Unions

 

King Harvest (Has Surely Come)

I work for the union
‘Cause she's so good to me
And I'm bound to come out on top
That's where she said I should be

Are unions always good for you?

Some disclaimers.  While I am a union supporter and my father was a long-time union member, during 1992 to 1998 I was Director of the Massachusetts Highway Department’s Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development. Thus I have also by definition been a manager and a bureaucrat.  So when I say that unions can also be bureaucratic it is not meant to be an aspersion on unions, managers, or bureaucrats.

While I was Director, I had to make a choice about hiring a new Geographic Information System, GIS, position. My choices were a person who was not a union member, had no work experience but had just graduated with a degree in  GIS versus a current employee who was a union member, had unrelated work experience and no GIS training.  I opted for the recent GIS employee.  Among her first tasks was to train the other applicant, who filed a union grievance that she should have been given preference in hiring.

After a year, the GIS employee left and the other previous applicant, whom she had trained, was promoted to replace her.  Some time after that the original union grievance hearing was finally held.  Remember that the grievant now held the position which she was grieving that she had been denied.  The outcome of the hearing was that the grievance was upheld and the current occupant of the GIS position should have been hired in the first place, but because the hiring was otherwise proper, she was owed no difference in pay for the interim, .  In order to complete the union grievance, the original grievant, who was the current occupant of the position, was effectively fired for a nanosecond and then immediately rehired.

Which just goes to show that unions can also be bureaucratic.  Yogi Berra should have been the union hearing officer because the outcome made as much sense as “ No one goes there any more.  It’s too crowded.”

In The Heights

Paciencia Y Fe

What do you do when your dreams come true?

I've spent my life inheriting dreams from you

What do I do with this winning ticket?

What can I do but pray

What are your dreams?

Having just watched In The Heights, can I offer a geeky mathematical synopsis of the movie’s plot.  Usnavi and Nina choose System Optimal solutions rather than User Optimal solutions.  Usnavi stays in Washington Heights to be part of that society rather than pursue his dream of operating his father’s bar in the Dominican Republic.  Nina chooses to return to Stanford, even though she is not happy at Stanford, because then she can be more successful in fighting for the rights of Dreamers.

John Nash, himself the subject of the Oscar winning Best Picture, A Beautiful Mind, showed that there is a difference between a User Optimal Nash Equilibrium and a System Optimal solution.  That is why the ending is satisfying. Because as a society we prefer System Optimal solutions.

“There is no I in Team.”
“I only regret that I have but one life to give for my county.”
“It is a far, far better thing that I do than I have ever done.”
“It takes a village to raise a child.”
“Let me listen to my block.”  

Choose your solution for your block, not for yourself.

Return to Normal

 

Revolution

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're all doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait 

Will the return to normal be a revolution? 

Nature seems to prefer a Gaussian distribution.  The common name for a Gaussian distribution is a bell-shaped normal distribution.  One feature of a normal distribution is that the mean, i.e. average,  is equal to the median, i.e. the value where 50% is above and 50% is below. If the median does not equal the mean, then the distribution is called skewed.  Currently there is a perception  by many that income and wealth are skewed toward the higher incomes, higher wealth.

It is possible for a distribution to be a bell-shaped curve,  where the mean, median and mode are all equal but there is another attribute of a curve, the variance, e.g. the width of the curve.  We all became way too familiar with the phrase “Flatten the curve”, during the COVID-19 pandemic. A statistician might say that we were increasing the variance of the curve.  Having an extremely low variance is also something that nature abhors and why those that stand out in a crowd are often the first to be targeted.  A pedestal has a very low variance, width, and tends to tip over, hence the warning about putting idols on pedestals.

“Here lies a toppled god
His fall was not a small one
We did but build his pedestal
A narrow, and a tall one.”

The return to a normal distribution will come. That return can be gradual and planned, or it can be violent,  like the French Revolution.  How far from a normal distribution we stray, may determine how extreme the return will be.

Wide Streets

 

Why, Oh Why

Why don't you answer my questions?
Why, oh why, oh why?
'Cause I don't know the answers.
Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye.

Is it ignorant to say you don’t know the answer?

During the famines of the 1780s in France, Marie Antoinette supposedly said “Let them eat cake” in response to hearing that the peasants did not have bread to eat.  The phrase was supposed to indicate ignorance, not cruelty.  The ignorance was not realizing bread and cake were both made with flour, and it was flour that was in short supply.  If there was no bread to be eaten, then there would also be no cake to be eaten. 

A recent article “On the High Cost of Wide Streets”  observed that streets that only need to accommodate a single car  can be much narrower.  But those streets were not designed to accommodate cars in the first place.  They were designed to accommodate fire and emergency trucks.  Are they used by cars in normal circumstances? You bet.  Can cars block transit riders? You bet.  When I was attending graduate school in Philadelphia in 1974, streetcars on tracks still shared the road with cars.  The blocking of streetcar tracks ( and the passengers on those street cars) by inconsiderate parked motorists might be illegal, but it happened way too often to be ignored.  The wide streets of Salt Lake City were laid out to accommodate U-turns by horse drawn wagons.  The wide boulevards of Paris were designed to allow cannons to clear barricades from a distance. Those street designs were not because of cars, but it was taken advantage by cars.  

Wide streets might be used by autos, but that does not mean that autos are responsible for wide streets.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Wide streets are designed for an extreme event, not an average event.  Wide streets may be less efficient, but nature and good design favors resiliency over efficiency.  Ask the efficient operators of supply chains how well the recent Suez Canal blockage worked out for them. Ignorance can be corrected by study.  Study why streets are wide, not the costs of wide street.

Lessons from the Pandemic

 

Garden Party

But it's all right now,
 I learned my lesson well.
You see, ya can't please everyone,
So ya got to please yourself.

Have we learned our lesson from the pandemic?

In previous blog postings, I proposed that human behavior can be defined by four attributes:

·       Rights vs. Duty: User Optimal solutions or System Optimal solutions

·       Nature vs. Nurture: Exclusive societies or Inclusive societies

·       Reality vs. Fantasy:  Facts or Alternate Facts

·       Private Property vs. Public Property: Ownership in common or by the public as sovereign.

After over a year of the COVID-19 pandemic it is possible to view how the natural world views these attributes.

Nature seems to favor System Optimal solutions.  Those who cared only for themselves fared poorly against the Virus, while those who were cared by others, typically against the best interests of those others, succeeded.

Nature seems to favor Inclusive societies.  The Virus did not seem to care about the wealth or status of its victims.  Presidents and paupers were all victims of COVID. You might be able to exclude members from your society, but you could not exclude the Virus.

Nature seems to favor facts. The Virus did not go away because anyone said that it did not exist.

Nature seems to favor no Ownership of Property . The Virus could be contracted on both public and private property.  The most successful societies were those who controlled how public property could be used. Social distancing; bans on non-essential usage; mask wearing; vaccination; etc. were required to use public property to prevent contracting, and/or spreading, the Virus.  Those who did not agree with these restrictions, could not use public property merely because they thought that they were co-owners of that public property.

In addition to nature's position of these behaviors. it is also worth noting that nature has also favored resiliency over efficiency.  The most efficient supply chains that depended on links that were no longer available were broken during the pandemic.  Those supply chains that had multiple, if less efficient, links were successful.

People whose basic needs for shelter, food, health care, etc. were able to protect themselves and others from the Virus.  Those who did not, continued to risk exposure to the Virus, despite the risk to themselves and others.

Let us remember the lessons of the pandemic, because it would please me if we never have to repeat the pandemic.

Assault Weapons Ban

 

My Rifle, My Pony and Me

It's time for a cowboy to sing
Purple light in the canyon
That's where I long to be
With my three good companions
Just my rifle, my pony and me

Is the cowboy singing about  an ASSAULT rifle?

“Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR-15 type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional”.

This is the opening paragraph of the decision by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego in Miller v. California.  It almost makes me want to throw away my venerable old Swiss Army Knife.  The decision goes on further to say that AR-15s should not be banned because it is protected as a weapon that serves a well-regulated militia.  You are NOT a militia because you say you are a militia. Groups that decide that they are a militia are in fact nothing more than vigilantes and IMO not well-regulated vigilantes at that.

The decision goes on to say that there is a purpose for banning “bazookas, howitzers, or machineguns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed “assault weapons” are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.”.  The judge is making an opinion that an AR-15 is an ordinary popular rifle.  If Bazooka, howitzers, or machine guns also become popular, does this mean that they also should not be banned?

It goes on to state that “In 1989, most judicial thinking about the Second Amendment was incorrect.” This is a statement of opinion, not one of fact.  The judge clearly disagrees with the thinking.  He can not say that it is incorrect. He is entitled to his own opinion, he is not entitled to his own facts.

The decision states that “ Although the Attorney General sees it differently, the Supreme Court also recognizes that the Second Amendment guarantee includes a right to keep and bear firearms that have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.”  I do not think that the Attorney General sees it differently.  The State of California, in its National Guard, has constituted a militia.  There is no other militia in California that has been authorized to my knowledge.  It should not be the plaintiffs or a federal judge who can overrule the State of California and decide that it can constitute a militia and how it chooses to arm that militia.

The decision goes on to say that “Modern rifles have become immensely popular in the United States. Even in California, despite being banned for 20 to 30 years, according to the State’s own evidence, there are 185,569 “assault weapons” currently registered with the California.  …. Californians buy a lot of firearms. In the year 2020 alone, residents bought 1,165,309 firearms.” I can hear my late mother chiding me that just because something was popular that does not make it right.  She would say “If the popular kids all jumped off a bridge, would you?”

If the National Guard of California decided that an AR-15 is required for its arms, which it has not, and its decided that members of the National Guard, arguably the only authorized militia in California, should possess an AR-15 at home, which it has not, then perhaps one could say that there would be a reason  to overturn the ban to regulate this militia.  But the ownership of a popular weapon, by individuals who are not members of a state regulated militia, should not be decided especially by federal law.  The Second Amendment prevents congress from imposing laws on states, such as California, with regards to arming its militia.  It does not protect individuals who are not part of a well-regulated militia from California law.

The Second Amendment was a restraint on the US Congress from enacting laws that supersede a state's authority to arm its militia.  To have that Amendment used to overturn, not an action by the US Congress, but a state law would appear to be the world turned upside down.

On behalf of all of the citizens of the US, this decision should be appealed. The regulation is not on all rifles.  Only on assault rifles  It does not regulate regular rifles .....or ponies.

Caste IV

 

Coat of Many Colors

But they didn't understand it

And I tried to make them see

That one is only poor

Only if they choose to be

Now I know we had no money

But I was rich as I could be

In my coat of many colors

My momma made for me

Made just for me

Did the Confederacy win the Civil War?

The Confederacy lost the military campaign that was the Civil War.  But it may have won by protecting the caste system.  A caste system is a system that ranks members of society according to some characteristics.  Chattel slavery was the lowest rung on the system and chattel slavery was abolished after the Civil War, but the caste system remained.  It is called the caste system in Isabel Wilkerson's wonderful book Caste: the Origins of Our Discontent.  Caste can be defined as racism, sexism, gender identity, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or any sorting of members of society by any characteristics.  Yes, it is used in Hindu culture but caste there is imposed on members of society that can not otherwise be distinguish.  They look the same, have the same nationality, have the same religion, have the same ethnicity, speak the same language, etc.  The difference is the occupations and wealth of their ancestors.  Thus caste seems a fitting name for any system that ranks members of its society by some characteristics, even if those characteristics seem to be arbitrary to others.

Heather McGhee in her book, The Sum of Us, documents that there is a cost to society of racism, and by extension of casteism.  Public services are not supported if those services are consumed by those who are in lower castes.  If there are no public services ( e.g. health care) then when we need those services, such as during the current pandemic, those services are not there.  After the Civil War slavery was abolished, but the caste system it promoted still endured. The Jim Crow laws were promoted and enforced by many including the Ku Klux Klan. Slavery was only the lowest rung of that caste system.  Public services are not offered because of that caste system. This is why it suggested that the promoters of that caste system, the Confederacy, might have won the Civil War even if they suffered a military defeat.

After the defeat of Nazi Germany, who modeled their own laws after the caste system and laws in the United States, no monuments to Nazis were allowed.  After the Civil War, monuments to Confederate officials were erected, promoted, and are protected today.

If the someone tells us that there is a caste system and we are in the middle rungs, that there are those who are lower castes than us whom we should despise, and those in castes above us whom we should protect, our response should not be to accept our rung, place, but question why they were allowed to say that there is a caste system in the first place. I will earn my place. You will not tell me what my place is. I’m only poor if I say I am poor, not if you say I am poor.