Vaccines and Masks

 

Good Lovin’

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

……

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

What is the cure?

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

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

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

Texas II

 

Mind Your Business

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

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

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

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

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

The Supreme Court

 

If I Had a Hammer

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

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

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

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

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

Texas

 

Here's to the State of Mississippi

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

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

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

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

Lessons from Afghanistan

 

Exhuming McCarthy

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

What lessons should we have learned from Afghanistan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can work to change those behaviors.  But,

We can not force a change in the those behaviors. 

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

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

Defense!

 

Witchcraft

Those fingers in my hair
That sly come hither stare
That strips my conscience bare
It's witchcraft
And I've got no defense for it
The heat is too intense for it

So if you do have a defense, how good is it?

For those of you watching Ted Lasso ( and for those of you who are not, you are missing the best show on Television.  Season 2 Episode 4 is going to be on constant repeat at my home during the holiday season), in Season 2 Episode 6, Assistant Coach Nate Shelby executes  a surprise move in the closing minutes, by calling for a focus on defense rather than on offense when a winning goal is needed. Richmond FC is able to score the winning goal when the opposing FC makes a mistake.  While the media is surprised by Nate’s move, it should not be a surprise to any sports fan who know that, while it may not be exciting,  it is true that it is defense that wins championships.  The best defense is a good offense is exciting, but wrong.  A defensive strategy is also the Minimax strategy from Games Theory,  which is minimizing the maximum score by your opponent.

This is true of any repeating two-player game.  In the two-player game in the US Senate, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell seems to be particularly adept at this strategy ( “100% of my focus is on blocking this administration’s (Biden’s ) agenda”).  This is not necessary the best long-term strategy for society.  That is why there are 100 senators .  They are supposed to not simply play a two-party game but play a 100 Senator Game for the good of all society, not just Republicans.

Flat Tax

 Widow's Mite

"Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury. For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood." Mark 12:41-44

Is a flat tax a tax on surplus, or a tax on livelihood?

Any flat income tax, a fixed percentage of income, is regressive.  Income can be divided into need, or livelihood, and desire, or surplus.  Desires are met only after need is satisfied.  However there is a maximum amount that will be devoted to needs.  A flat tax is the same on both surplus and livelihood.  A progressive tax is not merely a ramp up to the percentage of that flat tax.  If a lower, or no tax, is imposed on livelihood then the percentage of taxes has to be greater than the flat tax on income that is surplus.

This is basic math. If the revenue from taxes is

Tax Revenue=% Flat Tax * Total Income

and income is divided into income for Livelihood and income for Surplus,

Total Income= Income for Livelihood  + Income for surplus

then to raise the same revenue and also have a smaller tax rate on livelihood,  the percentage tax on the surplus must be greater than the flat tax.  If we call the income for livelihood the standard deduction, on which no taxes are paid, then if the standard deduction is raised, and the tax on surplus is lowered, then mathematically the total tax revenue has to decrease. 

% Effective Tax * Total Income =

                        % Tax on Livelihood * Income for Livelihood + % Tax on Surplus*Income  for Surplus.

Increasing the standard deduction might appeal to those whose share of income for livelihood is larger, and reducing the tax rate for all income, might appeal to those whose share of income for surplus is larger, but it results in a lower total tax revenue from all and a lower effective tax rate.  “Let them eat cake” could be a display of ignorance of how things work.  If there is a shortage of flour then there is a shortage of both bread and cake.  You can correct ignorance with learning, you can’t correct stupid.  Let’s not be stupid.