QOTD

"There simply is no such thing as a fact which is so well-established that it is immune from being denied by Bush followers. They will deny even the most documented realities."

Glenn Greenwald - here.

QOTD

Via dkos, John Dean on the US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

"In the history of U.S. Attorney Generals, Alberto Gonzales is constantly reaching for new lows. So dubious is his testimony that he is not afforded the courtesy given most cabinet officers when appearing on Capitol Hill: Congress insists he testify under oath. Even under oath, Gonzales's purported understanding of the Constitution is historically and legally inaccurate, far beyond the bounds of partisan interpretation."

Thank you, Jesselyn Radack!

Jesselyn Radack, Thank you for standing up for our civil liberties!

Her story begins

"In 2001, I was a legal advisor in the Justice Department's Professional Responsibility Advisory Office. On December 7, I fielded a call from a criminal division attorney named John DePue. He wanted to know about the ethical propriety of interrogating "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh without a lawyer being present. DePue told me that Lindh's father had retained counsel for his son.

I advised him that Lindh should not be questionsed without his lawyer. That was on a Friday. Over the weekend, the FBI interviewed him anyway. DePue called back on Monday asking what to do now.

I advised that the interview may have to be sealed and used only for intelligence-gathering and national security purposes, not criminal prosecution."

For that, she was hounded out of her job, and worse.
Among the penalties

"Anonymous government officials branded me a "turncoat" in newspapers, placed me under criminal investigation, put me on the "no-fly" list and referred me to the state bars in which I am licensed. I got the "Guantánamo treatment lite": I was never told for what I was being criminally investigated, the bar complaint was based on a secret report to which I did not have access, and the government will neither confirm that I'm on the "no-fly" list, nor tell me how to be removed from it. The criminal case was dropped with no charges ever being brought. One of the bar complaints was dismissed, and the other is still pending after three years."


========

If our Bush administration officials devoted a tenth of the effort they spend on harassing Americans to catching al Qaida then there would not be a single terrorist left in the world.

NPR Puzzle

The Weekend Edition Sunday puzzle for this week is

Challenge for February 18: The object of this challenge is to develop nine different mathematical expressions that equal eight. You must use the digits 2, 7 and one other. And that other digit must be a one in the first expression, two in the next expression and so on, up to nine. You can use a digit once and only once in each expression.

You may use the four arithmetic symbols: plus, minus, times and divided by, as well as exponents and decimal points. You may use parenthesis as you need them. For example: Using the digits 2, 7 and 1 you can make the expressions 2+7-1= 8.

This week's Challenge is from Robert Waynewright in New Rochelle, N.Y.

--

I'm currently stuck on 2,5,7, and 2,7,7.

Nerd Anthem

This following, the Bell Labs song, might appeal only to the technological types among us (that includes me).





Bell Labs has had a glorious history and one of the indictments of this age of business men and politicians will be how they've let this great institution decay. I hope it will somehow continue its illustrious history.

Health Care Costs in America

Paul Krugman cites a McKinsey & Company report on US healthcare costs in his NYT column today.

Amount of money spent in excessive adminstrative costs = $98 billion/year
(more than half accounted for by marketing and underwriting).

Amount of money paid in excess drug costs and medical device costs = $66 billion/year

Cost of providing full medical care to all of America's uninsured = $77 billion/year

----

Further reading:

nyceve, on dailykos.

QOTD

"No democratic process so completely failed a test of substance as America's after 9/11. No ensuing catastrophe was more consensual. "

- Roger Morris
The Rumsfeld Legacy
Part One
Part Two

Repugnant to the core

Via TPMCafe



GOP House Leader John Boehner made the argument today that the Iraq war did not begin in Iraq or on 9/11 but rather in 1979, with the Iran taking hostages in the American embassy.

Why did he make such a asinine statement?

The answer is that the Repugnicans do not want a debate on the war in Iraq.
Also via TPMCafe, here is an excerpt of the strategy letter sent to Repugnican Congress members:

"We are writing to urge you not to debate the Democratic Iraq resolution on their terms, but rather on ours.

Democrats want to force us to focus on defending the surge, making the case that it will work and explaining why the President's new Iraq policy is different from prior efforts and therefore justified.

We urge you to instead broaden the debate to the threat posed to Americans, the world, and all "unbelievers" by radical Islamists. We would further urge you to join us in educating the American people about the views of radical Islamists and the consequences of not defeating radical Islam in Iraq.

The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose. "

So, as per the Repugnican leadership, the failure in Iraq cannot be examined, and hundreds more of American soldiers and thousands more of Iraqis must continue to be fed into the meat-grinder, because otherwise the Repugnicans will look bad.

Koide Mystery

That fundamental constituent of matter, the electron, has two elder siblings, the muon and the tau.

The electron mass is 0.510998918(44) MeV.
The muon mass is 105.6583692(94) MeV.
The tau mass is 1776.99(+29-26) MeV.

MeV is a Million electron Volts, a particle physicist's unit. For comparison's sake, the hydrogen atom has a mass of about 938.8 MeV. The numbers in brackets are the uncertainties in measurement of the mass. The numbers are taken from links on Tommaso Dorigo's article on this.

What is remarkable about these numbers is that they satisfy the Koide formula with a remarkable precision - a formula with little theoretical justification.



Given the masses of the electron and the muon, this formula predicts the mass of the tau to be
1776.968921( 158) MeV. (from Carl Brannen, linked from Dorigo's page).

How likely is this to be a numerical coincidence?

If we measure everything in terms of the tau mass, then, in the plot below, the red triangle represents the experimental situation and the green curve represents the masses of the electron and muon that would be allowed per the Koide formula. The tau, by definition, has a mass of 1. There are no theoretical constraints on the masses that I'm aware of, and the "theoretically allowed" region of masses is everything between the x-axis and the diagonal black line (and please extend the line to the point {1,1}).



Of course, I could make things look a little less spectacular by measuring everything in terms of the electron mass.

Is it the blog or is it the network?

The big liberal blogs (Atrios, DailyKos) recently did a blogroll purge. (A blogroll is the list of links to other blogs that e.g., I have to the left of my page). That lead to this beautiful rant which boths serves to draw attention, but also obscure the question - is dailykos important on its own, or is it important as a supernode in a network of progressive blogs?

A blog linked from a supernode often gets more attention than it would otherwise. More subtle is the feedback that strengthens the supernode.

We'll surely find out in some time whether the big blogs have destroyed the ecosystem that made them influential in the first place.

Senator Feingold

Senator Feingold is one of the finest, and most courageous senators we have. For example, he was the lone dissenter against the so-called Patriot Act, that has been so damaging to our civil liberties.

He needs our support for this:
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0202-31.htm
How To End The War

by Russ Feingold



Our founders wisely kept the power to fund a war separate from the power to conduct a war. In their brilliant design of our system of government, Congress got the power of the purse, and the president got the power of the sword. As James Madison wrote, “Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued or concluded.”

Earlier this week, I chaired a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee to remind my colleagues in the Senate that, through the power of the purse, we have the constitutional power to end a war. At the hearing, a wide range of constitutional scholars agreed that Congress can use its power to end a military engagement.

The Constitution gives Congress the explicit power “[to] declare War,” “[t]o raise and support Armies,” “[t]o provide and maintain a Navy” and “[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” In addition, under Article I, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” These are direct quotes from the Constitution of the United States. Yet to hear some in the Administration talk, it is as if these powers were written in invisible ink. They were not. These powers are a clear and direct statement from the founders of our republic that Congress has authority to declare, to define and, ultimately, to end a war.

If and when Congress acts on the will of the American people by ending our involvement in the Iraq war, Congress will be performing the role assigned it by the founding fathers—defining the nature of our military commitments and acting as a check on a president whose policies are weakening our nation.

There is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its constitutional authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict.

In late December 1970, Congress prohibited the use of funds for introducing United States ground combat troops into Cambodia or providing U.S. advisors to Cambodian military forces. In late June 1973, Congress set a date to cut off funds for combat activities in Southeast Asia.

More recently, President Clinton signed into law language that prohibited funding after March 31, 1994, for military operations in Somalia, with certain limited exceptions. And in 1998, Congress passed spending legislation that prevented U.S. troops from serving in Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless the president made certain assurances.

Congress has the power to end military engagements, and there is little doubt that decisive action from the Congress is needed to end U.S. involvement in the war in Iraq. Despite the results of the election, and two months of study and supposed consultation—during which experts and members of Congress from across the political spectrum argued for a new policy—the president has decided to escalate the war. When asked whether he would persist in this policy despite congressional opposition, he replied: “Frankly, that’s not their responsibility.”

Last week Vice President Cheney was asked whether the non-binding resolution passed by the Foreign Relations Committee that will soon be considered by the full Senate would deter the president from escalating the war. He replied: “It’s not going to stop us.”

In the United States of America, the people are sovereign, not the president. It is Congress’ responsibility to challenge an administration that persists in a war that is misguided and that the nation opposes. We cannot simply wring our hands and complain about the administration’s policy. We cannot just pass resolutions saying “your policy is mistaken.” And we can’t stand idly by and tell ourselves that it’s the president’s job to fix the mess he made. It’s our job to fix the mess, too, and if we don’t do so we are abdicating our responsibilities.

Yesterday, I introduced legislation that will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a specific deadline, Congress can force the president to bring our forces out of Iraq and out of harm’s way.

This legislation will allow the president adequate time to redeploy our troops safely from Iraq, and it will make specific exceptions for a limited number of U.S. troops who must remain in Iraq to conduct targeted counter-terrorism and training missions and protect U.S. personnel. It will not hurt our troops in any way—they will continue receiving their equipment, training, salaries, etc. It will simply prevent the president from continuing to deploy them to Iraq. By passing this bill, we can finally focus on repairing our military and countering the full range of threats that we face around the world.

As the hearing I chaired in the Senate Judiciary Committee made clear, this legislation is fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States. Since the president is adamant about pursuing his failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to stand up and use its constitutional power to stop him. If Congress doesn’t stop this war, it’s not because it doesn’t have the power. It’s because it doesn’t have the will.

Russ Feingold is a United States senator from Wisconsin.

A question and a answer

This is from TheHeathenInHisBlindness yahoo egroup; since it is open to anyone, I do not feel it wrong to post it here. The following is to be understood. It is part of an effort to understand a culture (and oneself). My apologies in advance to those who do not understand.

----
Prolog:
what does 'hindu does not believe that God's will govern the universe' mean? i cant seem to understand it at all.

-sunil

----

Sunil writes:

Jakob,

I am still not clear what you mean. Let me make some propositions that is based on the shrutis (Madhva school of thought)-

1. Creation is a spontaneous activity of God, just like a blissful person spontaneously breaks into a song without any rhyme or reason.

2. The creation of the world does not serve any purpose of God. He is "AptakAma" - there is nothing he does not have nor is there anything he will ever need.

3. The 'creation' of the universe is just the transformation of the prakriti from its "avyakta" state to "vyakta" state. All the laws of the universe are an expression of prakriti's innate triguna svabhAva.

4. God is at all times impartial and as an antaryami immanent spirit, He is the power behind all the 'being' and 'becoming' (ie, expression of their individual svabhAvas) of souls as well as prakriti.

Hence He governs the universe.

Now what you say in (1) contradicts my understanding as above. Probably you are using certain terms in a very strict sense that i dont grasp.

---
Balu replies:

Dear Sunil,

If we want to grasp the nature of the discussions in the Indian traditions, there is much we need to do beforehand: (a) identify the entity they were talking about; (b) identify the specific questions they were answering; (c) identify the generic questions that defined both the outlines of the acceptable answers and the formulation of the specific questions; etc. (The 'cetera' indicates that I do not know how to enumerate all the things we need to grasp.) In the case of the propositions you have formulated, I assume that 'God' is Vishnu (or even Krishna) and not, say, Shiva or Brahma because you are talking about the Madhvas. However, to keep the discussion faithful to your formulations, I will use the word 'God' to refer to Vishnu.

Your proposition 1: "Creation is a spontaneous activity of God, just like a blissful person spontaneously breaks into a song without any rhyme or reason."

Apparently, this is answering the specific question 'why' (in the sense of 'KaaraNa', mostly translated as 'the reason why') God created (the Universe?). The analogy to a blissful person is a very strict one. That is, in exactly the same way a blissful person does not break into a song for a reason, God does not create for a reason. The underlying thoughts are these: normally, one sings a song to express some emotion or the other or even because he/she is feeling some emotion or another (love, sorrow, devotion, or whatever else), that is, the person "intends" to express something. The blissful person does not need to express anything; he/she is not in need of anything, including the need to express the bliss. That is what bliss (ananda) is all about.

So, the assumption is that 'bliss', something we human beings experience, is what God also feels. The only difference is that God feels this all the time, whereas only some of us can (either occasionally or after some tremendous effort) feel that bliss. (Additional claims that God's Bliss is our bliss raised to "the power of infinity" and such like tell us the same thing: there is no difference in kind but, at best, a difference in degree, between God's emotion and ours.)

In other words, the analogy explicates the nature of spontaneity (and the meaning of that word), whether it is God's spontaneity or human spontaneity: doing something not because one is in need of (or lacks) something. There is no difference in kind between us human beings and God but only one of degree. Your next proposition elaborates on this.

Your proposition 2: "The creation of the world does not serve any purpose of God. He is "AptakAma" - there is nothing he does not have nor is there anything he will ever need." (The 'he' here must also be read strictly: Vishnu is sexed and he is a 'male'.)

This further tells us that creation (of something by human beings) serves some purpose or another. Consequently, one might be inclined to say that God is "in need" of something that he does not have, and hence the creation. This proposition tells us that God has "everything": he is more beautiful than the most beautiful; stronger than the strongest; richer than the richest; the teacher of teachers; braver than the bravest, etc. Again, these are all differences in degree: he has more of everything we "desire", he is "more" than any of us or other 'gods'; and so on. He really does not need anything; he is bliss personified. Therefore, creation should not be seen as making up for some or another lack in God. In this sense, creation does not serve any purpose: one should say that God has "no purpose" in creating. He just creates. In other words, there is no intention behind God's creation. Spontaneity is the absence of intention or purpose of any sort, and the analogy drawn in the first proposition shows that action without intention is typical of a blissful person. Because God is bliss personified, God's creation does not exhibit his purpose or express his intention. (Should it do so, then God needs to express his purpose, which makes God into someone "in need" of such an expression.) Hence the notion of creation as God's "lila". That is to say, creation is completely without purpose. To use a modern terminology, to speak of the universe as an expression of God's intention or God's purpose is to commit a category mistake.

Your proposition 3: "The 'creation' of the universe is just the transformation of the prakriti from its "avyakta" state to "vyakta" state. All the laws of the universe are an expression of prakriti's innate triguna svabhAva."

Therefore, God 'functions' as a catalyst (to use this term from high-school Chemistry) in the process of creation. This function enables the 'potentiality' of Prakriti to become 'actuality'. The laws of the universe, consequently, do not express what God 'desires' or God 'wants' but express the 'nature' of prakriti. That is, the universe retains its character of not being the product of God's intention or God's plans or God's purpose. Universe expresses what universe is like, what it always has been and always will be: namely, "it is in the nature of the universe to be what it is". God has added nothing to the universe that was not already there, nor has he taken away something that was there earlier. "This is the way universe has been, is, and will be, because it belongs to the nature of the universe to be the way it was, is, and will be."

Your proposition 4: "God is at all times impartial and as an antaryami immanent spirit, He is the power behind all the 'being' and 'becoming' (ie, expression of their individual svabhAvas) of souls as well as prakriti".

Because God is bliss personified, he cannot be attached to anything or anybody. Therefore, he is strictly impartial. He is the 'power' behind everything and is everywhere: both in the individuals and in 'the universe' (using 'the universe' for 'prakriti'). He must be an 'antaryami' (present internally in everything and everywhere) because he would not "have everything" if he was not. Were he not to be in a gnat or an ant, he would lack something, namely "what it feels to be like a gnat or an ant". So, he has to be everywhere.

Now, we can begin to sense the generic question behind these propositions: If this is what 'bliss' is, that is, not lacking anything, and if this entity is bliss personified and is present in each one of us (and elsewhere too) are 'we' not, in reality, or in our essence, also identical to this entity? Tat Tvam Asi, 'thou art that': is not this what one of the mahAvAkya tells us? 'Aham Brhmasmi", as another of the mahAvAkya also tells us. Does it really matter what you call this 'blissful entity' as? And so on.

From these propositions, if you draw the inference, which you want to, "hence, he governs the Universe", you need to understand 'governing' as (a) an impartial act; (b) by the 'power' in the 'core' of each one of us and (c) present in the rest of the Universe. One could also identify oneself with one's 'core', and hence with the 'power' present in that 'core', and become an advaitin. Alternately, one could differentiate this 'power' from oneself and postulate 'another' entity: and hence the dvaita traditions.

In other words, the generic question behind these propositions brings us to the Indian debates and Indian traditions, which are far, far removed from the Semitic theological debates. The Biblical God is distinct from, and alien to, the creatures He has created; he has plans and purposes in creation; His intention (or will) expresses itself as the laws of the Universe; we cannot know (or ask) why He created the Universe; even when He tells us (through His revelation) why He did what He did, we do not understand it adequately, and so on and so forth. This is what Jakob was trying to tell you.

Friendly greetings
Balu.

The excitement of discovery

Over on cosmicvariance.com, new member physicist John Conway conveys the excitement of discovery in physics very well in this two part blog post, Bump Hunting, Part 1 and Part 2.

Don't you wish you were a physicist?


PS:
Physicist Tommaso Dorigo with some more insight.

Writing off pharyngula

Pharyngula turned from a great place to learn biology to a rather mediocre anti-religion/atheist site.

Nobel Laureate physicist Abdus Salam

"Abdus Salam is known to be a devout Muslim, whose religion does not occupy a separate compartment of his life; it is inseparable from his work and family life. He once wrote: "The Holy Quran enjoins us to reflect on the verities of Allah's created laws of nature; however, that our generation has been privileged to glimpse a part of His design is a bounty and a grace for which I render thanks with a humble heart."

PZ Myers, on "The unfortunate prerequisites and consequences of partitioning your mind", quotes approvingly a blog post that a person like Abdus Salam has no understanding of science, (I cannot but conclude that this person literally doesn't know why you have to look at things. They may have been taught a certain ritual of experimentation, but they don't understand the reason for it.)

and concludes:

"It's like asking someone if they understand science, and they can recite a string of facts at you … but they haven't absorbed the concept."

-----
The facts are contrary to what PZ Myers believes them to be, and he has great difficulty adjusting his mind to that.

The blog would be far more interesting if, e.g., it was discussed why it was that Abdus Salam could do great science (like many other great scientists) while partitioning their mind.

Equally painful are the almost all equally-dumbed-down-by-ideology commenters on pharyngula.

This is not an occasional phenomenon, but an ever-growing one that has taken over the blog.

So, I will go there no more.
-----

We are eating our planet to death

So claims Kathy Freston.

"The researchers found that, when it's all added up, the average American does more to reduce global warming emissions by going vegetarian than by switching to a Prius."

-- At this point I expect the science of global warming to become much less acceptable to a large number of people. The last time I brought this up, the comment was "But they are so tasty!"

Mr Straight Talk Express

""Do you know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father.""

Senator John McCain, Republican fundraiser event, 1998.

An interesting exchange

Senator Arlen Specter: "The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”

Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales: “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus . It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” (except in cases of rebellion or invasion)."

-- Harvard Law School should revoke his degree.

PS: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/20/191254/626 contains an excellent discussion of the issues involved.

Colbert on AT&T

Colbert's hilarious take on telecom divestitures and mergers:

Ruddy Idiot Guiliani

New York City Police Department

Quote:

"How many police officers are there in NYPD?

The NYPD's current authorized uniformed strength is 37,038, which is scheduled to increase to 37,838 in January 2007."

The New York Times, January 11, 2007

We glean from there that some 15,000 American troops were engaged in "Operation Together Forward II" to secure Baghdad in August 2006. Bush just announced another 5 combat brigades to be deployed - an increase of about 17,500 troops.

Therefore, total American troops engaged in securing Baghdad : about 32,500

Quote:

"Five brigades are to be sent to improve security in the greater Baghdad area — an increase of about 17,500 troops that will double the American force involved in security operations there."


Frank Rich, NYT, January 14, 2007

Quote:

"The one notable new recruit [to President Bush's bunker-world] is Rudy Guiliani, who likened taming Baghdad to "reducing crime in New York" without even noticing that even after the escalation there will be fewer American troops patrolling Baghdad than uniformed officers in insurgency-free New York City."

____________________________
Added a couple of hours later:

Frank Rich informed us a week ago that the Army counterinsurgency manual calls for a minimum of 20 troops per 1000 population. Say Baghdad has a population of 5 million (actually, Baghdad's population is 6 million or greater, at least 20% more). That means 100,000 troops minimum. After Bush's escalation, the US troops will be at 40,000 (actually about 20% less). Thus a minimum of 60,000 reliable Iraqi forces dedicated to Baghdad will be needed. Do they exist?

If it is true as the President says that Iraq is the central front in the decisive ideological struggle of our time, then we have to hope that what the army faces a problem in Baghdad with significantly less manpower requirements.

Otherwise, for success, the President really has only two options:
1. Raise American forces
2. Raise International forces

The US would probably have to pay for troops under the UN flag, but if the international community can be brought on board, there will be immediate availability of manpower. If the US can make no diplomatic headway there or it is unacceptable, then the President must probably call for a draft. In either case, funds will have to be raised via new taxes.

If this war is indeed vital, then the way to win it is to call for a general mobilization.

______________________

PPS:
Atrios on how the calculation above is being fudged.

Whither the Weather?

From the point of view of a crabapple (the very same one in all cases):

2004, April 24:


2006, March 29:


2007, January 10:


PS: the 2004 picture added later.
PPS: in 2003 also, the crabapple flowered in the last week of April.