The War Against Christmas

 

You’re a Mean One, Mr. Grinch

You're a foul one, Mr. Grinch,
You're a nasty wasty skunk,
Your heart is full of unwashed socks,
Your soul is full of gunk, Mr. Grinch,
The three words that best describe you are as follows, and I quote,
"Stink, stank, stunk"!

The Grinch may have declared WAR against Christmas, but some Grinches are NOT whom you think they are.

Grinches didn’t like gift giving on St. Nicholas Day (Dec 6th) or Three King’s Day (Jan 6th) , so gift giving was moved to Christmas Day (Dec 25th). They objected to gifts being given by Santa Claus, so gifts were given by the Christkind.  When that failed to stop the holiday, they banned Christmas entirely.  But the spirit endured.  Now they have changed tactics and have claimed that they are fighting on the side of Christmas in a war against Christmas.  Never mind that the wife of the family, whom complained very loudly about the war on Christmas, said “who gives a f*** about the Christmas stuff and decorations?”.

But it isn’t about the decorations.  As even the Grinch learned,

“It came without ribbons. It came without tags.
It came without packages, boxes or bags.     
And he puzzled and puzzled 'till his puzzler was sore.
Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before.
What if Christmas, he thought, doesn't come from a store.
What if Christmas, perhaps, means a little bit more.” 

Whether you choose to call it Christmas, Diwali, Chanukah, Kwanzaa, Saturnalia, Festivus, or some other holiday, we are celebrating the triumph of hope that light and life will return in these shortest and deadest days of the year.  And that there will be “Peace on earth and mercy mild, God and sinners reconciled.” And that is what Christmas is about, Charlie Brown.  I know who my enemies are, and when they are AT War , not AGAINST War, on Christmas.

Tyranny of the Minority

Big Boss Man

 

Big boss man, can't you hear me when I call? 

You ain't so big,  you're just tall that's all 

A real big boss should be a decision of the majority, not defined by a minority characteristic, such as being tall.

The founding fathers wrote the US Constitution to prevent a tyranny of the majority. They did a good job of that. They did not do such a good job preventing a tyranny of a minority. 

America was founded by those who fled persecution in Europe for largely religious, but also expressing other, minority opinions. When they arrived in what would become the United States, it would have been hoped that they would be aware of that  persecution and would take steps to ensure that they did not themselves persecute others. However as the early history of the Colonies portrays, the persecution of other minorities when they themselves become majorities was rampant. The Constitution and its Amendments took steps to ensure that its republican democracy never became a tyranny of the majority. Minority opinions were protected. It was not the intent of the founding fathers to substitute a “tyranny of the minority” for a “tyranny of the majority”. 

However the election process of “winner take all”, “second place is first loser” has evolved into a system with only two parties. The protections are such that minority opinion can dominate. For example, the Gallup Poll announced that Donald Trump was the Most Admired Man in the US in 2020, beating out Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Anthony Fauci. I would suggest that Donald Trump was NOT the second, third, or fourth choice of those selecting these other finishers. What is true is that the Donald Trump captured the largest number of FIRST place votes, even though that number of first place votes was a minority. This is NOT the way Most Valuable Players or Best College Football, or  Basketball, Team, or other polls work. Because it is an opinion, points are awarded for second, third, and other choices. In doing so the “best” does not have to capture the most first place votes, only the highest number of total voting points. 

The system in place, as opposed to the one in sports, or as proposed by rank choice voting, ultimately evolves into a two-party system, with a winner and a loser. It also leads to a polarized system where the losers may seek to overturn the determination that they are the loser by any means possible. Protection of a minority does not mean domination by that minority.

Caste Part III : Nature versus Nurture

I Believe

Dreamt a hundred thousand dreams before

Now I finally realize

You see I've waited all my life for this moment to arrive

And finally, I believe

If you dream that you can change your nature, is that possible? 

Albert Einstein was a Jewish refugee.  Marie Curie was a woman.  Stephen Hawking was paralyzed by ALS, confined to a wheelchair and spoke with mechanical aids.  Alan Turing was a homosexual.  John Coltrane was Black. Toni Morrison was both Black and a woman.  Benjamin Franklin was 70 years old when he helped in drafting the Declaration of Independence.  According to nativists, we are defined by our nature and that nature defines what we can achieve.  Thus, none of these people should have achieved their dreams and made the contributions that they did, but society is fortunate that they made those achievements.

Faith, nationality, immigration status, gender, disability, sexual orientation, race, age, and other measures of caste, should not define one's contributions and value to society. While, nature alone might be proper for animal husbandry it may not be the best way to define people.  However nurture alone is not an alternative.  Despite my dreams, I will never run a 100 meters in 10 seconds.  What is necessary that people be nurtured to support their dreams consistent with their nature.

Caste: Part II

You've Got To Be Carefully Taught

 You've got to be taught to be afraid
 Of people whose eyes are oddly made 
 And people whose skin is a different shade 
You've got to be carefully taught. 

 Caste is NOT the way things must be. We can choose not to teach caste. 

"Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents", the best selling book by Isabel Wilkerson, is a chilling depiction of how, among other things, the Nazis ( and for those who are against socialism, don’t forget that Nazi is a nickname for “National Socialism") modeled their own caste system after the successful caste system in the United States. The success of any caste system, where only a few can occupy the top rung, depends on convincing a majority that the ladder system of caste is the way things should be, and that everyone should stay in their place. Those in the middle rungs accept the caste system because they are promised to be above those in lower rungs. 

The lower rungs in the caste system in the United States appear to be reserved for: women, indigenous people, African Americans, immigrants, LGBTQ+, Hispanics, Asians, the disabled, etc. While the Amendments to the U. S. Constitution have attempted to grant rights to many of these groups, it is the caste system itself, not the rights that the caste system bestows, that should be in question. 

Before teaching or accepting the caste system, it is important for society to ask why there is a caste system at all? Does the existence of a caste system, which excludes the contributions of those on the lower rungs, advance the interests of society? Is violence against those who challenge elements of the caste system order,... or brutality? 

Those on the lowest rungs will soon outnumber those on the higher rungs. Does anyone seriously expect that the caste system will continue under these conditions?  It is in the best interest of society that the caste system in the United States be immediately discontinued and no longer taught.

Role of a Judge

It's Alright With Me

It's the wrong time and the wrong place

Though your face is charming, it's the wrong face

It's not her face, but such a charming face

That it's all right with me

It might be alright with Senator Mitch McConnell, but not with everyone.

During the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings on Judge Amy Coney Barrett, one argument that Republican Senators seem to be presenting is that the role of a judge is not the role of a legislator.  This is true but irrelevant.  If judges only interpreted the law, then there would only be 9-0 decisions of the Supreme Court.  Since there are dissenting opinions, the opinion of a judge, and what might be the basis for their dissent, matters.

Another argument that Republican Senators seem to be advancing is that the Democratic opposition to Judge Barrett is because of her Catholic religion.  If this were true then why is the Democratic candidate for President a practicing Catholic? Clearly not all Catholics have the same opinion or else a future Catholic President Biden would also be expected to nominate Catholic Judge Barrett.

Clearly opinion matters, and the consent of the Senate should be based on those opinions. 

The Mafia's definition of a Honest Man is one that stays bought.  Since the confirmation of Justice Barrett by Republican Senators appears to be a forgone conclusion, we can only hope that she has a different definition of honesty than the Mafia's definition, and that she understands the role of a judge is to interpret the law on behalf of all Americans, regardless of party.

Valuing Risk: Part 4

  It's Ain't Necessarily So

I'm preachin' dis sermon to show

It ain't nessa, ain't nessa

Ain't nessa, ain't nessa

Ain't necessarily so !

Just because the consequences aren't what you want, it ain't necessarily the risk.

While often the likelihood has been confused with the risk, it is also possible to mistake the consequences of an event for its risk.  Risk is always the product of likelihood AND consequences.  For example voter fraud.  If the consequences for your candidate is that voter fraud will cause them to loose the election,  then consequences would be very bad (even if the backers of the opponent might view those consequences differently!)  That does not mean that the risk of voter fraud is also high.

The Brennan Center’s seminal report , The Truth About Voter Fraud, found that most reported incidents of voter fraud are actually traceable to other sources, such as clerical errors or bad data matching practices. The report reviewed elections that had been meticulously studied for voter fraud, and found incident rates between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent. That means that the risk of voter fraud for that hypothetical candidate is 100% * 0.0003 %.  Even if the likelihood was 100 times as greater, the risk of voter fraud is then only 100% *0.003%= 0.003%.

Confusing the consequences of voter fraud with the risk of voter fraud is even harder to understand than confusing the likelihood with the risk.

Free Will

 

Free Bird

Cause I'm as free as a bird now          

And this bird you can not change      

Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh       

And this bird you can not change      

And this bird you can not change
Lord knows, I can't change

If you really want to be free, you have to be able to chose to change.

System Optimal versus User Optimal solutions might sound like only a mathematical argument, but that is only because of the words that are used.  If User Optimal instead is called free will and System Optimal solutions are called good works, the argument become recast in terms that are more familiar and relevant.  Free will says that we are free to choose the solution that we believe is best for us  (i.e. can chose a User Optimal solution).  Good works says that there is a solution that is best for society (i.e. the System Optimal solution).  The conflict between these two is the subject of  religion, sociology, evolution, etc.

Religion deals with the conflict between free will  and good works.  Most major religions have some from of the golden rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, even though the often rule is cynically described as “Whoever has the gold, makes the rules” that acknowledges that the golden rule is not always chosen by individuals.

Sociology deals with the changes in the choices of society in groups.  The taking of goods by force was once acceptable (e.g. the Roman Empire, Spanish Empire, etc.) but is not accepted by society today.  Assassination was once socially acceptable (e.g. the Medicis, the Thuggees, etc.) but is not acceptable today.  Extreme revenge against your enemies was once acceptable (e.g. Roman salting of Carthage, Vlad the Impaler, also known as Dracula, etc.) but is not acceptable today.

Evolution is often misunderstood that it is a User Optimal solution (e.g.. survival of the fittest), when in fact it seeks a System Optimal solution, The title of the evolution's most famous work is “On The Origin Of Species", not, "On The Origin Of A Specimen. 

It is hoped that we chose System Optimal solutions, but free will means that we can chose User Optimal solutions.  We look forward to a day when the User Optimal solutions are also System Optimal solutions.