Filibusters IV

 Green Eggs and Ham

I do not like them in a house.
I do not like them with a mouse.
I do not like them here or there.
I do like them anywhere.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not Like them, Sam-I-Am.

What does Green Eggs and Ham have to do with legislation?  

The Senate is supposed to be the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body. As such, debate on legislation should continue as long as that debate continues the deliberations on that legislation.

I am a fan of Dr. Seuss.  I admired the dramatic reading of Green Eggs and Ham that Jesse Jackson did on  Saturday Night Live. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1mqg4C0aw.   However Senator Ted Cruz’s reading of Green Eggs and Ham had no purpose in the debate over Obamacare except to block any discussion of Obamacare.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RFclDjDYI4  It did not demonstrate the  Senate to be the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.

If the purpose of the filibuster is to block the passage of legislation, it is not contributing to the debate, it is blocking the legislation.  It is possible to like Green Eggs and Ham and dislike the filibuster. 

Filibusters III

 

Give It All

I got the power, I came to let 'em know (I got the power)
I got the power, I came to let 'em know (I got the power)
I got the power, I came to let 'em know (I got the power)
I got the power, I came to let 'em know (I got the power)

Do Republicans have the power, or do the People have the power?

There is not now, nor has there ever been, a de jure Constitutional requirement that 60 votes in the Senate are needed to allow passage of legislation.  The filibuster is about continuing debate.  Votes on legislation can not be taken until debate has ended.  However, if a supermajority is required to end debate, then de facto 60 votes are currently needed to allow passage of legislation.

It should not be this way.  The constitution recognized that there are certain actions that are so serious that they require a supermajority of society to approve. These actions include declarations of war, entering into treaties, overriding Presidential vetoes, ratifying amendments to the constitution, etc.  The simple passage of legislation is not now, nor has to ever been, included as such an action. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that.” Do my colleagues understand how many times per day the Senate needs and gets unanimous consent for basic housekeeping? Do they understand how many things could require roll call votes? How often the minority could demand lengthy debate?" Under different circumstances, this could be viewed as extortion of the majority by the minority.  “Nice little Senate you have here.  It would be a shame if anything happened to it.”

“Don” McConnell only succeeds in this Mafia like extortion if he can intimidate other minority Republican Senators to back him.  He currently is able to retaliate against Republican Senators who do not vote as he wishes ( he can say it is as the Party wishes, but the vote is supposed to be as the People wish).  If the vote to end debate is public, then he can retaliate.  If the vote is secret, then he can not know against whom to retaliate.

Time to make votes to end debate, also known as the filibuster,  secret votes.

Sovereigns III

 

 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

We are admonished not to be sheep, but are we bees?

Humans are not alone in being  social animals.  Many fish live in schools. Many insects live in hives.  Many birds live in flocks.  Many carnivorous mammals live in packs.  Many herbivorous mammals live in herds.  In each of these groups, the sovereign, the leader of the group, is:

· shared among all members of the group, e.g. the V-formation of a fight of  geese;

·  a genetic position, e. a queen bee, or

· a dominance position, e.g. the alpha wolf.

Other than humans, if a group selects its leader through dominance, it can not change to another method.  E.g. the children of the current leader of the pack that is chosen by dominance, may not necessarily be the next leader of the pack.

Humans have added election and dynasties to the selection methods for sovereigns. However they are really just another name for the already existing methods.  Election of sovereigns is just another form of dominance.  Dynastic sovereignty is acting as if the heirs of the existing leader are genetically chosen to be the next leader.

The People of the United States are its sovereign as established in the US Constitution.  Election of a President does not change this.  The family of the President is not a royal (sovereign) family.  The heirs of the President are not the next sovereign.

Bees, ants, and termites are not only social animals they are eusocial animals in that there is a definite caste system, and only members of specific castes have the ability to reproduce. Other than those insects, only certain species of blind mole rats appear to be eusocial animals. In some rare cases of eusocial animals, if there is no next genetic leader, then individuals can change caste and are then able to reproduce.

America is not a caste in that all members have the ability to reproduce, regardless of their caste.  Those who act like they are in higher castes may try to limit the ability of those who they say are in lower castes to reproduce. 

All members of society have the ability to contribute to all Castes, regardless of the Caste roles assigned to

• their gender (Marie Curie);
• their race (George Washington Carver);
• their sexual orientation (Alan Turing);
• their religion (Albert Einstein); etc. 

Acting like there are Castes is un‑American. Acting as if the sovereign can be changed from the People to a dynasty is also un-American. We are Americans, not bees.

Resiliency

 

source: https://calvinanddune.tumblr.com/post/62235826535/here-lies-a-toppled-god-his-fall-was-not-a

Engineers and economists favor efficiency.  Nature favors efficiency AND resiliency. 

During the COVID pandemic, the phrase “flatten the curve” became popular.  In the cartoon above, you could take the opposite of flattening the curve as  “narrowing of the curve”  A standard normal distribution has a variance of 1.  The shape of the curve is its variance.  In a standard normal distribution the probability of the mean, the highest value is 46%.  If the probability needed to be higher, then if the mean is the most efficient solution, in order to increase the probability of efficiency,  then you might be tempted to decrease the resiliency, the variance. 

If you decrease the probability, e.g. “flatten the curve”, you lower the probability of most efficient solution (most efficient for the spread of the virus that is!) but you increase the variance.  If the variance is infinite, then the most efficient solution would be just as probable as any other solution. 

It is tempting to increase efficiency, the probability of the most efficient solution.  I said that engineers favor efficiency and I am a licensed engineer, so I am certainly aware of the temptation.  But in doing so you should not decrease the variance and increase the probability of toppling that most efficient solution. 

To quote the old commercial, “It is not nice to fool Mother Nature”.  Pursue efficiency AND resiliency.  Seek the most efficient solution but do so such that the variance is still 1.0, i.e. is a standard normal distribution.

Republican Accountability Project

Everything Old is New Again

Don't throw the pa-ast away

You might need it some rainy day

Dreams can come true again

When everything old is new again

Forward into the past!

In the late 19th century there was a  battle for the soul of the Republican party between the  traditionalists and the Mugwumps.  The traditionalists believed that political power should be exercised for personal gain.  The Mugwumps were those Republicans who believed that  using political power for personal gain was corruption. Mark Twain was on the side of the Mugwumps.

"I was a mugwump. We, the mugwumps, a little company made up of the unenslaved of both parties, the very best men to be found in the two great parties--that was our idea of it--voted sixty thousand strong for Mr. Cleveland in New York and elected him. Our principles were high, and very definite. We were not a party; we had no candidates; we had no axes to grind. Our vote laid upon the man we cast it for no obligation of any kind. By our rule we could not ask for office; we could not accept office. When voting, it was our duty to vote for the best man, regardless of his party name. We had no other creed. Vote for the best man--that was creed enough."

- Mark Twain's Autobiography (North American Review, Dec. 21, 1906)

Twain actively campaigned for Republicans until the election of 1884. Twain’s disdain for the Republican nominee in 1884, James G. Blaine, who, despite a reputation for corruption, had “very devoted followers within the party who would not believe any of the charges brought against him,” as  Kay Moser puts it. In protest, Twain and other reform-minded Republicans left the party to form what became known as the Mugwumps. Donald Trump is today's James Blaine.  Plus Ça Change, Plus C'est La Meme Chose.

Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin.

 

The Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene I

The quality of mercy is not strained;
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes. 

Mercy is given to the sinner, not the sin. 

In my last blog post, https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2022/01/fools.html, I argued that the penalty for “Trying to fool” and failing should not exceed the reward for “Trying to fool” and succeeding.  If the penalty exceeds the reward, then a cycle of vengeance, e. g a feud, can be started.  

However it is not merely necessary that the penalty be equal or less than the reward.  It has to be exactly equal to the reward. The penalty applies to the sin, not to the sinner.  Whether that penalty is applied, is the mercy that is applied to the sinner.  That is why verdict and sentencing are separate parts of a trial.  The verdict is a finding that a "sin" has been committed.  The sentencing is whether the penalty for that "sin" should be imposed on the "sinner". 

Society has a role in the game of “Trying to fool”.  Society needs to know, but has no knowledge of, the reward that is applied for "Trying to fool" and succeeding.  If the penalty equals the reward, then it does have this information.  But if the penalty for “Trying to fool” and failing is zero, society does not have any information.  If Player Two agrees that that the penalty is zero, then society has no information.  People who are fooled probably do not know what reward they gave.  This includes people who are fooled less than 100% of the time as well as people who are fooled all of the time.  If the penalty for “Trying to fool” is zero, then by agreeing to those rules Player Two is confusing the penalty with mercy and is harming society, and himself, since “Trying to fool” is no longer a zero-sum game. 

For the good of society and all future players, society needs to know the reward for “Trying to fool” and succeeding .  But it only receives information on the penalty imposed on Player One for “Trying to fool” and failing.  Society needs to know the reward for the sin, if it is to establish the penalty for the sin.  It does not to need to know the penalty unless some of the people are fooled all of the time. But because some of the people are fooled all of the time, it needs to know the reward to apply its penalty.  If that penalty for Player One is zero in this case, then society can not ensure that the game is fair.  Applying mercy to the sinner is different than establishing that a sin was committed.

Fools

 

What Kind Of Fool Am I?

What kind of clown am I?
What do I know of life?
Why can't I cast away
This mask of play and live my life.

Does society have an interest in whether you are a fool or not?

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”  This quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln is not only an expression of his optimism.  It also is why society has rules, (laws, customs, traditions, etc.) And why the penalty for a crime must often be greater than the benefit of that crime.

Imagine a game where Player One must chose to play either “Try To Fool” or “Not Try To Fool”.  Player Two is either “Fooled” or “Not Fooled”.  A fair game is one in which Player One has no incentive in playing ‘Trying to Fool” or “ Not Trying to Fool”. The goal of the referee, e.g. society, is to ensure that the game is fair and setting a penalty for “Trying To Fool” and being unsuccessful.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and if the benefit of “Trying To Fool” and succeeding is X, and the benefit of not trying to fool is 0, then the penalty of “Trying To Fool” and failing must offset the benefit of “Trying To Fool” and succeeding.  If the Player Two receives nothing when he is not fooled, then the game is NOT a zero sum game (i.e. is not fair) for either Player One or Player Two.  After enough games have been played, a winning strategy for Player One will be always “Try To Fool” and Player Two will always lose.  In this case, no one will play this game unless they can be Player One. If society has an interest in both players being willing to play the game, society has to establish and collect a penalty when Player One “Tries To Fool” and fails.

Player One Outcome

			Trying to Fool	Not  Trying to Fool
All	Rest	Fooled	X	0
		Not Fooled	Y	0
	Some	Fooled	X	0
		Not Fooled	Y	0
	Society		-Some/All * X	0
	Outcome		X*Rest/All*Odds Fooled Rest+ Y*Rest/All*Odds Not Fooled Rest+ X*Some/All*Odds Fooled Some+ Y*Some/All*Odds Not Fooled Some -X*Some/All	0

 Player Two Outcome

	All
	Rest		Some		Society
	Fooled	Not Fooled	Fooled	Not Fooled
Trying to Fool	-X	X	-X	X	Some/All * X
Not Trying to Fool	-Y	Y	-Y	Y	0
Outcome	-(X+Y)	+(X+Y)	-(X+Y)	+(X+Y)	Some/All * X

For a fair, zero sum, game, Y must be equal to -X.  This is the ancient Code of Hammurabi.  “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.”  If the game continues and the roles are reversed, then if there is a difference between the penalty and the reward, e.g. “Two eyes for one eye”, then a feud, cycle of vengeance, may arise.  If the benefit equals the penalty, without regard for the Odds, the outcome for Player Two is the same regardless of what Player One does.

If some of the People are fooled all of the time, then the Odds of Some being fooled is 100% and the Odds of Some not being fooled is 0%.  If the Odds of the Rest being fooled is A%, less than 100%, and the odds of the Rest not being fooled is (100%-A%), then the odds of All Being Fooled all of the time is also less than 100% and the odds of All Being Fooled Some of the Time is 100%.  If the odds are different for Some and for the Rest, then unless society enacts and collects a penalty for "Trying to Fool" and failing equal to Some/All*X, then the outcome for Player One will be biased to “Trying To Fool”.

Society, to ensure that the game is fair, must require that the reward for not being fooled is the same as the penalty for being fooled.  Society must also additionally enforce a  penalty if the odds for some are different than the odds for the rest.  If no one is ever fooled, (i.e. has a different set of odds), then society will collect no penalty.  Society has no interest in whether Player One is “Trying to Fool” or not.  Society has no interest in whether Player Two is being “Fooled” or not. Society only has an interest that the odds for Some are different than the odds for the Rest.  Society doesn’t care if you are being the Fool or trying to Fool.  It only cares that the game is fair.