Supreme Court II

 

Session One

As soon as I draw, get sent to Allah
Bilinguist don, I kill with the tongue, I'm Atilla the Hun
I'm Genghis Khan, I'm a genius spawn

I pillage your village for fun, an egregious con
A syllable gun, real as they come, Long Beach Saddam!
Slaughterhouse equals swine flu, are South flyin' 

Egregious, “Strip-Search Sammy”?  Really? Really? Really? 

I have suggested to the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court that Justices should serve staggered terms of 16 years. Then except for a death in office, each President can expect to make only two nominations during his term. That means that during the one term of the Orange Menace, it should be expected that only two Justices  should have been nominated to the Supreme Court. We might still have gotten Justices Neil “NOT Merrick Garland” Gorsuch and Brett “Frat Boy” Kavanaugh, but at least we might have been spared Justice Amy “Handmaiden” Coney Barrett.

Also Supreme Court decisions should not reflect just a simple majority. Up until the 1940s, opinions of the Supreme Court were by consensus. The recent majority opinions are a historical aberration. If the opinions are by consensus, then they are by definition supermajority decision. But a consensus as a supermajority can be blocked by a single individual. The most important decisions for the United States, wars, treaties, amendments, etc, are made by supermajorities that are NOT 100%. Shouldn’t the opinions of the Supreme Court also be by a supermajority. Otherwise they are opinions of a simple majority of the SCOTUS,  but might reflect a minority of the People they have sworn to represent. This appears to be the case in the draft opinion on abortions. Despite the fact that the majority of the county appears to favor abortions in some cases, the majority of the SCOTUS appears poised to opine that the heck with that majority, their opinion is the Law. It is the Law. It is not Justice.

“Egregious”, Justice “Strip-Search Sammy” Alito? It would nice if you knew what that word means. It literally means illustrious, standing out from the flock. Your usage is its more common ironic use. Even if you intended the ironic meaning, even if you share that opinion with four other justices, it is not a supermajority of the Supreme Court. Only supermajority opinions are considered to be those of the People.

I am old enough to remember that when John F. Kennedy ran for President,  he had to convince Southern Baptists that his Catholic beliefs would not take precedence over his responsibility as President. Justice Alito can have his beliefs and the “conservative” Justices endorsed by the Federalist Society can also share those beliefs. However their beliefs are not those of the People that they have sworn to represent.

 

 

 

 

 

Hope

 

Go The Distance

And I won't look back, I can go the distance
And I'll stay on track, no I won't accept defeat
It's an uphill slope
But I won't lose hope, 'till I go the distance
And my journey is complete

If there is any chance of victory, then go the distance.

The Washington Generals, also known as the Boston Shamrocks, the New Jersey Reds, the Baltimore Rockets, the Atlantic City Seagulls, the New York Nationals, the International Elite, the Global Select and the World All-Stars were the barnstorming opponents in each Harlem Globetrotters exhibition “game”.  They are supposed to lose.  Winning against the Globetrotters is like killing Santa Claus. 

The Generals have “lost” more than 15,000 games against the Globetrotters but they have won somewhere between 3 and 6 times. The records are spotty, but they did record wins in 1954, 1958 and 1971.  Therefore the “odds” are more than 3 in 15,000, but they are not zero.  A Tortoise can seldom beat a Hare, but as in Aesop’s Fable, sometimes it happens.  The Generals play on even though the odds are small, they are not zero. Even when the game is rigged, they won’t lose hope.  They have gone the distance.

 

Elections Matter

 

Trust 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." 

When you elect someone to represent you, you are placing your trust in them. 

The United States is a republic (and tell Ben Franklin, we are planning to keep it).  Elections are to select those individuals who will represent you in the actions required by the People of that republic.  I will not try to ague what your position should be when electing those individuals,  but I will remind you that those who seeking election may be lying to you when they are stating their own positions. I have suggested that individuals can be characterized by three attributes: Individual vs. Team; Nature vs. Nurture, and Fact vs. Fiction.  

The first attribute is whether User Optimal or System (i.e. Group) Optimal decisions will be chosen.  If a person prefers User Optimization, you should elected someone whose System Optimal preferences are close to your User Optimal preferences.  Selecting someone who has User Optimal preferences means that your representative might seek to advance his own interest rather than your interest.  They may lie that this is their System Optimal position in order for you to elect them. 

The Nature vs Nurture attribute has to do with who you consider to be in the group, excluded because of their nature, or included if they are nurtured to change their nature.  A person may state that they are excluding the same individuals from the group that you are excluding, but they may be lying about who they are really excluding ( for example, they may be excluding you from their group). 

The Fact vs. Fiction attribute has to do with your preference for facts.  Some people may believe in astrology, the earth is flat, WWE wrestling is real, etc.  A person seeking your vote may pretend to accept your beliefs when they really believe those beliefs are folly. 

Political parties used to vet candidates for you.  Primaries mean that you are vetting candidates for yourself.  A political party may be lying in their vetting.  My rule of thumb is that if someone had distinguished military service, then they have demonstrated their Team (Group) position.  For example Dwight Eisenhower, John McCain.  The heir of a wealthy family is less likely to seek to advance his own interests ( in the belief that he already has it all, he probably does not need more). For example,  the Roosevelts,  the Kennedys, etc. Storytellers are proven to, and trained in, tricking people.  My rule of thumb is to assume that actors, authors, TV personalities, etc. are lying until proven otherwise. My eldest son is a visual effects artist at Warner Brothers Media, so sorry Ryan, I guess this means I don't trust you.

If you are lied to then, regardless of your position, your representative may not be representing your position.  That hurts not only you, but those with other positions as well as you.  I need you to trust those who you elect.

Abortion

 

So Long, Farwell

So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, goodbye
Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye
Goodbye!

With the draft US Supreme Court opinion on abortion…

It has been a long, strange trip, but apparently “Government of the People, by the People, and for the People” will be perishing from the earth.  The official death notice (opinion) has not yet been released by the Supreme Court, but it is only a matter of time.  The pall bearers will be Justice “Strip Search Sammy” Alito, Justice Neil “NOT Merrick Garland” Gorsuch, Justice “Long Dong Silver” Thomas, Justice Brett “I LIKE Beer” Kavanaugh and, Justice Amy “Handmaiden” Coney Barrett.  It is not clear yet if Chief Justice Roberts will join the pall bearers.

The pall bearers have been characterized as Republicans . That is  unfair to Republicans who believe in the Rule of Law and Limited Government, such as Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Everett Dirksen, George Romney, John McCain, and many others.  The pall bears were appointed by the “Great Mis-communicator”, “Read my lips”, and “Don the Con” but were either the appointers or the appointees real Republicans?

The pall bearers have also been characterized as conservatives, which is an insult to conservatives who believe in an individual’s rights and historical precedent.  Activist judges, who in D.C. v. Heller,  invented a constitutional right of self-defense to expand the Second Amendment beyond its regulation of militias; who in Citizens United v FEC granted Corporations the right to free speech because their shareholders have the right to free speech, even if all other property of those shareholders is shielded from suits against the Corporation, are not conservative.

It is a personal belief that life begins at conception.  Even if it were a scientifically proven fact and not a matter of belief, the question must be what are the Constitutional rights of fetuses.  The Supreme Court opines when a law conflicts with the constitutionally protected rights of the People.  Even if fetuses are persons, according to the Constitution, they are not People.  They are not enumerated in each Constitutionally required decennial census.  They are People upon birth, but not before then.  The question then becomes does a government have the right to seize the property of the People, i.e. a women’s body, until the fetus is viable and becomes one of the People.  The US Constitution  clearly states that a person’s property can NOT be seized without compensation.

I agree that Roe v. Wade was improperly decided in that it used an unstated right to privacy to justify its opinion.    But even if the reasoning was faulty, the opinion was not. Right church, wrong pew.  Overturning Roe v. Wade is probably the final death sentence for the US Constitution. Auf Wiedersehen, good bye.

Strategy and Tactics III

 

Sometimes When We Touch

Romance and all its strategy leaves me battling with my pride
But through the insecurity some tenderness survives
I'm just another writer, still trapped within my truths
A hesitant prize fighter still trapped within my youth

Is it better to have winning tactics or a winning strategy?

Tactics often gets more praise and attention than strategy.  Failure in tactical battles does not mean that a field general is a poor tactician. That field general might have a tactical disadvantage, or be using a  strategy that is suboptimal for winning that tactical battle, but is optimal for winning the war. George Washington lost more battles than he won, but he won the Revolutionary War.  Napoleon won some impressive tactical battles, but his strategy ultimately ended in failure. In sports, great players (tacticians) often make bad coaches (strategists), e.g. Ted Williams; while poor players may be great coaches, e.g. Tommy Lasorda. It is extraordinarily rare to find a great player who is also a great coach, e.g. Bill Russell, Joe Torre.  What is more often successful is pairing a great coach with a great player, e.g. Bill Belichick AND Tom Brady.

Arcs of Triumph are often erected for great tacticians.  Monuments are erected less often for great strategists.  But it takes both to be winners.  Good tactics may win a  battle, but lose the war. Losing every battle is probably not a successful strategy for winning a war. Winning the war ultimately is what endures.

Student Loans

 

Sixteen Tons

You load 16 tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
St. Peter, don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store

Evangelicals and Republicans oppose student debt relief?

First, I’ve got no dog in this hunt. When I graduated from college in 1973, I had a grand total of $1,600 in student loans which were repaid long ago. My sons have grown and any debt that they incurred, or I incurred for them, has long been repaid. Thus I will not personally benefit from any student loan cancelation. But that does not mean that I do not support student loan relief.

Education is a common resource. Producers need an educated labor force, but they do not directly pay for this educated labor force. Producers may pay more for employees with a degree, but they do not care if that employee received a free education or how much that education cost the employee. Producers count on society to provide and regulate common resources such as education. So societal spending on education benefits both the producers and their employees.

Loans are a way that costs are repaid in the future. If we agree that there should be an income and asset test applied before public money is spent, you can be assured that both the student who paid with their own assets, and the student who paid with loans, already had this asset/income test. ( Like many parents, I spent hours filling out FAFSA forms. I can personally attest that  means tests were employed). If public money is used to repay student loans, then this is just time shifting public spending on education with an income test. In fact since individuals made their own choices on colleges, etc., this is virtually identical to a voucher program. Each student made their own choice on how that spending on education was used. (In fact since Boston College is a religious school, some of those loans were used to pay religious schools, I can also personally assure you)

Therefore if you support a voucher program as encouraging choice, and a means test to ensure that public money is only spent where and when it is needed, then supporting the cancelation of student debt is consistent with those positions.

The only reason for not supporting student debt relief is if you believe that government spending on an educated work force is wrong. I hope that it isn't  because the “wrong” kind of people incurred that debt and they are benefiting from the cancellation.

I would also think that evangelicals would want to encourage calls by St. Peter, not prevent them because those who are called owe too much. Debt cancellation is also very Biblical (e.g. Leviticus 25-26, Deuteronomy 15, Exodus 21:2,  Luke 7:36-50). The Lord’s Prayer is “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.”

There is a question of how canceling student loans can distort the decisions of those incurring new student debt, or how those who charge for education might raise prices today if they know that the debt will eventually be forgiven, but those are different questions.

Distributions II

 

How Long

How long has this been goin' on? (ooh-ooh, yeah)
You've been creepin' 'round on me
How long has it been goin' on, baby? Oh (ooo-oh)
How long has this been goin' on? (You gotta go tell me now)

It seems like 40 years is more than enough.

One upon a time there was only one truth. https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2022/01/resiliency.html.  Which led to the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, Jihad, and all that stuff.  In statistical terms the mean is equal to the median is equal to the mode, but the variance is zero.  This is called a normal distribution. ( can we say SNAFU)

Relativity said that there is more than one truth, that your perspective, frame of reference,  matters, and the variance should not be just zero.  The mean can still be equal to the median, but the variance should be more than 0 . If the variance is equal to one, then this is referred to as a uniform normal distribution, the familiar bell shaped curve.  But the skew is still zero.

As a way to increase the mean, the Reagan, supply side, tax cuts were approved. They did increase the mean, but they also increased the skew.  It was not limited to just zero.  It might have been expected that the distribution would have been  only  moderately skewed, but this turned out to be wrong.  After almost 40 years, the United States  has an extremely skewed distribution of income, and has the most skewed distribution of wealth in the world ( not counting the Sultanate of Brunei and the tax haven of the Bahamas but they each have less than 0.01% of the wealth of the United States.) https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2022/04/distribution-of-wealth.html

Terms like normal and skew might seem to be biased but these are what the mathematical terms are called.  And math does not lie.                
https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2022/04/twitter.html

If the skew was less than 1 it would be characterized as only  moderately skewed. If the distribution was an exponentially modified Gaussian (normal) distribution, the  skew would be  between 0.0 and 0.31.  The fact that the skew is now so much greater than 1.0 proves that if you give some people an inch, they will take a mile.