Caste: Part II

You've Got To Be Carefully Taught

 You've got to be taught to be afraid
 Of people whose eyes are oddly made 
 And people whose skin is a different shade 
You've got to be carefully taught. 

 Caste is NOT the way things must be. We can choose not to teach caste. 

"Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents", the best selling book by Isabel Wilkerson, is a chilling depiction of how, among other things, the Nazis ( and for those who are against socialism, don’t forget that Nazi is a nickname for “National Socialism") modeled their own caste system after the successful caste system in the United States. The success of any caste system, where only a few can occupy the top rung, depends on convincing a majority that the ladder system of caste is the way things should be, and that everyone should stay in their place. Those in the middle rungs accept the caste system because they are promised to be above those in lower rungs. 

The lower rungs in the caste system in the United States appear to be reserved for: women, indigenous people, African Americans, immigrants, LGBTQ+, Hispanics, Asians, the disabled, etc. While the Amendments to the U. S. Constitution have attempted to grant rights to many of these groups, it is the caste system itself, not the rights that the caste system bestows, that should be in question. 

Before teaching or accepting the caste system, it is important for society to ask why there is a caste system at all? Does the existence of a caste system, which excludes the contributions of those on the lower rungs, advance the interests of society? Is violence against those who challenge elements of the caste system order,... or brutality? 

Those on the lowest rungs will soon outnumber those on the higher rungs. Does anyone seriously expect that the caste system will continue under these conditions?  It is in the best interest of society that the caste system in the United States be immediately discontinued and no longer taught.

Role of a Judge

It's Alright With Me

It's the wrong time and the wrong place

Though your face is charming, it's the wrong face

It's not her face, but such a charming face

That it's all right with me

It might be alright with Senator Mitch McConnell, but not with everyone.

During the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings on Judge Amy Coney Barrett, one argument that Republican Senators seem to be presenting is that the role of a judge is not the role of a legislator.  This is true but irrelevant.  If judges only interpreted the law, then there would only be 9-0 decisions of the Supreme Court.  Since there are dissenting opinions, the opinion of a judge, and what might be the basis for their dissent, matters.

Another argument that Republican Senators seem to be advancing is that the Democratic opposition to Judge Barrett is because of her Catholic religion.  If this were true then why is the Democratic candidate for President a practicing Catholic? Clearly not all Catholics have the same opinion or else a future Catholic President Biden would also be expected to nominate Catholic Judge Barrett.

Clearly opinion matters, and the consent of the Senate should be based on those opinions. 

The Mafia's definition of a Honest Man is one that stays bought.  Since the confirmation of Justice Barrett by Republican Senators appears to be a forgone conclusion, we can only hope that she has a different definition of honesty than the Mafia's definition, and that she understands the role of a judge is to interpret the law on behalf of all Americans, regardless of party.

Valuing Risk: Part 4

  It's Ain't Necessarily So

I'm preachin' dis sermon to show

It ain't nessa, ain't nessa

Ain't nessa, ain't nessa

Ain't necessarily so !

Just because the consequences aren't what you want, it ain't necessarily the risk.

While often the likelihood has been confused with the risk, it is also possible to mistake the consequences of an event for its risk.  Risk is always the product of likelihood AND consequences.  For example voter fraud.  If the consequences for your candidate is that voter fraud will cause them to loose the election,  then consequences would be very bad (even if the backers of the opponent might view those consequences differently!)  That does not mean that the risk of voter fraud is also high.

The Brennan Center’s seminal report , The Truth About Voter Fraud, found that most reported incidents of voter fraud are actually traceable to other sources, such as clerical errors or bad data matching practices. The report reviewed elections that had been meticulously studied for voter fraud, and found incident rates between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent. That means that the risk of voter fraud for that hypothetical candidate is 100% * 0.0003 %.  Even if the likelihood was 100 times as greater, the risk of voter fraud is then only 100% *0.003%= 0.003%.

Confusing the consequences of voter fraud with the risk of voter fraud is even harder to understand than confusing the likelihood with the risk.

Free Will

 

Free Bird

Cause I'm as free as a bird now          

And this bird you can not change      

Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh       

And this bird you can not change      

And this bird you can not change
Lord knows, I can't change

If you really want to be free, you have to be able to chose to change.

System Optimal versus User Optimal solutions might sound like only a mathematical argument, but that is only because of the words that are used.  If User Optimal instead is called free will and System Optimal solutions are called good works, the argument become recast in terms that are more familiar and relevant.  Free will says that we are free to choose the solution that we believe is best for us  (i.e. can chose a User Optimal solution).  Good works says that there is a solution that is best for society (i.e. the System Optimal solution).  The conflict between these two is the subject of  religion, sociology, evolution, etc.

Religion deals with the conflict between free will  and good works.  Most major religions have some from of the golden rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, even though the often rule is cynically described as “Whoever has the gold, makes the rules” that acknowledges that the golden rule is not always chosen by individuals.

Sociology deals with the changes in the choices of society in groups.  The taking of goods by force was once acceptable (e.g. the Roman Empire, Spanish Empire, etc.) but is not accepted by society today.  Assassination was once socially acceptable (e.g. the Medicis, the Thuggees, etc.) but is not acceptable today.  Extreme revenge against your enemies was once acceptable (e.g. Roman salting of Carthage, Vlad the Impaler, also known as Dracula, etc.) but is not acceptable today.

Evolution is often misunderstood that it is a User Optimal solution (e.g.. survival of the fittest), when in fact it seeks a System Optimal solution, The title of the evolution's most famous work is “On The Origin Of Species", not, "On The Origin Of A Specimen. 

It is hoped that we chose System Optimal solutions, but free will means that we can chose User Optimal solutions.  We look forward to a day when the User Optimal solutions are also System Optimal solutions.

Words Matter

 

Sticks and Stones

Sticks and stones may break my bones,         

but words will never break me.

Some words can hurt. Not understanding that marginal tax rates are not the same as the effective tax rates can hurt the decisions that we support.

Taxes are meant to raise revenue for the government.  They are fair if the amount raised from each individual is fair.  That is why we have a progressive tax system.  Jesus observed in the Bible that the “Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury. For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood.”

Taxes then might be considered fair if they are from the surplus wealth not from our whole livelihood.  So what is surplus wealth?  Might that be marginal income and not the whole income?  In the 2020 tax year, the highest US tax bracket is assessed on incomes of more than $622,051 for households filing jointly.  The marginal tax rate for this bracket is 37%.  However that is NOT the tax rate on the income below $622,051 for this same bracket.  Those taxes are $167,307.50 which is less than 27% of the income below $622,051. Referring to the marginal rate as the name for the tax bracket distorts from the fact that it is not the actual tax rate ( which i probably called the effective tax rate by an accountant).

Calling the marginal tax rate the effective tax rate, is probably as intellectually honest as referring to an estate, or an inheritance, tax as a death tax.  Yes, you have to be dead to have an estate or to bequeath an inheritance, but the tax is on the estate or the inheritance, not the death. 

The lowering of the marginal tax rates began in earnest in the 1980s with the passage of Economic Recovery Tax Act.  http://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2020/06/taxman.html .  Before he became the vice president, George H.W. Bush referred to supply side economics, which was the basis for lowering the marginal tax rates, as voodoo economics.  Since adopting supply side economics as the basis for tax policy, the growth of income in the US has been less than it was before, and the gap between rich and poor has increased.  When supply side economics was adopted as state tax policy, by then Kansas Governor Brownback in 2012, it  achieved none of its stated goals, and was eventually abandoned.   Lowering state taxes was claimed as a way to simulate the economy.  Lowering taxes may stimulate the economy, but lowering tax rates is not the same as lowering taxes, unless all tax rates are lowered equally.  We understand that there is a difference between acceleration and speed.  The fact that both effective and marginal tax rates include the word tax does not mean they are the same.  Acting like they are the same is an example of when words can hurt you.

Opportunities

 

Here's to Dear Old Boston 

The home of the Bean and the Cod, 
Where Lowells speak only to Cabots, |
And Cabots speak only to God. 

Is America the Land of Opportunity, where we all speak to  God, or the Land of Caste, where only some speak to God.

The United States of America prides itself as the land of opportunity.  The plack on the Statue of Liberty reads

 "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

This is far cry from a land of caste.  Despite the Bible injunction in Matthew 18: 21-35, on not duplicating the sins of which you were forgiven, those founding America established their own version of the very caste system from which they had fled.   As the descendant of an Irish Catholic illegal immigrant, I can assure you that while blacks may not have been slaves in my home state of Massachusetts,  there is and was a caste system in Massachusetts.   As Isabel Wilkerson observed in her recent book, "Caste", racism is only the one US manifestation of casteism.

We can not be both a land of opportunity and a land of caste.  This November we have an opportunity to decide whether the spirit, or the current status, of America will prevail.

Protests

For What It's Worth

There's somethin' happenin' here

But what it is ain't exactly clear

There's a man with a gun over there

A-telln' me I got to beware

It is time to stop and look around, but also to do something.

George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and far too many people have died as the result of police activities.  Jacob Blake has been physically injured, but far too many others have less visible, but still real, emotional injuries.  Protesting these actions is a right that is protected by the US Constitution.  These protests may anger some.  This anger has been expressed by using cars, guns, pepper spray, and mace against the protesters, some of which have resulted in deaths, all of which can be morally, if not legally, considered to be assault or worse.  Is it surprising that some of these assaults provoke others to defend themselves or others, which has led to the death of Jay Danielson and his shooter in Portland, Oregon?

It is important to remember why there are protests, and not create further injustices in defense of those protests.  Two wrongs do not make a right.   The fact that a second wrong has occurred does not somehow make the first wrong go away.  Trying to fix EVERY wrong is the right response.  If the protests continue, as I believe they should, let us hope that they are peaceful.