Gun Control

 

Happiness Is A Warm Gun

Happiness is a warm gun (bang, bang, shoot, shoot)
Happiness is a warm gun, momma (bang, bang, shoot, shoot)

Maybe we shouldn’t be so happy.

It is once again time for the National Rifle Association, NRA, to offer thoughts and prayers and to remind everyone that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Don’t tell them that it is people with guns that are killing people. They will point to the gun ownership rate in Switzerland which is comparable to the gun ownership rate in the United States and say that since murder rates are so much higher in the United States than in Switzerland, they will tell you that mental illness, unlocked doors, unarmed victims, or some other nonsense must be the cause. What they won’t tell you is why gun ownership in Switzerland is so high.

Every Swiss citizen is part of the army, i.e. the state’s militia. They are first conscripted into active duty and after honorable service are discharged with their rifle. That service rifle is to be used in the event that the militia, and remember they are still part of the militia, ever requires their service. Their gun is supposed to be only used in service of the state’s militia. It is not a weapon to be used against other citizens. If you are discharged from the militia, say because you are mentally unstable, then you do not have a gun. In the United States we still have state's militia. A state’s militia is just now known as its National Guard.

The full text of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which the NRA loves to hide behind, is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ( emphasis added). The late Justice Antonin Scalia, whose seat Justice Neil ”Not Merrick Garland” Gorsuch now fills, wrote the majority opinion in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller. In that opinion, he invented a right to self defense UNRELATED TO MEMERSHIP IN A MILITIA to justify the opinion that, even non-militia members should be able to own guns. Justice Scalia was supposedly an originalist. Uh, that is NOT what the original text says. If you are not a member of the militia then you have no right to bear arms. Unless the militia has said that it will require its members to provide their own guns, it does not appear that the Second Amendment protects even gun ownership by militia members. I do not believe that Salvador Ramos, the shooter in Uvalde; Payton S. Gendron, the shooter in Buffalo; Stephen Paddock, the shooter at the Las Vegas Music Festival; Adam Lanza, the shooter at Sandy Hook; Nikolas Cruz, the shooter at Stoneman Douglas High School; or ANY of the shooters in the tragic mass shootings were members of a state’s militia. Even if the Constitution did somehow protect gun ownership unrelated to a militia, which again is NOT in the text, only if you are stupid or a liar would say that those shootings were in self defense. It is up to the voting public to decide whether the NRA and its supporters are stupid or liars. Remember when you vote.

Gravity II

 

Little Green Apples

God didn't make little green apples
And it don't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime
And there's no such thing as Doctor Seuss
Or Disneyland, and Mother Goose, no nursery rhyme.

What does a falling apple tell us about gravity?

Space-time tells mass-energy how to move. Mass-energy tells space-time how to curve. If space‑time did not curve, then we would live in a Euclidean world. In most applications, the curvature is so small that we tend to approximate spacetime as flat, i.e. our approximate Frame of Reference is Euclidean. But the curvature is there nonetheless, which makes the absolute Frame of Reference non-Euclidean.

If space-time is curved, then the question is that curvature positive, i.e. spherical, or negative, i.e. hyperbolic. If the curvature is positive and the radius of the sphere is exceptionally large compared to a typical distance, then space-time can be treated as virtually flat. If the curvature is negative, its radius is NOT a factor.

Mass-energy should move along the shortest path in space-time. That is what Newton’s First Law says: “An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.”  The shortest path in in the same direction in spacetime is the hypotenuse between two points, i.e. a geodesic. If space‑time is curved hyperbolically, and the curve of space-time determines the geodesic over which mass-energy will move, then gravity is an apparent force, like Centrifugal Force or the Coriolis Force. If there are two objects, then the geodesic between those two objects is the distance in space-time between those two objects. If spacetime is curved, then the object with less mass‑energy will move towards the object with more mass‑energy. Thus what we interpret as gravity, is because we interpret that movement as Euclidean and it is really an apparent force if spacetime has a hyperbolic curvature. If two objects have exactly the same mass-energy, if both objects are not moving, then they should  NOT move towards each other.[1]

Consider Newton’s apocryphal apple falling from a tree. How might that be interpreted in hyperbolic, non-Euclidean space-time? In Euclidean space-time, the apple moves from the tree to the surface of the Earth. It would keep moving towards the center of the Earth, but the Pauli Exclusion principle, that two objects can not occupy the same space at the same time, says it can not pass through the surface of the Earth. In non-Euclidean space-time, the apple and the Earth are both moving,  e.g. the Earth is moving around the Sun, etc. It is just that both are moving at the same speed and in the same direction. Thus to an observer in our Euclidean frame of reference on the Earth, it only appears that the apple is not moving before it falls. Since the apple is much smaller than the earth, it should fall towards the earth. The path that it follows is the geodesic in space‑time. What appears to be an attraction between the two objects is merely the smaller object moving according to the curvature of space-time.

The difference between a Euclidean geodesic and a non-Euclidean, hyperbolic, geodesic is that the hyperbolic, non-Euclidean, geodesic will follow an exponential formula. In my field of Travel Demand Forecasting, trips are distributed according to the “Gravity” Model. It was called this because the impedance between the production of a trip and the attraction of a trip seemed to follow Newton’s Law of Gravity. A. G. Wilson later showed that this is because the trips actually randomly followed an  exponential function that looked like the gravity function. I was working at the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization when I presented this ( I am amazed now that I was not thrown out for being particularly nerdy) and my favorite comment was by a manager who said that he had a tough time believing that people made trips like apples, but he had no problem believing that people made trips randomly. It appears that even Newton’s apples don’t behave like apples, but instead follow a similar exponential function. If gravity is an apparent force, then trying to find a Quantum Theory of Gravity may make no more sense than trying to find a Quantum Theory of Centrifugal Force. Gravity as a force may not fit into a Unified Field Theory because Gravity is not a real force, it is only an a apparent force.

---

[1] Assuming those objects both have the same charge, etc. If they have opposite electrical charges, then the electromagnetic force will attract them, which IS an application of a force.

Love of Country

 

Tobacco Road

Bring that dynamite and a crane
Blow it up, start all over again.
Build a town, be proud to show.
Give the name Tobacco Road.

Could you blow up your home?

Once upon a time the phrase yelled at protesters was “My Country, Right or Wrong” . Their response to that was “My Country, Right or Wrong.  If it’s Right, Keep it Right. If it’s Wrong, Make it Right.”

The cry now seems to be “My Country is Wrong. Let’s tear it down and start all over again”.  What is left unsaid is what is wrong, and who gets to decide how it is run when it starts over.    The sense of dread, self-hate, and despair about the state of our country seems to be the major commonality of those perpetrating  mass, including school, shootings. Who do you think loves, is proud of, their county? The person who tries to make it right? or the person who tries to tear it down?

Women Leaders

 

Luck Be A Lady

Luck let a gentleman see
How nice a dame you can be
I know the way you've treated other guys you've been with
Luck, be a lady with me

Luck may be a lady, but ladies do not depend on luck.

Bosses are rewarded when they are effective. Effectiveness is determined on results.  Those results may be random, i.e. based on luck, or they can be because of a strategy  that was followed.  If it is random, then there is a difference between how men and women are rewarded and treated  in the workforce.  A man is not always blamed when he is unlucky, the random outcome was less than effective.  A woman is disproportionately blamed and punished if she was unlucky. Thus if the results are positive, and the question is whether those results were due to luck or strategy, it is more likely that the results were due to luck when those results were  by a man.

Stated another way, if rewards are given to those who innovate, and risk is to be minimized when innovating, it is more likely that the risk has been minimized by a woman..  With a man it is more likely that the results are due to random events, luck, as opposed to innovations or some other strategy.

If you are trying to minimize risk, then this is more likely when a woman is in charge.  This is not just conjecture.  It is based on research.  https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2018.1039.  For more on the subject, listen to the interview at https://www.npr.org/2022/05/24/1101064874/why-women-make-great-bosses

 

Democracy

 

PSALM 23

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
  He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.

Shouldn’t our Sovereign be a Good Shepherd?

Sovereigns have subjects. As we learned in grade school, in a sentence there is always a subject, an object, and a verb. If the verb is to serve and the subject is the people, then the sovereign is the object.  Notice the people are NOT the object. The sovereign is NOT served by his subjects, the sovereign SERVES his subjects. That is the definition of a good sovereign. He is a good shepherd.

Throughout much of history, bad sovereigns have tended to forget this. The drafters of the US Constitution wanted to eliminate any possible confusion. The Sovereign of the United States IS the People. Thus the statements, the People serve the People, and the People are served by the People, are both true and there should be no confusion over the role.

There is however a problem when an individual thinks that the President is the Sovereign. He is expressly NOT. The President serves as the elected executive of the Sovereign, but he is not the Sovereign. The President’s power is constrained by the Constitution. The power of the Sovereign is divided among three co-equal branches of government. There are checks and balances among these three branches to control this power.

Thus the United States is much more than a democracy. In a democracy the people elect their Sovereign. In the United States, the People ARE the Sovereign.

Inflation VI

 

Lucky

I’d rather be lucky than good,
Tough than pretty,
Rockin' in the country than rolling in the city.
Spend my life rolling them dice,
Instead living like everybody says I should.
I’d rather be lucky, rather be lucky than good.

But what about governments?

Inflation is suggested to have two components: 1) currency inflation and 2) buyer-seller inflation. Currency inflation seems to be long term and is controlled by the central bank which manages the currency of c county ( in the case of the US, its Federal Reserve Bank). Buyer-seller inflation includes a range of factors, such as: changes in preferences; changes in the cost of production; changes in buyers disposable income; natural or man-made disasters, etc. Only some of these factors are controllable by the government. Some costs of production by sellers may be governed by the interest rate charged by the central bank. Some costs of purchasing/borrowing by buyers may be governed by the interest rate charged by the central bank. However other factors are beyond the control of any government and include changes in the cost of production related to changes in the costs of raw materials, changes in the cost of production due to natural or man-made disasters,  changes in consumer preference, or technological changes affecting either the producer/seller or the consumer/ buyer.

It is reasonable  to expect the government to control currency inflation. It is reasonable  to expect the government to control the cost of borrowing by sellers or buyers. It is NOT reasonable to expect the government to control the weather, any natural or man-made disaster, or  changes in preference or  technology.

The impact of currency inflation can be dramatic. Weimar Germany in the 1930s, Hungary in the 1940s, or Venezuela in the 2020s are vivid examples of what happens when the government produces currency without regard to the actual usage of that currency. In the United States, since the early 1900s, the long-term currency impacts appear to be stable except during economic crashes, when the US currency was on the gold standard, e.g. was a commodity currency; the 1930s when the US currency was no longer on the gold standard, e.g. was a fiat currency; 1944 when the US currency convertible into gold was made the international trading currency; and 1971 when the US currency was no longer convertible into gold in international trading.

When the currency effects are removed, it appears to show only buyer‑seller inflation which seems to be short-term in its effects. As noted, the government has limited ability to impact buyer‑seller inflation.  To expect otherwise is to expect a government to be not only correct but lucky. Anticipating truly random events such as international wars, supply chain disruptions, pandemics, hurricanes, droughts, etc.,  is a hope that those events are predictable when typically they are not. “I‘d rather be lucky than good” may work for sporting events, but it is not an acceptable national policy. Our national government should be good, not lucky.

Experts

 

I Am The Walrus

 

Expert, texpert choking smokers

Don't you think the joker laughs at you (Ho ho ho, hee hee hee, hah hah hah)
See how they smile like pigs in a sty

See how they snide

I'm crying

What is an expert?

Expert witness have been very much in the news  in the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial. Having been an expert witness myself a few times, it worked out well once and worked out, IMHO, poorly four other times. Given that I have a pathological aversion to judging or being judged, it was probably inevitable that I had bad experiences. I find it cathartic to blog about my experiences.

A trial is supposed to be about determining the truth. An expert witness is supposed to elaborate on the truth. But how does one become an expert? And if there are experts on each side, and one side is not telling the truth, how do you tell if an expert is telling the truth?

I naively felt that each expert should speak the truth and the court would decide what is the truth. As I said that was naïve. The court does not have expertise on many matters. It instead looks at the credentials of those who are being presented as experts. That was my first experience. The case concerned the use of a computer program, which I had written. The first expert, who I believed had misused my program, testified. When I was on the stand, I was not asked about my program. I was asked if I was a registered Professional Engineer or if I had any other credentials. I did not, and I was dismissed from the stand before I had a chance to discuss my program. I took immediate steps to get a license as a PE. I was eligible to get a license, I just had naively thought the truth was more important than any credentials.

The second court case, (actually a city council meeting)  is where I was prepared to testify when the client came out stating that the matter had been already settled and no testimony was necessary. In this case the truth took a back seat to a back-room deal.

The fifth time as an expert witness ( the fourth time was the one that went well), ironically where the opposing expert was the very one from my first court case a decade earlier. In reviewing his report, I pointed out to my client’s legal team that a fundamental math error had been made. On cross examination of that expert, my client’s lawyer asked him about this. Because of this error the judge struck his testimony and his report from the trial record,  and I did not testify because there was no longer anything to refute. I did get the feeling of Karma in seeing his report and testimony dismissed, but the truth again took a back seat to credentials.

The final time I was an expert witness, I had what I thought was a professional  disagreement with the opposing expert. I was first on the stand and the opposing expert was second. During her cross examination not only was what I thought was an inconsistency pointed out, but her ethics and motives in making her assumptions were questioned. I was so shaken I wrote to the “opposing” expert to apologize.

Experts are not there to present the truth. Their reputations and credentials will be judged to determine whether they are telling the truth. Their motives, which are IMHO irrelevant to the truth, i.e. the facts, will be questioned. It is just as the humorist Carl Sandburg put it” “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you., argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.” A plague on both your houses.