Error

 

Oops I Did It Again.

Oops, I did it again to your heart
Got lost in this game, oh baby
Oops, you think that I'm sent from above
I'm not that innocent

Being human is not being innocent.

To err is human, To forgive is divine. Being divine is being innocent. Since I am human, as are you, I expect there that will be errors. The Standard Error is expressed mathematically as Standard Error= σ /√n, where σ is a statistical measure of the distribution called the variance, and √n is the square root of the number of observations, n. In the real-world n has to be less than infinity so √n also has to be less than infinity. If the variance is real and not zero, then the standard error can NOT be zero. So when we say there is an error, we are saying that the variance has to be greater than 0.

Absolute truth means that there is NO error. If there is no error then the variance must be zero. If there is error then the variance has to be greater than zero. For a given variance, one way to reduce the error is to increase the number of observations. That is why when pollsters want to decrease their error, they increase the number of observations.

One would think that if there is an absolute there can be no error. Albert Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity answered this apparent contradiction. (Actually Jesus addressed the same thing in that whole “Render unto Caesar” gig.). There can be an absolute truth, e.g. the speed of light, and yet depending on your frame of reference, things like length, weight, time, all depend on your relationship to that absolute. The variance is greater than zero. No matter how many observations you make, if there is an absolute truth, only one observation should be enough and  the variance is zero. In a group, if there is no variance, then the mean of the group is equal to the median. However the mean can be equal to the median any time the variance is greater than than zero if the skew is also zero. In fact a normal distribution is any distribution in which the mean and the median are equal. A uniform normal distribution is one in which the variance is 1. If the variance is 1, then the Standard Error has to be greater than zero, even if there is only one observation:  Standard Error = 1/ √1. You can make the error smaller if you increase the sample size, increase n, but mathematics says that you can never can  eliminate the error. You’re not that innocent.

Ideas

 

You May Be Right

You may be right
I may be crazy
But it just may be a lunatic you’re looking for.

Can’t someone be both right and crazy?

I have proposed a number of things. They might all be right. But apparently not everyone is looking for a lunatic.

My career has been in traffic engineering, particularly travel demand forecasting. One suggested finding is how impedance  on a traffic link ( e.g. a road) increases as traffic volume  increases. In trying to address this issue, since impedance appears to be a function of  and travel time,  I proposed equations for reliability and for  travel time, only as a mean of improving the equation for  impedance. However I have been reluctant to network in my career and my reputation,  except with those whom I have worked, is admittedly non-existent. The blog posts for reliability https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2022/02/reliability.html, travel time https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2022/02/traffic-flow.html and impedance https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2022/02/time-and-reliabilty.html were taken from  papers submitted to a peer reviewed conference but rejected.

Since I have been semi-retired, locked down, and bored, and I have spent most of my career analyzing data, I looked at income and wealth data. It suggested that the distribution of wealth and income in the United States is not only anecdotally skewed, it is statistically skewed, not only over time, but compared to other nations, https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2021/07/inequality.html, https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2022/04/distribution-of-wealth.html This information has been the subject of my blog posts and has been shared with other, but I have no standing with those others, so I can understand why it has been apparently been ignored.

I have looked the income data and suggested that the tax code is responsible for a decline in growth and an increase in inequity https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2020/06/taxman.html and suggested a revision to the tax code, https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2021/12/georgia-techfight-song-im-ramblinwreck.html. I have looked at the Consumer Price Index and suggested that international trading and the use of the US dollar in international trading is responsible for much of the systemic long-term inflation https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-happening-riding-high-on-top-of.html. I also suggested that inflation should be divided into  currency inflation and supply-demand inflation and treated separately https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2022/04/inflation-v.html. And while I have suggested this to others in these fields, I am not an economist, and since my traffic engineering findings have not been accepted, I am hardly surprised that my economic suggestions have not been pursued.

I have looked at human behavior and suggested that it can be example by three characteristics. https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2021/05/framework-for-human-behavior-ii.html But again since my background is NOT in social sciences, I have no standing.

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.