love)

Birds do it, bees do it
Even educated fleas do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

And after that let’s do it, let’s do some math!

Mathematics is not only NOT hard, it is the basic language of the universe. 

·        The shape of a shoreline or a tree - Fractals. 

·        The shape of a sunflower seeds-Fibonacci spiral.  

·        A snowflake- Six sided radial symmetry.

·        The honeycombs made by bees - Hexagonal shapes.

And even humans do complex math in our head. 

·        A unbiased fair jury follows the 68/95/99 rule of normal distributions and a unanimous 12 member panel reflects 99.97% certainty.

·        People choose the 95th percentile time to ensure that they will have an on-time arrival  I can barely count to 10 anymore and I can compute the 95th percentile time without even thinking?

·        The founding fathers chose 2/3, 67.7%,  for the most important decisions and 68% is the mean plus one standard deviation.

·        The universe seems to mandate tolerance. And not only things are most probably random, not deterministic, Free Will over Determinism has a mathematical basis!

Math is NOT hard.  It is intrinsic to nature and we ignore it at our peril.

Seven Game Series

 

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

How many games does it take to determine a winner?

The 2004 Boston Red Sox beat the 2004 New York Yankees in Major League Baseball’s American League Championship Series. The 2004 Red Sox prevailed to win four games in an epic seven game series. But were the Red Sox the better team? And why seven games? Why not  a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 or 9 game series?

On any given Sunday, any team can win a game, and all jazz. So how many games does it take before you can be certain that the winner of a series of games IS the better team. In a one game series there are two possible outcomes: Win or Lose. The mean is 0.5, if a win is worth 1, and a loss is worth 0. The square root of the variance of those outcome is 0.167.  If there were an infinite number of games, and both outcomes, Win and Lose are equally likely, then the mean is always equal to half the number of games. If that mean is subtracted from the number of wins such that number of points is normalized to zero,  it is like the figure below.

The problem is that we can’t afford to play an infinite number of games, we can only afford to play a finite number of games. For a finite series with an odd number of games, the mean is equal to the median but neither of those are an integer number of games. By contrast for a finite series with an even number of games, the mean is an integer, but with an even number of games, this outcome could occur by chance and thus the outcome can not decide who is better.

Infinity is both odd AND even. Its median is its mode is its mean, which is one of the hallmarks of a normal distribution. However the other hallmark of a normal distribution is that it satisfies the 68/95/99 rule. And with an infinite number of games you can satisfy this. But what are the fewest number of games in a series that satisfies the 68/95/99 rule? You also want to discard all even games series because there should only be one winning outcome, not two.

A seven-game series satisfies more of the 68/95/99 rule. The 2004 ALCS was a seven-game series, and the Red Sox were thus the better team. Ain’t statistics wonderful!