A Long Time

 

A Change is Gonna Come

It's been too hard living
But I'm afraid to die
'Cause I don't know what's up there
Beyond the sky

It's been a long
A long time coming
But I know a change gonna come
Oh, yes it will 

Is 40 years too long? 

The lessons we earn from our parents may be those that they learned from their parents. Thus inbred actions that are not necessarily our fault, or our parent’s fault, but may be due to what our grandparents experienced. It is not just the sins of the fathers, but the sins of the grandfathers that are important

This means that what seems like a long time to us, is not so long at all. Saying that we as individuals are not actively racists, does not mean that our grandparents, whom we may not have even met, weren’t racists. My story. My paternal grandmother died in 1941, ten years before I was even born. My paternal grandfather died in 1950, the year before I was born. My father was born in 1925, after the Spanish Flu. My father’s mother and father, my paternal grandparents, lost two children to the Spanish Flu. They passed along to him a bias against common spaces and shared items, which I realize I have and has effected my actions. I realize now that it was because of his upbringing, which was affected by his parent’s experiences and attitudes.

An action against racism in society, and while you are a member of society, might still have nothing to do with you as an individual. You may not be racist. But that does not mean that your grandparents, or their grandparents, were not racist and that is why Critical, Race Theory, CRT, is taught (in GRADUATE SCHOOL!  Little children may not even realize that their parents were once little children to their grandparents, and this is why little children are NOT taught CRT)

This also has a bearing on, IMHO, the mistaken ruling by the Supreme Court on the Voting Rights Act, that actions of the states from 40 years ago are no longer relevant. Given in 2022, I am talking about actions that my paternal grandparents experienced in 1922, 40 years is a drop in the bucket. 40 years is long to me as an individual. 40 years is a brief period of time to states. Never mind asking African-Americans about slavery which ended in 1865. Ask an Armenian about the Turkish genocide, or an Irishman about the marches to celebrate the Battle of the Boyne. These things happened more than 40 years ago and still affect actions and attitudes today.

Bi-Partisan

 

As Time Goes By

This day and age we're living in
Gives cause for apprehension
With speed and new invention
And things like fourth dimension

Four dimensions? How about more than one.

Characterizing politics as liberal and conservative is probably TOO restrictive. It makes the assumption that politics is one dimensional when it is probably has at least one other dimension. A political position should be based on the type AND scale of government. We do not need bi‑partisanship. We need pan- partisanship.

This argument should sound familiar to people who remember the old Miller Lite beer commercial (“Less Filling/Tastes Great”) or the old Certs commercials ( “It’s a Candy Mint! It’s a Breath Mint! Its Two, Two, Two Mints in One.”). In the case of these commercials, people seem to accept that something can have more than one dimension.

		Filling
		Less	More
Taste	Great	Miller Lite	Not Miller Lite
	Not So Great	Not Miller Lite	Not Miller Lite

 

In political positions, the form of the government according to the Constitution is a lower case "r" "republic". As Benjamin Franklin famously described it ”a republic, if you can keep it.”   The Constitution does not specify the size of that government. There has always been a healthy debate between liberal and conservative positions as to the size and role of government.

		Size
		Limited	Big
Form	republican	Conservative	Liberal
	Authoritarian	Pseudo Conservative	Pseudo Liberal

 

A problem is that Authoritarians masquerading as Conservatives seem to have taken over the upper case "R", "Republican" Party. True Conservatives, such as Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney, must contend with Pseudo Conservatives who appear to be Authoritarians. And those are not just limited to Trump. While Pseudo Conservatives exist, Pseudo Liberals also exist. For example, Napoleon began as an officer in the French revolutionary army. Modern day Authoritarians such as Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin are big government, Authoritarian,  Pseudo Liberals.

The US Constitution describes a republican form of government. You can not be in the government if you are an Authoritarian unless you want to overthrow that Constitutional government. The Republican Party needs to decide if it supports this, lower case "r", "republic". If so, so it should eliminate Pseudo Conservative Authoritarians from the Republican Party, even if it means in doing so they will reduce their membership. If their argument is over the size and role, not the form of government, that needs to be clear.  The problem might not be owning the libs.  It might be eliminating pseudo conservatives.

War and Peace

The Games People Play

Oh the games people play now every night and every day now
Never meaning what they say, yeah never saying what they mean
First you whine away your hours, in your concrete towers
Soon you'll be covered up with flowers in the back of a black limousine

Since people play games, what is your best strategy for winning those games?

In the Prisoner’s Dilemma game, each prisoner can cooperate with the guards or not cooperate with the guards.  ( this is often called “Cooperating”  with your fellow prisoners and “Defecting” to the guards, but this is only a difference in perspective of with whom you are cooperating.)

If a Player cooperates with the guards and his Opponent chooses not to cooperate with the guards, then that Player gets two years off his sentence and his Opponent gets no years off his sentence.  If both Players do not cooperate with the guards, then they both get no years off their sentences.  If they both cooperate with the guards,  then each Player gets one year off his sentence. 

This basic game is used in Game Theory to illustrate that there is a difference between a series of two-player games played with only two players, and a series of two-player games played with more than two players.  In a series of two-player games with only two players, the winning strategy is to cooperate with the guards in every game.  If your opponent ever chooses not to cooperate, then you get two years off your sentence.  Even if your opponent also chooses to cooperate, neither of you get anything or “All or Nothing at all”. 

This is not the best strategy for more than two players.  When there are more than two players, the best strategy is for a player to  choose “Not cooperate”  in the first round but that player should choose whatever his opponent did in their previous encounter.  This is often called “Tit for Tat”, “Nice but Tough”, or “Something is better than Nothing”. Or in the song by the Rolling Stones, “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.”  This is a Nash Equilibrium, named after the mathematician John Nash, who was the subject of Ron Howard’s Oscar Winning Best Picture, “A Beautiful Mind”.  As John Nash observed in the film, “If everyone goes after the Blonde, no one gets the Blonde.”

If the choices are changed from “Cooperate” to “War” and from “Not Cooperate” to “Peace” and society is a non-playing party, the outcomes are same for each player, but society also wins or loses based on the outcome. The outcomes are:

Choices		Outcomes
Player One	Player Two	Player One	Player Two	Society
War	War	0	0	0
War	Peace	2	0	1
Peace	War	0	2	1
Peace	Peace	1	1	2

 

This can be explained as: 

• In "War" neither player makes a contribution to society.  
• If one player plays "War" and his opponent plays "Peace", then the player who plays "War" get the value his opponent would have kept for himself.  
• If both players play "Peace", then they each make a contribution to society and a contribution to themselves.  

The best outcome for society is identical to the More than Two‑Player Strategy.  "War" is an advantage to a Player ONLY in a two-player game.

That is why those predisposed to "War" prefer bilateral, not multilateral games.  Changing “War” to “Steal”, “Lie”, “Cheat”, “Covet”, “Kill” or any negative choice and changing “Peace” to “Not Lie”, “Not Cheat”, “Not Covet “, “Not Kill” or any positive choice, is merely changing the names of the choices.  It does not change the outcomes.  The best outcome for society is if everyone makes positive choices.  This is identical to the optimal strategy if there are more than two players.  Negative choices are only an advantage to a player only when there are only two players in all games. I hope that this changes how you play the game.

Not Guilty

 

Guilty

Well I'm guilty, yeah I'm guilty,
I'll be guilty for the rest of my life
How come I never do,
What I'm supposed to do
How come nothing that I try to do ever turns out right

If you are found Not Guilty are you found Innocent?

I have charitably assumed that the far-right Trump-ers , as represented by Louie Gohmert, were two- dimensional thinkers living in a three dimensional ( or four-dimensional,  if you count time) world. It is worse than that. They are clearly one-dimensional thinkers.

Louie Gohmert gave this away when he stated. "If you're a Republican, you can't even lie to Congress or lie to an FBI agent or they're coming after you."  He made this statement in reaction to the Not Guilty finding for Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman of lying to the FBI, versus the indictment of Peter Navarro. Poor Louie. He assumes that a jury outcome is one dimensional, "Convicted" or "Getting Away With It". In fact, for thousands of years, it has been two-dimensional: Guilty or Innocent; and Provable or Not Provable. That is why the jury makes a finding of Not Guilty, they do NOT make a finding of Innocent ( or “Getting Away With It”).

The jury system is such that there are four possible outcomes:

1.     Guilty and Provable,

2.     Guilty and Not Provable,

3.     Innocent and Provable and

4.     Innocent and Not Provable.

The last three outcomes are collectively called NOT Guilty. . Yes, you may be getting away with it ( aka "Guilty and Not Provable") but the state is willing to accept this rather than accidentally finding you guilty when you are "Innocent and Not Provable". Not everyone is Guilty, despite Louie Gohmert's claim. Not everyone is a crook. It is just that there are smart crooks and dumb crooks, and dumb crooks leave lots of evidence behind.  I wonder which kind of crooks we are dealing with here.

Normal III

 

Nothin’ From Nothin’ Leaves Nothin’

Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have something' if you wanna be with me
Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have something' if you wanna be with me

What is normal?

A statistically normal distribution is one where the Median is equal to the Mean. However a normal distribution also requires that values less than zero, nothing, be allowed. In the real world less than nothing is not allowed. I mean an absolute. For example, a temperature can be below zero on the Fahrenheit scale, but it can not be below absolute zero. Therefore normal-like distributions such as the exponentially modified Gaussian (normal) distribution are used. In that distribution the Mean is close to, but not equal to, the Median. It also allows for a non-zero Skew which is not allowed in truly normal distributions. However there are still rules. An exponentially modified Gaussian distribution has a limit on the Skew of 0.31.

Another feature of a normal distribution is the 68/95/99.7 rule. That is one Standard Deviation from the Mean has 68% of the values; two Standard Deviations from the Mean have 95% of the values; and three Standard Deviations from the Mean have 99.7% of the values. If we assume that 99.7 % is close enough to 100%, it can be said that any modified normal distribution must have a Standard Deviation that is the Mean divided by three. If this is the Standard Deviation, then it is possible to estimate the Skew using Pearson’s Second Coefficient of the skew, and the Mean can not exceed 1.5 times the Median. If the Mean is more than 1.5 multiplied by the Median, then the group has to be considered as having more than one normal subgroup.

For example, LIS, the Luxembourg Income Study,  reports Mean and Median income. According to that data, the Mean US income in 2020 was $53,580 and the Median US income was $42,763 and unlike most counties the gap was increasing.  According to the Credit Suisse Wealth Databook, the US  Mean wealth was $ 505,421 and the Median wealth was $79,274.  These might be a lot of things, but they aren't normal or trending to normal.  However the mean life expectancy in the US in 2019 was 76.3 years while the median life expectancy was 78.8 years.  Life expectancy is probably one normal group. It is said that there are only two things that are certain in life: death and taxes.  Death may also be normal, but taxes may not be normal.

Gun Control II

 

What A Fool Believes

But what a fool believes he sees

No wise man has the power to reason away

What seems to be

Is always better than nothing

And nothing at all keeps sending him

Are Amercians being a fool on gun control?

Congratulations to President Biden for finally calling out Republicans.  I know that it was hard for him. Reaching across the aisle has always been an admirable quality of Joseph Biden. However gun control is an American issue, not just a bipartisan issue. An American issue requires a supermajority. It is not an issue for the Democratic majority. It is not an issue for the Republican minority, although they have learned to block any two player game. When the Democrats were a supermajority, they were able to pass the Affordable Care Act. When the Republicans were the majority, they passed nothing except tax cuts and stealing a seat on the Supreme Court. The party of Howard Baker, Everett Dirksen and John McCain has become the party of Kevin McCarthy, Mitch McConnell, and Donald Trump. This is not unprecedented. The bipartisanship that President Biden seeks is with the Progressive/Mugwump wing of the Republican Party. This wing was led in the past by Samuel “Mark Twain” Clemens and Teddy Roosevelt, who broke with the Republican Stalwarts. But trying to make bipartisan agreement with what you have today is a fool’s errand. You work with what you have, and we don’t have Bull Moose Republicans.

What is needed is to stop playing a two player game. Gun Control is NOT a bi-partisan issue. It is a multi-partisan issue , where the multi- is so large as to make it virtually indistinguishable from non-partisan. Stop playing a two person game. It never worked for Charlie Brown and Lucy in Peanuts and it won’t work here. My therapist said that I should write, which is why I blog. But if you are reading this then please read. https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2022/05/filibuster-v.html, and https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2021/05/tough-but-fair-beats-always-being-nasty.html

I thought that assault was against the law. Then aren’t assault rifles such as  AR-15s illegal and can be banned by the ATF. Laws aren’t necessary and might be foolish. Action is necessary.

Normal II

We're Not Gonna Take It

Hey hung up old Mr. Normal

Don't try to gain my trust!

'Cause you ain't gonna follow me any of those ways

Although you think you must

Is it Normal to accept no error?

Normal describes a group (a distribution) where the Mean is equal to the Median. If  everyone agrees, then the Mean will equal the Median. But normal is NOT limited to a Variance of  zero. A uniform normal distribution is the most stable distribution, and it has a Variance of one, not zero. (An aside. The big push for resiliency is because the push for just efficiency, making the Variance zero, is not always wise.  I apologize for linking to myself,  but this is what  I mean by efficiency vs. resiliency. https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2022/01/resiliency.html)

If the Variance is zero, then everyone agrees. If the Variance is 1, then most people are not 100%, the same, but people are allowed to be different than the Mean. In a normal distribution, 68% of the observations are within one Standard Deviation of the mean.

If you want to approach the absolute,  then you want to make the Standard Deviation (the square root of the Variance) as small as possible. That is what science is all about. You make lots of observations with a decreasing  Standard Deviation until you approach the absolute. The gold standard in most science is 3 Sigma, 3 Standard Deviations, 99.7%. In particle physics, e.g. the weight of an electron, it is 5 Sigma, 99.99994%.

But once you have established an absolute, then there is by definition no error, and the Variance is zero. But you DON’T start by assuming that the Variance is zero. Error is the Standard Deviation divided by the square root of sample size. If you wish to reduce error, then you don’t automatically assume that the Variance is 0, instead you increase the sample size ( the size of the group). Once you are absolutely correct, the sample size will be irrelevant, the Variance will be zero, and increasing the size of the group won’t change that result. But if there is the possibility that you are wrong, then the way to reduce error, approach an absolute, is to increase the sample size of the group.

It is abnormal to say that the Variance IS zero. If things are normal, then the Variance might be greater than 0 and you better increase the group size if you want to reduce error.

Once upon a time, there was no separation between natural (science) and spiritual philosophy. The separation appears to have been a mistake.  Science can inform the spiritual and vice versa.