Vaccination

 Sung by Dolly Parton to the tune of Jolene

Vaccine, vaccine, vaccine 

I'm begging of you, 

Please don't hesitate

If you have already had COVID should you be vaccinated?

Senator Rand Paul is a physician, an opthamologist. His position on not getting a vaccine, because he had COVID-19, is not due to a lack of understanding of the science, but more because he apparently only values User Optimal decisions, thinking of himself, as important; and sees no value in System Optimal decisions, thinking of others. 

There seems to be confusion between the virus and the disease.  There should not be.  People can have HIV, but not have AIDS,  There is a difference between the virus, HIV, and the disease caused by the virus, AIDS.

There is also a distinction between the SARS-CoV-2, the corona virus, and COVID-19, the disease. Just because one has had the disease does not mean that you can not still harbor the virus.  The immune system can work against the virus, sterile immunity, or work against the disease, immunity.  At this point, scientists believe that  vaccines confer 70% to 85% sterile immunity against the virus, and 95% immunity  against the disease, but they do not know how much time immunity lasts in either case.  Similarly if you had, and recovered from, COVID you might only have immunity from the disease, not immunity from the virus.

Given that there is a distinction between the disease and the virus, there are three possible states:

1.     NO virus and NO Disease; no transmission possible and no disease.

2.     Virus and NO Disease;  transmission possible, and no disease.

3.     Virus and Disease.  Transmission possible and disease.

There is of course a fourth state, NO virus and disease, but to the best of our knowledge this is state is not  possible.

If you have the virus then you can transmit the virus to other.  If you have the virus then you are at higher risk for the disease.  Among the outcomes of the disease is a higher risk of death. Yes, it is only a 2% risk, but if that happens you are 100% dead.

At this point it is not known if recovering from the disease confers sterile immunity from the virus or immunity from the disease.

If you place no value on transmitting the virus to others, and you have recovered from the disease, then getting a vaccine has no value. It is not possible to transmit the virus unless you have the virus, but there probably is no chance of getting the disease, if you have had the disease.  If you place a value on transmitting the virus then there is value in getting the vaccine.  What Rand Paul, and anyone who has recovered from the disease and is not getting the vaccine is saying, is that they place no value on transmitting the virus to others.

By that logic, it must also be safe to have unprotected sex with someone who is in remission from AIDS because you think that they could not transmit HIV to you.

There is a solution to people who harbor the virus but have immunity to the disease.  Those people are called Typhoid Marys, after the early  20th Century Irish cook who had immunity from disease caused by the typhoid bacteria but who harbored the typhoid bacteria. We quarantine them from society for the safety of society.  I wouldn’t use Ted Cruz as a travel agent, because I am not sure that Cancun is the right place to quarantine, but if Senator Paul will tell society where he would like to quarantine, I am sure that society will be happy to accommodate him.

Single Issue Voting

 

My Dog's Bigger Than Your Dog

My dog's bigger than your dog|

My dog's bigger than yours,

My dog's bigger

And he chases mailmen,

My dog's bigger than yours.

Is voting on only one issue ever the best strategy?

Single issue voting has long been a force in US politics.  In the past among those issues have included slavery, the gold standard, temperance, abortion, gun rights, etc.  The US electoral system is dominated by a two-party system.  According to Duverger’s Law, it will always be a two-party system.  Only one of those two parties will be in the majority at a time and only that party may have the power to take action on that single issue.  The temptation is great to use the position on that single issue to determine which individuals will be allowed in your party.

The problem is that despite the adage “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, the enemy of your enemy might, or might not, be your friend.  You may make common cause with that individual on this single issue, but that does not mean that you will agree with them on other issues.  Once they are invited to the party on that one issue, it may be hard to get them to leave on other issues.  The Republicans in the 1860s invited those Know Nothings who agreed with them on slavery to join the Republican party, even if they might not agree with the Know Nothing position on immigrants.  It becomes more of a problem when the only value is winning, being in power.  Then you might invite people into your party, just because they can make you the majority party.  ( e.g. Nixon’s Southern Strategy).

If the game is played correctly, nice guys can finish first.  Jack Warner, one of Mr. Reagan's Warner Bros. employers, when the Reagan-for-President boomlets first started, is said to have replied, ''No, Jimmy Stewart for President; Ronald Reagan for his best friend.''.  I want to live in a world where nice guys like Jimmy Stewart will be President. I don’t want to know someone’s position on a single issue,  I want to know if they are a nice guy.

 

In Name Only?

 

Wonderful of Color

There's beauty untold

That's ours to behold

In the wonderful world of color

Color, color, color

How can we describe color?

It takes only three attributes to describe a color.  By varying the intensity of Red, Green, and Blue, it is possible to describe millions and millions of colors.  This shade  of Red can be described as 235 Red, 91 Green and 91 Blue on a scale of 1 to 255.  Even if you are limited to one attribute, Black and White, by varying the intensity of Black and White you can come up with at least 50 Shades of Grey, if not a whole lot more shades.

Why then are there people who see things only as either 100% Black or 100% White.  That is not how the world works.  How can you think there is only one attribute, dimension, while living in a three dimensional world? How can you then limit that one attribute, dimension, to 100% or 0% of that one attribute.  The world is a carousel of colors to everyone except those who insist that if you are not 100% for them, you are “In Name Only”.  "There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

MTG and Nazis

What’s Going On

You see, war is not the answer

For only love can conquer hate

You know we've got to find a way

To bring some lovin' here today

Are Democrats Nazis?

Marjorie Taylor Greene said at a rally in Georgia on May 27, 2021 that "You know Nazis were the National Socialist Party. Just like the Democrats are a now a national socialist party." I hope I got this correct because Rep. MTG goes ballistic if things are misspelled.

She does deserve some credit for knowing that Nazi is short for Natonalsozialismus, which can be translated as National Socialism.  But even she doesn’t apparently know what socialism is, or what nationalism is.

First, Socialism is an economic system, NOT a political system.  Simplistically, if we say that the ownership of industries and the regulation of industries are the only attributes that will be used  to characterize economic systems, then:

·       Communism is the public ownership of ALL industries and the regulation ALL industries.

·       Socialism is the public ownership of SOME industries and the regulation  of ALL industries

·       Regulated Capitalism is the public ownership of NO industries and the regulation of ALL industries

·       Unregulated Capitalism is the public ownership of NO industries and the regulation of NO industries.

Some Democrats, and their associates, such as Representative Ocasio-Cortez or Senator Saunders might be characterized as favoring socialism as an economic system.  However President Biden and most Democrats seem to be better characterized as favoring Regulated Capitalism, not Socialism. So it is wrong to call all Democrats socialists.

Second, Nationalism does not mean love of county.  As practiced by Nazis and their ilk, it has come to mean HATRED of other countries.  If you LOVE your country, you can and do love other countries.  You just love your country more.  As an old movie buff, can I ask you to please watch this Clip from the movie Casablanca to see the difference.       

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM-E2H1ChJM. 

Victor Lazlo, a Czechoslovakian, leads a band at an American nightclub, watched on by his Norwegian wife, joined by the audience and a Spanish Guitarist in the singing of the French national anthem, Les Marseilles.  At the and of the anthem Yvette, a French national, shouts “Viva La France,” Long Live France, not “Morte D’Allemagne”, Death to Germany.  Despite this, the Nazis are threatened.  Because they equate LOVE of any other country with HATRED of their own.  Silly Rabbits! Loving a country is NOT hating every other country. LOVE of Nation is NOT Nationalism.  To equate Democrats with Nazis is as wrong and offensive as equating mask wearing during COVID with wearing a Yellow Star because you are Jewish.

Corporate Governance

 

The Farmer And The Cowman

I don't say I'm no better than anybody else,

But I'll be damned if I ain't jist as good!

Territory folks should stick together,

Territory folks should all be pals.

Cowboys dance with farmer's daughters,

Farmers dance with the ranchers' gals!

What does sticking together mean with respect to corporate Board of Directors?

In macroeconomics, a production equation is a function of capital and labor, which is a recognition that it takes both to produce value.  Corporations are chartered by society.  A Corporation’s Board of Directors sets policies for how the corporation operates.

At present, corporate boards represent shareholder, i.e. capital, interests.  But capital is only part of a production function, and also this does not consider the fact that corporations are chartered by society.  Shouldn't seats on the Boards of Directors represent all three interests: capital, labor, and society. 

Corporate Board of Directors in many European countries are already required to provide seats to employees of the corporation, i.e. labor.  Employee-owned companies, as opposed to publicly traded companies, by definition, have seats that represent both labor and capital, because employees ARE the labor.  Corporations are often the subject of lawsuits because they are operating at odds with society.  Rather than lawsuits or union battles, it would seem reasonable that capital, labor and society all have seats on a corporation’s Board of Directors.  Then the operations of a corporation would not just represent one interest, i.e. capital, and perhaps then those corporations will be friends.

The Capitol Riot Commission

 Branded 

Branded!

That's not the way to die!

What do you do when you're branded?

Can you live with a lie?

And wherever you go

for the rest of your life

You must prove ...

You're a man!

Have the  Republican Senators who voted against the Jan 6^th Commission Branded Themselves? 

Branded was a TV Western, starring Chuck Conners, that was about an Army Officer who accepted being court-martialed, branded, rather than tell the truth about the officer who was actually responsible and died in a massacre.  He accept being branded not for himself, but for one who died.  Those Senators who voted against the January 6^th Commission may have branded themselves, but they did it for their own good, not for the good of others.   When the truth comes out, as it is inevitable, may we remember this as the day that Republican Senators Branded themselves.

Tough but Fair beats Always Being Nasty

 

The Games People Play.

Whoa, the games people play now

Every night and every day now

Never meanin' what they say now

Never sayin' what they mean.

If people are playing games, what is the best strategy for winning those games?

One of my favorite discussions of the Prisoner's Dilemma from Game Theory is in the book Golem in the Gears by Pier Anthony.  The audio of that book can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhajFda83hQ.  The scene on the Prisoner’s Dilemma begins at the 8-hour 21-minute mark in that link.   It describes  how a strategy it calls "Tough but Fair", merely repeating tactics of your opponent from the previous round but otherwise always being nice, will be a winning strategy in the long run.  Tactically it will lose every match but will win the game. e.g. the war.  This same strategy was introduced as "Tit for Tat" by Anatol Rapoport, in which each participant in an iterated prisoner's dilemma follows a course of action consistent with his opponent's previous turn.  The Bible in Exodus would call this strategy “An eye for an eye”. The intent was not to say that  one should not retaliate, but that you one should not over retaliate, i.e. extract vengeance.  The intent behind the principle was to restrict compensation to the value of the loss. And vengeance is up to the Lord.

The law of retaliation, lex talionis , can be traced back to the Code of Hammurabi.   Most of the major religions, e.g. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. promote this strategy. A return to this in our daily lives would honor these religions and be a winning strategy for us in the long run.