Sovereignity

 

Her Majesty

I wanna tell her that I love her a lot
But I gotta get a bellyful of wine
Her majesty's a pretty nice girl
Someday I'm going to make her mine, oh, yeah
Someday I'm going to make her mine

Queen Elizabeth is the sovereign of the United Kingdom and several other countries. 
Who is the sovereign of the US?

Queen Elizabeth is the sovereign of the United Kingdom, (and Canada, Australia and several other Commonwealth countries).  All property not owned by individuals, or corporations, is owned by the sovereign.  You don’t have to travel to the United Kingdom to experience this first hand.  You can travel north to Canada where you will travel on the Queen’s Highway or visit the Queen’s Parks.  The ships of the Navy of the United Kingdom have HMS, Her Majesty’s Ship, before the name.  But the sovereign needs a government to administer that sovereignty.  The United Kingdom’s Parliament administers the government on behalf of the Queen .  The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy where there is a sovereign, the monarch, but the powers of the sovereign are constrained by a constitution. 

The United States of America is just that, States in America that have chosen to be United.  Before the adoption of the US Constitution, each state was sovereign.  By ratifying the Constitution each state agreed to have as its sovereign, as established in that document, the People.  Thus the People of the United States are the sovereign.  But that does not mean that each person is a co-equal as sovereign.  Think of the United States as a corporation, which owns property. An individual shareholder does not have the right to property of the corporation.  Even though I am a shareholder of Disney, I still pay the entrance fee to use the property at Disneyland.  I understand that have no claim to ownership of Disneyland despite the fact that I own Disney stock.

The head of the executive branch of government, the president, stands in for the sovereign when circumstances require the presence of a person, such as state dinners, weddings, coronations, funerals, etc.  But the fact that the President is standing in for the sovereign in no way makes him the sovereign.  The officers of the United States swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.  As such it is the People’s Supreme Court, not the Justices appointed by the president.  It is the People’s Justice Department, not the President’s Justice Department.  It is the People’s Capitol and those who enter it acting as if they are the sovereign are correct that they are persons and the people are the sovereign, but they do NOT have joint ownership of the Capitol or any other sovereign property.  Just like I expect to be arrested if I trespass on Disney property despite being  a Disney shareholder, if I violate the rules of the sovereign on any public, sovereign, property I should expect to be arrested.  The People are the sovereign, but that does not make each person the sovereign.  The President is not a sovereign, and an election only makes him head of the executive branch of government, but it does not make him a sovereign.

Trust II

 

Trust In Me

Trust in me, baby, give me time, gimme time, um gimme time
I heard somebody say, oh, "The older the grape
Sweeter the wine, sweeter the wine"

Whom should you trust?

The least trustworthy politicians during my lifetime have been Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. ( with honorable mentions to Newt Gingrich and Henry Kissinger). Yes, I realize that they are all Republicans.  Barry Goldwater dishonestly said that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!” and “moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”. Richard Nixon is famously remembered as “Tricky Dick” who resigned as a result of “Watergate”.  Ronald Reagan said that government is the problem and then went on to “prove” this by leading the government that gave us Iran Contra among others.  And Donald Trump?  His misdeeds are too numerous to list.  Newt Gingrich rose to fame speaking on C-SPAN to what on the other, unseen, side of the camera was an empty Congressional chamber.  Henry Kissinger was a proponent of the Realpolitik which proposes that the enemy of my enemy is my fiend, which is a provably false statement. I am not including Warren Harding and others, only because, even though I am 70, they died before I was born.

But Republicans have also given us  Abraham “Honest Abe” Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt. Elliot Richardson was  a Republican who opposed Richard Nixon in the Saturday Night Massacre. Gerald Ford and John McCain were exemplary men of integrity.  One of the largest political conflicts in the late 19^th Century was an intra-party fight between traditional Republicans and  Mugwumps, the anti-corruption Republicans .  I include myself among Republicans as well.  While an independent, I was appointed to a political office by a Republican Governor, and I have voted for Massachusetts Republican Governors.  IMO, some Republicans are not worthy of trust, but that does mean that all Republicans are not worthy of trust.  Trust is not a Republican or Democratic characteristic. It is a human characteristic.  However trust is very hard to re-earn once it has been lost. Perhaps our motto should not be “Trust everyone, but always cut the cards", or “Trust everyone, but carry a big stick”, but “Trust everyone, until they lose our trust."

Afghanistan

 

Shelter From the Storm

I've heard newborn babies wailin' like a mournin' dove
And old men with broken teeth stranded without love
Do I understand your question, man, is it hopeless and forlorn
Come in, she said
I'll give ya shelter from the storm

The greatest gift we can offer is to give shelter from the storm.

The images from Afghanistan are tragic, but they are hardly surprising.  Is it any different than a domestic violence situation?  We can provide shelters and support for victims of domestic violence. But those victims need to leave the sovereignty of their home, which they may share with their abuser, and enter spaces over which the rest of society has sovereignty, standing.  If the victim refuses to leave their abusers, welcomes their abuser into their home, there is little that we can do that is proactive.  We can punish domestic violence after it has occurred, but we can only be reactive. Unfortunately we can’t know the future.  We can react to events that have happened, but we can’t react to events that have not yet happened, even if we have an abiding fear that they will happen.

Afghanistan is very similar to a domestic violence situation.  Are women, children and innocents being abused?  Can we stop this abuse? 20 years have told us that in their country, over which we have no sovereignty, we can hope that violence will not occur, we can provide an example, we can provide institutions to try and prevent the worst, but we can only lead that horse to water, we can not make him drink.

What we can do is provide relief from disasters, whether it is physical, natural, economic, etc.  Should we have negotiated with the abusers without the victims and given those abusers status and recognition? If we lie down with dogs won’t we get fleas?  What should our response to those fleeing disasters be?  Should it be, “Stay away, no more room here” or should it be “Come in, I’ll give you shelter from the storm”.

 

Economics II

 

You’re The Man

Don't give us no peace sign
Turn around, rob the people blind
Ah, economics, who is the issue
Do you have a plan with you?
'Cause, if you've got a master plan
(Got the vote for you)
You're the man.

Is economics the key to the master plan?

Economics is often called the dismal science.  This is a reflection that economics often throws cold water, reality, on what we want to do, because we can’t afford it.  This is true of ALL sciences.  Science is about discovering rules on how things actually work, which is often not how we wish they would work.  “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.” 

The three laws of thermodynamics can be humorously,  but dismally, expressed as:

You can’t win.  (energy can not be created or destroyed in an isolated system.)

You can’t break even. (the entropy of any isolated system always increases.)

You can’t quit the game. (the entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero.)

Economics is often interpreted as setting a price so that there is a profit.  It actually is much more than that.  It is about setting a price that allocates resources, even when there is no profit.  Hear that Postmaster General DeJoy?  The US Post Office is a government SERVICE that is not supposed to make a profit.  Minimizing a loss is NOT the same as ensuring a profit.  If you want to be the man, learn the rules.

Certainty II

 

Rock Of Ages

Rock of ages cleft for me
Let me hide myself in Thee
Let the water and the blood
From Thy wounded side which fload
Thee of sin the double cure
Save from raft and make me pure.

Why can’t scientists be pure, i.e. 100% certain?

Ivory Soap is 99 and 44/100 percent pure.  The best test result in science is 5-sigma, (99.99994% confidence).  The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine is reported by the CDC to be 94.1% effective.  These are considered to be standards that are good, but why can’t science ever be pure, i.e. 100% certain.

A portion of the population prefers purity.  It interprets science as being 100% certain, rounding a 99.99994% certainty to 100%.  No scientist will ever say that he is 100% certain. ( if someone claiming to be a scientist does say that he is 100% certain, you can be certain that he is not a scientist).  A vaccination can’t be 100% effective, but we can say that it is better than being 0% effective.  Saying that a vaccine is 94.1% effective also means that it is 5.9% ineffective.  This means that if exposed to the corona virus, there is a 5.9% chance that a person vaccinated with the Moderna vaccine will be infected with the corona virus. This should be applied to whatever the chance that an unvaccinated person will be infected with the virus.  Which is why even those who are vaccinated do not wish to be exposed to the virus. The odds can be increased, but that is all that can be done.  There is a difference between improbable and impossible.

Einstein famously opposed quantum theory and its Heisenberg Uncertainty principle with his phrase “God does not play dice with the universe”.  A person of faith might say that his God constructed the universe so that no human, including the most educated scientist, could ever be 100% certain.  Purity is reserved for the divine.  We can seek to increase our certainty and act accordingly, but it does not appear that we can ever be 100% certain, pure.

Reaganomics

 

Won’t Get Fooled Again

Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again.

Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore had the nerve to publish an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on August 13, 2021 with the subtitle “Forty years after the 1981 tax cuts, America needs to relearn the lessons of the supply-side revolution.” Really? Really?  I hope that we don't have to relearn anything, that we have wised up, learned our lessons well, and will never forget. 

In 1981 America embarked on an economic experiment by changing its tax code to lower taxes, especially for upper incomes, and cut government spending on common resources.  It was sold as a supply side stimulus, which was an alternative to a Keynesian demand side stimulus. We were told that those increases to the investment class would trickle down to benefit all through increased growth.

After 40 years, the growth has been much lower than the period before those tax cuts.  Very little has trickled down.  In fact the US has been one of only two countries, the other being the United Kingdom, where difference between mean and median income increased since the 1980s.  The United Kingdom wised up and stopped the destructive practices of Margaret Thatcher and has at least reached stability, but the US experiment has continued to this day. 

Government spending increases common resources and regulates those common resources so that we won’t have a Tragedy of the Commons. Stimulating labor may increase production.  What was sold as supply side stimulus was really only an investment stimulus.  What is particularly ironic is that the reason to adopt these draconian measures was “stagflation” that in retrospect was most probably caused by the Nixon Shock of 1971.  So Republican Ronald Reagan  “saved” the US  from the problem caused by Republican Richard Nixon.  Talk about killing your parents and appealing for mercy because you are now an orphan.  It took Sam Brownback only five years to ruin the economy of Kansas with "supply side" economics, so there is some small advantage that voodoo economics was not totally embraced and it could have been worse.  But we won’t get fooled again.

Filibusters II

 

Everybody’s Talkin' 

Everybody's talking at me.
I don't hear a word they're saying,
Only the echoes of my mind.

Can the filibuster be preserved without it just being talking at me?

If the infrastructure bill had been defeated by a filibuster, given the support for infrastructure improvements, it would have probably doomed the filibuster.  Thus if the infrastructure bill passes, one of the consequences is that the filibuster may also be retained.  The filibuster was originally intended as a process to preserve debate.  A super majority of US Senators ( which is currently 60 Senators) is needed to end debate and bring a bill to the floor for a vote.  Before the 1970s, Senate rules required talking filibusters, e.g. debate could continue but that debate had to be active.  This led to the talking filibusters made famous in the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but filibusters have also been used by Southern Senators to stop civil rights legislation.  That led to “debate” being reading from the phone book or reading recipes that had nothing to contribute to the bill being offered, but merely delayed  ending debate and bringing a bill to a vote.  As the self-styled World’s Greatest Deliberative Body, the Senate was justifiably embarrassed by such behavior, feared for its members health, ended the taking filibuster and instituted today's version of the filibuster.

A vote to end debate, to bring a bill to the floor, is currently a public vote.  Thus it is also publicly known whether you voted with, or against, your party.  If your party choses to retaliate, then it is probable that some votes to continue debate are made only out of fear of retaliation. Thus a multiplayer game of 100 Senators devolves into a two-player game of Democrats versus Republicans

Fear of reprisal because of a vote is why general elections are by secret ballot.   If secret ballots were required to end debate and advance a bill, it could preserve the filibuster, but make the filibuster follow its original intent, to preserve debate and let the minority be heard, without letting that minority block any action that does not also have 60 senate votes. Then talking serves a purpose and is not just talking at me.