Standing

 

Stand by Me

If the sky that we look upon
Should tumble and fall
Or the mountain should crumble to the sea
I won't cry, I won't cry
No, I won't shed a tear
Just as long as you stand
Stand by me

Standing sounds kind of important.

Legal standing is at the heart of many of, IMHO, the mistakes and controversies of the Supreme Court.

Life begins at conception. As a Catholic I believe this. However legal status begins at birth. It says so in the constitution, my driver’s license, passport, etc. If legal status does not begin until birth, then prohibiting abortion is the state taking the womb of a woman to protect a fetus which has no legal standing. Requiring a woman to carry a fetus to birth is IMHO a constitutionally prohibited taking by the state without compensation.

Corporations are people and as such they have freedom of speech. How many corporations are there according to the official US census of its citizens and wards?  This is a rhetorical question. The correct answer is zero, because the constitution does not consider corporations to be people. Corporations are special limited liability creations of a state where the assets of the shareholders, officers, and employees of the corporation are NOT subject to liability because those assets of the corporations are separate and distinct from the assets of those people. Freedom of speech is an indivisible right. It can not given it to another, e.g. a corporation, if it is also retained. If that property can not be given to a corporation if it is retained by the people of that corporation, and corporations are not people, then how do corporations have freedom of speech?

It has been long enough. If the offense has been by a system, not by members of that system, then even though are no current members of the system who committed that offense, the offense did not go away. Voting rights abuses were by a state, not the current members of that state. Pre-clearance of voting laws,  should NOT have an implicit time limit.

Husbands (wives) are not responsible for the action of their wife (husband).  Governments make a special distinction for households/marriage. A person may not testify against their spouse. A spouse has special medical and other privileges. The property and income of the marriage household are joint. If an offense is committed by a spouse, and that offense should cause you to recuse yourself, and I am looking at you Justices Alito, and Thomas re: January 6^th, Justice Barrett for Fox’s defamation, and Chief Justice Roberts for any recommendation for lawyers appearing before the court, then that offense SHOULD be properly inferred to be your action not just that of your spouse.  That is what marriage is all about.

An individual has a right to carry a gun. The first amendment is about the  rights of individuals. The second amendment is about the right of a state as opposed to the rest of the United States. You do not have an individual right to bear arms. Your state has a right to arm its militia. As such your state should decide which of its citizens are in its militia (currently called the National Guard) and how the remainder of its citizens should be armed.

Is being offended or hypothetical harm standing? Court cases are about standing. You have no right not to be offended, so that has no standing. You have to have real harm, not hypothetical harm such as  a wedding web designer in Colorado who has designed no websites, a shareholder who does control the assets of an Indian corporation, or a fisherman in New Jersey who might incur harm if he can catch no fish.

Standing does not just determine where you sit, it determines whether you should even be in the room to sit.

The Middle III

 

Stuck in the Middle with You.

Trying to make some sense of it all,
But I can see that it makes no sense at all,
Is it cool to go to sleep on the floor,
'Cause I don't think that I can take anymore
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you

It is an HONOR to be stuck in the middle.

If Liberal Democrats want ALL government and Conservative Republicans want NO government, then the middle might be SMALL government. If progressive economists want one regulated market and conservative economists want many unregulated markets, then the middle might be many regulated markets. According to statistics, two thirds of all normal observations are in the middle third of observations, which is why the bell-shaped curve looks like it does. Being in the middle is precisely where you should expect to be. Besides, either extreme is where you will find jokers and clowns anyway.

Dominance

 

I'm Comin' Home Again

The poets cry for dreams they never saw
The only certainty is nothing sure
And nothing stays the same
Go back where they came

Forget about certainty, is dominance sure?

There is a difference between dominance and certainty. Dominance is about who won a game or series. Certainty is about whether that winner is also expected to win again. If a game is Heads I Win/Tails You Lose, there will always be a winner, and that winner will show dominance. But just because there is a winner in one game, it does not mean that this winner is going to win the next game or series. In a one game series, the probability is 100% that there will be a dominant winner, but there is only a 50% chance that the dominant winner will win the next game. That is why there are multi-game series. As the number of games increases, the chances that the winner of the series will also win the next game also increases. The table below shows the dominance and certainty of the outcome of a series of  games based on the record of that series. For example in a 5-game series, there is a 100% chance that the winner of a 4-3 series shows dominance, but there is only a 73% chance that this dominant winner will win the next series. A 0-7 record in a 7-game series means that there is a 99.22% chance that the loser with that record will also lose the next game.

Games			Games			Games			Games
1	Dominance	Certainty	3	Dominance	Certainty	5	Dominance	Certainty	7	Dominance	Certainty
1-0	100%	50.00%	3-0	100%	87.50%	5-0	100%	96.88%	7-0	100%	99.22%
0-1	0%	50.00%	2-1	100%	62.50%	4-1	100%	84.38%	6-1	100%	94.53%
			1-2	0%	62.50%	3-2	100%	68.75%	5-2	100%	83.59%
			0-3	0%	87.50%	2-3	0%	68.75%	4-3	100%	72.66%
						1-4	0%	84.38%	3-4	0%	72.66%
						0-5	0%	96.88%	2-5	0%	83.59%
									1-6	0%	94.53%
									0-7	0%	99.22%

 A series may stop after dominance has been achieved. If a 7-game series stops after 4 wins have been recorded, then if all games had been played, the final record could have been 7-0, 6-1, 5-2 or 4-3. Those records each have a different certainty, but they also have a different probability of occurring. The certainty of a winner of the series also winning the next game should thus be weighted, and not a simple average. The certainty that the dominant winner of the series will win the next game, i.e. is certain, is thus as shown in the table below

Series	Dominant is Certain
3 games	45.83%
5 games	59.79%
7 games	70.31%

 The same logic also applies to voting members, say by justices of a 9-member Supreme Court. A 9-0 opinion might be just as dominant as a 5-4 opinion, but that 9-0 opinion is more certain.

9	Dominance	Certainty
9-0	100%	99.80%
8-1	100%	98.24%
7-2	100%	92.97%
6-3	100%	83.59%
5-4	100%	75.39%
4-5	0%	75.39%
3-6	0%	83.59%
2-7	0%	92.97%
1-8	0%	98.24%
0-9	0%	99.80%

 This also holds true for jury votes. A 12-member jury which reaches a unanimous decision of Not Guilty is 99.98% certain. However unless there is an infinite number of members on that jury, the certainty will always be less than 100%. The goal in jury trials is to achieve as close to certainty as possible. Should that not also be the case in Supreme Court decisions? The goal is to increase certainty, not decrease it. A 5-4 opinion which overturns a 7-2 opinion decreases certainty. It does not increase it.

Dominance is BACKWARD looking. Certainty is FORWARD looking. Is there any wonder that MAGA  (where the second “A” stands for “Again”) wants to return to Trial by Combat which can only show dominance? This was abandoned in the Middle Ages which is longer than even MAGA generally considers.

 

Old Joe Biden?

 

Lavender Blue

Great-grandfather met great-grandmother
When she was a shy young miss
And great-grandfather won great-grandmother
With words more or less like this

Lavender blue, dilly, dilly
Lavender green
If I were king, dilly, dilly
I need a queen

You are voting for someone to represent you, NOT to be you.

Joe Biden is old. That is a fact. But when you vote in November remember that you are voting for someone that you trust to represent you, NOT to be you. The question should NOT are be how old  are each of the candidates, but whether you trust your grandfather to represent you, not to be you, and if so which of the candidates would you most like to be your grandfather.

Republicans VII

 

Battle Hymn of the Republic

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! Be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on!

Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on! 

It would be very hard to argue that Abraham Lincoln was a RINO.

When the US Constitution was adopted, a citizen supposedly asked Benjamin Franklin what kind of government he had given us . He is supposed to have replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." That is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, …where the people elect representatives to serve them. Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, but he was also the 16th republican president. He was assassinated  serving that republic.

When the Republican party was founded, it welcomed the self-serving Whigs and bigoted Know-Nothings into their party as long as they opposed the expansion of slavery into federal territory. Unfortunately, the selfish descendants of Whigs and the bigoted descendants of Know-Nothings are ascendant at the moment in the Republican Party to the detriment of the republic. This is not the first time that this has happened. It happened during the impeachment of Andrew Johnson partly because the Republican Congress could not abide a Democrat serving as President. It happened during the Electoral Crisis of 1876 when the Republican Congress agreed to end Reconstruction to preserve their federal power. It happened when the Republican Mugwumps opposed the corruption of Republican James Blaine and resulted in the election of Democrat Grover Cleveland as president. Each time the Republican party eventually came to its senses, backed away from the cliff, and did not destroy itself and/or the republic. Let us pray to God that this another of those times.

Hush Money Verdict

 

 

Shake it Off 

'Cause the players gonna play, play, play, play, play
And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate
Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake
I shake it off, I shake it off (hoo-hoo-hoo)
Heartbreakers gonna break, break, break, break, break
And the fakers gonna fake, fake, fake, fake, fake
Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake
I shake it off, I shake it off (hoo-hoo-hoo) 

And I guess pundits gonna tout, tout, tout, tout, tout 

I admit to being a tout myself but unlike pundits, I know that a single event like a jury verdict is random and can not be determined. Still I can't resist the opportunity to make a prediction, to tout, the verdict of that little trial in NYC.   

Did Trump have an affair with Stormy Daniels, nee Stephanie Clifford?   I admit to benefiting from the testimony of Ms. Daniels.  I could not understand the context of the transaction before, but I did after that testimony.  It is no more an "affair" than E. Jean Carroll had a "affair" with Donald Trump.  It was a sexual encounter, not an affair. 

Did DJT benefit from Stormy Daniels not disclosing this before the election?  Almost certainly, and the testimony of Hope Hicks was that this was the reason for the payment. 

Was a transaction with Stormy Daniels even too sleazy for the National Enquirer, and if so how sleazy must that be 😆  and was any transaction to "catch and kill" a campaign contribution? That was David Pecker's testimony. 

Was Stormy Daniels paid for her silence and did this happen before the election?  Yes. That is the testimony of Michael Cohen and confirmed by corroborating evidence. 

Did DJT falsify business records to hide this transaction?  Yes, but after the election. 

Is this falsification of business records a misdemeanor under NY law and not the felony as charged?  Unfortunately, IMHO, yes.  The falsification happened after the election, and the statue of limtaions on any misdemeanor has passed, so it was technically not a campaign contribution and thus I expect the jury to find DJT "Not Guilty" as charged. 

Will DJT lie, er...present the "alternate fact",  that a finding of "Not Guilty" (or a hung jury) is a finding of "Innocence"? DJT did after his two impeachments.  He did after his E. Jean Carroll criminal rape trial.  He claimed after the Supreme Court's Colorado opinion that he was found innocent of insurrection.  But just as speed is not acceleration, "Not Guilty" is NOT "Innocence". A "Not Guilty" verdict only means that the law as charged was not violated and as Dickens said long ago, "The law is an idiot.  An ass" 

This means that DJT might win in this Court of Law, but hopefully the testimony has meant that he lost in the Court of Public Opinion, and his strategy of delay, running out the clock, only works if he also wins in the Court of Public Opinion.  

IOW, DJT may have won the battle, but he lost the war. Get ready for bad things in November.  But DJT's behavior in the NYC tabloids years ago was Bob Gale's inspiration for Biff Tannen in Back to the Future.  And remember that had a happy ending. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvacBzZtYag

Commandments

 

At Your Command

I had you, I held you, you gave me your all
Your love dreams I shattered beyond recall
Now that I've lost you, please understand
I'm here forever at your command 

Not commandments, warnings 

As a parent, I remember warning my then toddlers not to touch a hot stove.  It might have sounded like a commandment to a toddler, but it was only meant as a warning that the toddler would not like the consequences of touching a hot stove. 

By the same token, the Ten Commandments might be warnings from God that not following these would bring bad consequences.  And what if “Do not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” to Adam in the Garden of Eden was a warning, not a commandment.  We need warnings as toddlers just as much as we need handrails in bathtubs as we get older.  They are there for our safety, protection, not to restrict us.  Commandments are ONLY there to restrict us. "Danger, Will Robinson' is a warning, not a commandment.