Debates II

Skyfall

Let the sky fall
When it crumbles
We will stand tall
Face it all together

Is the sky falling?

Chicken Little (known as Henny Penny on the European side of the pond), is a cautionary folk tale about the dangers of making assumptions, and how those assumptions can be used to your detriment by bad actors, such as Foxy Loxy.  Did President Biden display age related senility during his debate with Donald Trump, or did DJT as Foxy Loxy want you to mistake confusion for senility.

For all the prominent Democrats and pundits calling for Joe Biden’s ouster, please read Chicken Little, and please don’t believe that the sky is falling.  Bad things that will happen if you do, unless we face it all together.

A Two-party Platform?

 

Call Me Mister In-Between

Well, I'm too old for girls and I'm too young for women
I've looked all around and my hopes are a-dimmin'
I feel like a fish not allowed any swimmin'
And it makes a fella mean
To feel he's a part of the Lost Generation
I feel like a choo-choo that can't find the station
I work like a dog with no recreation
They call me Mr. In-Between

Often being In-Between is a GOOD thing.

An election of a candidate to represent you in the group is about the candidate’s  policies AND character. By character, it is meant whether that candidate actually endorses those policies, rather than only pretending to endorse those policies in order to win the election. The fact that there are three outcomes to a contest while there are only two major parties, means that rank choice voting can NOT be used to indicate which of the candidates is your first, second and third choice. A voter may be faced with voting against a candidate rather than voting for a candidate. This will not advance a candidate whose policies are preferred by the voter, just that the charcater of the other candidate is so appalling that you will vote against your policies so as  to not vote for the other candidate.

When the major parties had two wings, this was not necessarily a problem. The winner of the party nomination probably had enough character that you could vote for his polices. Thus Main Street and Wall Street Republicans could exist in the same party. But if a major party will actively oppose having two factions and requires that all members think the same, then that party may nominate a candidate whose character is appalling to what would  have been those former members and voters, because they do not believe that their former party’s candidates character is such to advance their policies.

That there are two major parties is a consequences of Duverger’s Law. This says that in an election that is decided by dominance, i.e. >50% or even plurality and less than 50%, voters and candidates will eventually gravitate to two political parties. This can be changed if the two major parties each advance two candidates for election. Then there will be at a minimum four characters on each ballot. Then rank choice voting could be used even in a two-party system. Voters could then vote for a candidate and not against a candidate. Rank choice voting when there are only three candidates ensures that the winner will be acceptable to almost 67% of the voters. And 67% is a lot higher than 50%.

It is proposed that at each nominating convention of the major parties, there would be a nomination of a primary candidate and a secondary candidate. In the case of president, a slate of president and vice president. In states where elections are by rank choice voting, ( e.g. Alaska) both candidates would be on the ballot. In elections where rank choice voting is NOT used, then only the primary candidate shall be placed in the ballot.

As an example, if 10 people are asked to rank their three favorite restaurants and everyone picks a different first place restaurant and everyone picks a different third place restaurant, but everyone pick the same second place restaurant, then everyone’s second place restaurant IS the consensus favorite restaurant of the group. It was no individual's first choice, but it is everyone’s second choice restaurant, and thus probably the most acceptable restaurant to everyone of those 10 people in the group.

Character

 

The Impossible Dream

And the world will be better for this
That one man, scorned and covered with scars
Still strove with his last ounce of courage
To reach the unreachable
The unreachable
The unreachable star 

What I heard last night 

The last question that was asked during last night’s interview on ABC with President Biden, was how would he feel if Donald Trump wins the election in 2024? As a result of President Biden’s response, I heard the song lyric above playing in my head. The first ABC pundit responding to the interview said that he was deeply troubled by his response and that an unnamed senior Democrat was also upset by his response. I guess it really is true that perspective is everything. 

This concluding song is from the Broadway musical “Man of La Mancha”.  The author Cervantes sings it while in prison, so clearly Cervantes had lost. But his song was his response, that character is more important than winning. 

Elections are about character and policies. But IMHO character is much more important. I might disagree with the policies, but if the character is such that truth matters, then I know that that candidate will fight for those policies as hard as he would fight for mine, and he might even change his policies to mine. If his opponent is a liar, I do not know if that opponent will fight for the policies that he articulated even if I agree with those policies at that present time. The election is about the world being better, not the other candidate being better. Am I certain that President Biden will be elected? Nothing is certain, but the world would be grateful if he is elected.

Debates

 

Noah

God began to flood the land
Raised his hand to heaven on high
And knocked that sun and the moon from the sky
Shook the mountains and disturbed the sea
Hitched his reins to his Chariot Wheel
Stepped on land and stood out on shore
Declared this time couldn't be no more
'Cause it's gonna rain

What if you flood with something other than water?

Steve Bannon, the convicted prisoner who can currently be reached at the Danbury Federal Correctional Institution, is an advocate of flooding the zone with bullshit/lies.  So apparently is Donald Trump, which he displayed during his “debate” with President Biden.  In debate, this strategy is called the Gish Gallop after creationist Duane Gish who often used the technique when challenging the scientific fact of evolution.  The problem in debate is that it takes more time to respond to the lies than it does to state the lies in the first place. 

When it is used in a debate, the victim appears confused.  When the victim had previously been characterized as old, this confusion can appear to be confirmation that this confusion was age induced senility.  Abbott and Costello tried to amuse us with this technique.  We were supposed to think that Lou Costello was stupid, not merely confused.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAkLzbq2K3I. 

During the debate, the confusion was supposed to be evidence of senility.  Flooding the zone with lies, especially when Jake Tapper and Dana Bash were of no help in fact-checking those lies,  couldn’t have worked, could it?

Ties

 

Heartbreaker

You're a heartbreaker
Dream maker, love taker
Don't you mess around with me

What about Tie breakers?

The outcome of any fair contest is a win, a loss, OR a tie. However, because in many cases a tie is considered to be like kissing your sister, if a contest ends in a tie, a tie breaker (which may be extra innings, sudden death, overtime, extra time, shoot outs, etc.) is often used. But that did not change the fact that the regular contest ended in a tie.

The reason that a tie breaker is used is because that contest may have been  trying to establish certainty. Certainty is the inverse of the odds of an outcome. If you have any outcome, the certainty is, by definition, less than 100%. If the outcome can be changed from a tie, then it can appear to increase the certainty. However while a win establishes dominance, so does a loss (the winner, not the loser. is dominant). A tie does NOT establish dominance. The problem is confusing certainty with dominance. A tie breaker only appears to increase the certainty to 50%. The fact that there was a tie breaker in the first place has to be considered, and the probability of that tie breaker being needed was 33%.

The National Hockey League, in its regular season, not Stanley Cup, games, recognizes this. After a regular season hockey game ends in a tie AND the following  overtime (which could end in sudden death) ends in a tie; AND the following shoot out of 5 shots ends in a tie, it awards one point for each side for that tie, while a win always gets 2 points, and tie during the regular contest gets a point, and a loss during the regular contest gets no points.

Pretending a contest has only two outcomes, Win/Loss when Tie is a valid outcome, is IMHO the source of much confusion. A trial verdict is Guilty or Not Guilty, not a verdict of Guilty or Innocent. Not Guilty includes Reasonable Doubt, in addition to Innocence. A win from a tie breaker only establishes dominance, it does not establish certainty.

Only the absolute can be certain. We can strive to approach certainty, but we can not achieve it. Do not confuse dominance with certainty. That “win” which indicates dominance can be the result of cheating which by definition is the opposite of Truth/Certainty.

Immigrants

 

Immigrant Song

We come from the land of the ice and snow
From the midnight sun where the hot springs flow
How soft your fields so green
Can whisper tales of gore
Of how we calmed the tides of war
We are your overlords

Should we afraid of immigrants?

I would like to cite another song lyric as a counterpoint.

How Have You Been

How have you been my darling children,
While I have been away in the west?
Though you are strangers,
I feel that I know you.
By the way that you treat me
 And offer to feed me
And eagerly ask if I'll stay for a rest.

My maternal grandparents were immigrants from Poland who never learned to speak English.  My paternal great-grandparents were all immigrants from Ireland.  ( My paternal grandmother was born in the US, but my father’s father was an illegal immigrant from Canada!).  Everyone in the United States is a descendant of immigrants.  You may fear new immigrants if you think that the world is a zero-sum game and immigrants/strangers will take what you have.  If the world is NOT a zero-sum game, a group is stronger when it is larger, and immigrants can contribute to your group, then it makes sense to treat immigrants/strangers well and welcome them into your group.  I understand that the fear of strangers (stranger danger) is part of out human psyche.  But every major religion has admonitions about treating strangers well.  So are you religious punk? Do you believe in taking or sharing?

Chevron Deference

                                                                                    I Believe 

I believe for every drop of rain that falls
A flower grows
I believe that somewhere in the darkest night
A candle glows
I believe for everyone that goes astray
Someone will come to show the way
I Believe 

There is a difference between believing and knowing. But I guess lawyers know everything! 

Even though I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, I have been an expert witness in court cases.  It is assumed that judges and juries do NOT know everything and require expert witnesses.  I have been an expert witness in bench cases, decided by a judge, and in jury cases.  The various regulatory agencies presumably include experts.  Even then any regulation has a mandatory Notice of Proposed Rule Making, NPRM, and comment period that is required before any rule/regulation can be adopted by a federal executive agency.  During the comment period of this NPRM various state and local agencies, and private stakeholders can offer their own expert testimony on the proposed regulation. I have submitted comments and I know that every comment is read, considered, and replied, and those comments and the responses are part of the public record in the Notice of Final Rule Making.  I have not always agreed with the clients who requested that I submit comments for them, but I think that I have always tried represent them ethically and truthfully. 

Unfortunately the Supreme Court in overturning the “Chevron” doctrine considers judges to be experts on everything, and thus apparently they do not need the advice of experts.  The fact that you do not like an opinion/regulation does not mean that it is not a valid opinion/regulation.  Sometimes you lose.  You may not like that, but that is how it works. I guess my services as an expert are no longer needed. Judges and legislators know everything!