Tuesday, September 22, 2020

Either Of Trump's Top 2 Female Picks For Supreme Court Would Be An Atrocity For American Women


Amy Coney Barrett (top) and Barbara Lagoa, are Dotard's top two picks to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.  Either one, added to an already 5-3 conservative court, will mark endless nightmares for citizens' rights - starting with the take down of the Affordable Care Act and then overturning Roe v. Wade

"The two sucking up most of the oxygen in the speculation, and whom power-addled Donald Trump seems to be able to keep in his head, are over-the-top extremist and extremist: Amy Coney Barrett, representing The Handmaid's Tale as societal model wing, and Barbara Lagoa, the quid pro quo choice.

Starting with Barrett: She does indeed belong to an extreme, charismatic wing of the Catholic Church called People of Praise, which actually did serve as the inspiration for Margaret Atwood in her dystopian novel, The Handmaid's Tale....

These are dumpster fire candidates, neither worthy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat. They're not worthy of their current seats, Barrett by virtue of her lived rejection of the establishment clause and Lagoa over a proven disregard for ethics."- Joan McCarter, smrkingchimp.com (see 1st link at bottom) 

We learned over the weekend that Florida Repukes - from acolytes of resident Trump to former top aides to Jeb Bush, have lined up behind Barbara Lagoa, propelling the federal judge and Miami-born daughter of Cuban exiles to the top of the shortlist of potential replacements for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg..

This swift ascension of Lagoa -   the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals judge -  to serious consideration by members of Trump’s team (along with Amy Coney Barrett of the 7th Circuit)  is not surprising in the least.  The picks  reflect the blunt political calculations informing the White House’s decision-making 45 days from an election that could turn on the outcome in Florida, which has never sent a justice to the nation’s highest court. Currently Trump is facing a tight race in the state, whose electoral college votes are seen as critical for his path to reelection, is intensifying his courtship of Hispanics, especially the heavily Republican Cuban American community in South Florida.

Recall these are the same reprobates who hid the arch criminal and mass murderer Luis Carriles Posada  from authorities as he sought refuge in a friendly community after his escape from a Venezuelan prison. See e.g.

https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2005/05/18/cuban-terrorist-arrested-in-miami/

 (In his autobiography, Posada also thanked Miami-based Cuban activist Jorge Mas Canosa for the $25,000 that was used to bribe guards who allowed Posada to walk out of prison.)


Posada, along with Orlando Bosch and Freddy Lugo,  orchestrated the bombing of  Cubana Airlines Flight 455 off the south west coast of Barbados in October, 1976, killing all 73 innocents on board. The facts were well known, despite the U.S. government - then under Gee Dumbya Bush-  dragging its ass on doing any prosecutions (while Posada hid in Miami) - and only later punting by trying to prosecute Posada on perjury charges.  That lame case was lost in Texas, in April, 2011 . Never mind - we all understand how much clout Florida carries in the general election with its 27 electoral votes, and we knew at least some efforts were made to placate Miami's Cubans.   As they are now with the Barbara Lagoa considerations.

Daniel Goldberg, legal director of the Alliance for Justice,, has no  doubts Lagoa (as well as Coney Barrett) will meet Trump's litmus test for the net female court pick:  overturning Roe v. Wade, and killing the Affordable Care Act (by asserting the mandate is "unconstitutional")   The effect of this move would be to eliminate access to affordable health care for up to 24m of our fellow citizens.

Either one of these sanctimonious viragos would pose a nightmare for women, minorities and sane citizens by tilting the court to 6-3 conservo bias - which could last over a generation.  (Another reason why this election is so critical).   But for my money, the Right's real push will be to get Amy Coney Barrett the seat, especially as she was passed over in the previous nomination circus for Brett Kavanaugh.  You recall, the entitled wimp who infamously balled and cried at his own confirmation hearing with all them wicked libs picking on his sorry ass,


So  I am convinced Amy Barrett will get the nod this time  I could be wrong but that's my Vegas bet.  But as I noted in a post two years ago,  neither Mrs. Barrett or Mrs. Lagoa are equipped to address the needs of most of our 325 m citizens and their rights.   Amy Coney Barrett may well be quite a nice person, as well as being a dutiful, devoted Catholic mom of 7 kids. As nice as she may well be, we cannot afford to have her as a Supreme Court Justice,  Why, apart from her extremist positions on the ACA and abortion?

At issue here is whether Barrett can deliver honest,  well reasoned judgments in critical cases such as to do with abortion, and lower case rulings re: Rose v. Wade.  At root is the extent to which the group to which she belongs, called People of Praise, which has roughly 1,700 members,  will be dictating her brain dynamics as she considers any abortion or contraception cases (the latter say, as regards contraception provided via the ACA for employees of religious outfits.)

A critical aspect of the group is their belief that they can receive divine or other esoteric, spiritual  messages via "speaking in tongues".   An old saw I recall from my brief exposure to charismatic Catholicism  in the early 70s went like this: "It's okay and fine when you talk to God, as when speaking in tongues....but the time to worry is when God starts talking back!" Indeed. And the issue here becomes how does one distinguish an internal "voice" issuing from a brain center, from an external "God"?

Put another way: When Amy Barrett issues judgments how can we be certain these will be forged by her innate intellect and not products of  "spiritual" voices she may "hear"?  This question is not frivolous at all, nor should it be construed as an attack on religion, on charismatics or on Catholics. Given its massive impact on human lives and life quality,  religion can never be exempt from serious scrutiny - or even criticism where and when appropriate.

To make a long story short, the brain research of Andrew Newberg and Eugene Daquill ('Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief’.)  clearly shows how the visual attention area of the brain's orientation association area (OAA)  can easily gain ascendancy over higher cognitive centers.  This was seen (in PET Scan experiments) when it began to deprive the right orientation area (responsible for balance)  of all neural input not originating with the contemplation or religious ideation.  In the words of the authors: "The subject had to surrender to the supremacy of the ideation which is perceived as the whole depth and breadth of reality"

Now, if Coney Barrett belongs to a group that gives prominence and unquestioned validity  to  speaking in "tongues" then these will play the same role as a fixed religious ideation or imagery in the OAA experiments of Newberg and Daquill.  In effect, the recipients will firmly believe they are in a special communication loop and privy to information and knowledge - say from the divine- that no one else is.  This is clearly going to cause them to also be convinced they possess superior judgment.

 Again, in itself there's nothing wrong with pursuing activities such as speaking in tongues or even "channeling" past saints  etc.  But it does lead the inquiring skeptic to ask whether such practitioners can also reliably serve as rational Justices on the Supreme Court.  

If Coney Barrett is indeed named to the highest court compliments of  the nation's pussy grabber-in-chief, it is the signal for all out resistance on a massive, national scale.  That is, taking to the streets on the same scale as the George Floyd protests at their peak.  In other words, this nomination cannot be allowed to materialize or proceed without some massive public pushback - given it's already laden with bad optics for the Repukes..  Of course, that also applies to Barbara Lagoa, and to Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz-  two even more depraved picks than the women - who at least have moral centers (never mind they are  a bit off!)

It is possible the average low information voter may wonder what all the furor is about. But if that is the case then this voter hasn't fully considered consequences of a slew of coming cases going the wrong way.  Take just the ACA and it's  mandate being found unconstitutional.  If a 6-3 conservative court majority manifests then 24 million Americans could be facing:

1) End of Medicaid expansion especially in red states.

2)  Children no longer able to be kept on parents' plan until the age of 26.

3)  Pre-existing conditions, including COVID symptoms,  no longer covered.


If the ACA is effectively neutered, as Trump and his  conservative Cossacks want,  it means tens of millions losing their health care and in the midst of a pandemic that has now cost over 200,000 American lives with no sign of abating.   It also means the only options will be high deductible "plans" pushed by the GOP - which will be full of holes for coverage for a range of conditions.

In the case of reproductive autonomy U.S. women will basically have to kiss it goodbye.  Many may not realize there are at least 20 cases (according to NARAL) in various stages of judicial review that could significantly gut the protections of Roe . Wade, even they don't get to the Supreme Court.  Most of these cases will also severely limit access to contraception as soon as an Amy Barrett Supreme Court takes them up. 

Many red state legislators no longer hide their ultimate goal of targeting the pro choice movement. Any given upcoming Supreme Court ruling with Amy Barrett (or Barbara Lagoa) on the bench will likely result in powerfully criminalizing most forms of artificial contraception - as well as abortion - and punishing the women who opt for them.   Much of this could occur if the equivalent of a "personhood" ruling is passed.

Meanwhile, before RBG's body was even interred at Arlington the animated fecal matter named 'Trump' was bellowing over the airwaves (to FOX and Friends) the real reason he wants to rush to a seat replacement, barking:   

"We should act quickly because we're probably going to have election things involved here.  you know because of the fake ballots they'll be sending out."

So the orange swine admits the court needs its 6th conservative because whatever the result he already plans on contesting it.  Thus, Donnie Bonespurs-  aka Traitor Trump -  is yapping openly about wanting to quickly confirm a new justice so that justice can vote to give him the presidency.   Thus, effectively marking the worst electoral travesty since a 5-4 Supreme Court decision  handed Gee Dumbya Bush the presidency in 2000. A catastrophe eloquently described by Vince Bugliosi in his book,  'The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President'.

A battle looming? You had better believe it, and it's just getting started. Especially in the wake of Trump's words yesterday after we hit 200,000 coronavirus dead: "I don't think this virus has affected hardly anybody."   

Maybe Capt. Bonespurs will remember those words when his sorry orange ass is kicked out of the White House on January 20th next year.   While Trump  Lied, 200,000 Died.


See Also:


A:nd

And:



Monday, September 21, 2020

Transhumanism : Another Cockeyed Concept Destined To Fail From Human Hubris



Biochemist and author Barbara Ehrenreich has been trying to get more humans  to raise their consciousness regarding death for some time now.  But it appears humans, determined to reach for "immortality",  are tin-eared to her messages. For example,    2 years ago she wrote (The Nation, 'The Great Equalizer', October, 2018, p. 32):


"No matter how much effort we expend, not everything is potentially within our control, not even our own bodies and minds. In death we will once again be equals - and so an egalitarian politics also means accepting this outcome.

You can think of death bitterly or with resignation, as a tragic interruption of your life, and take every possible means to postpone it.  Or, more realistically, you can think of life as an interruption of  an eternity of personal nonexistence, and seize it as a brief opportunity to observe and interact with the living, ever surprising world around us."

Of course, most Americans are squeamish in terms of death - even discussing it, tending toward euphemisms ("he just passed") - and more likely to buy into the codswallop of the longevity researchers, e.g.


But now an even more cockeyed immorality denizen has entered the picture, called the "transhumanist"  (WSJ,  June 20,  'Looking Forward to the End Of Humanity')  This lot don't merely expect to conquer old age but to surmount the entire spectrum of biological fragility, to end up with a kind of "transhuman future".   Thus (ibid.):

"With our biological fragility more obvious than ever, many people will be ready to embrace the message of the Transhuman Declaration, an eight-point program first issued in 1988", e.g.


While it sounds innocuous enough,  the author of the WSJ piece peels back the baloney to reveal what they are actually about, (Ibid.):

"People have always feared death and dreamed of escaping it. But until now, that hope has been formulated in religious terms. Transhumanism promises that death can be conquered physically, not just spiritually, and the movement has the support of people with the financial resources to make it happen."

And what, pray tell, are we looking at here?  Well, among the "avenues to immortality" discussed are:

-  Creation of nanorobots which could be programmed to live inside our cells and constantly repair any damage, halting aging in its tracks.

-  Genetic engineering could eliminate the mechanism that causes us to age in the first place. (And could also deliver genetic 'mistakes' such as hybridomas, or else humans with serious genetic defects.)

- Transferring consciousness to special computers - where it "can survive indefinitely".  In the words of one specialist associated with the Human Connectome Project: "We can put the connectome on a laser beam and shoot it to the Moon! In one second our consciousness is on the Moon. In 20 minutes we're on Mars."

Yeah, that sounds cool. But WHO is controlling it, the connectome?  The people behind it, behind the 'curtain'? And say they have a grudge against you for some reason, and hit the 'delete' button, what happens to your consciousness?  Or what if the system is hacked by bad actors bent on deleting all those humans foolish enough to have allowed their consciousness to be uploaded? (Maybe they're outraged at what they see as the latest manifestation of gross inequality.)

Well, for now at least, it appears the transhumanists haven't considered all the unintended consequences of their projects. For example, what if the nano-robots mentioned above somehow have their programming go haywire and begin ripping apart cells instead of repairing them?

According to the author (Adam Kirsch) "the internet has already made it largely unnecessary to physically visit places like banks, post offices and movie theaters."

Well, true, but while doing all those things on my computer I am still in possession of my consciousness. It remains localized to the physical site of my brain, it hasn't been "shot" off to the Moon or Mars via a connectome.  Hence, while doing online banking or using the post, I remain in control of the process, not some AI entity that promises me immortality.

Which elicits the question: What exactly is wrong with having a finite life?  Did it ever occur to these transhumanists  - as well as their radical life extension cousins- that evolution designed humans to be temporary?  Not to be around forever, or even a long time? In her own take,  Barbara Ehrenreich  observes that contemporary society is:

 "so deeply invested in the idea of an individual conscious self that it becomes both logically and emotionally impossible to think of a world without it."  


Hence, the core problem with the transhumanist aspiration: the total belief and investment in an individual conscious self.  Thus, the notion it can be "uploaded" to a special computer to be preserved.  But what if the technological act of detaching the consciousness from the brain's neurons results in an entity no longer human, or with recognizable human traits?  What if our humanity in the end is contingent on the neuronal (biological) basis in 'meat'? 

Now, to me what is more defensible in terms of resources is the goal of preserving the human species - say from an asteroid strike,   This is evidently the main goal of two think tanks, Humanity Plus and the Entropy Institute.   Thus there is a rational need for 'technological species protection" - which is also argued for by Tom Chivers - a science writer quoted in the WSJ piece.  As he puts it:

"Coronavirus isn't the thing that kills us all but it's a bloody good illustration of how something could."

But the point is we do not need to resort to the cockeyed techno fixes noted earlier (e.g. nanorobots)  to protect against an asteroid strike or nuclear war.  What we need is to do the hard work, say for designing a system to deflect an asteroid projected to strike the Earth.  Or in the case of the nuclear threat, work in tandem with other nations to devise treaties to limit their spread. And then, finally, to destroy them - before they destroy us.  It is possible, but it takes will and the vision of capable leaders-  not bombastic buffoons or narcissistic autocrats on ego trips.


These then are the goals we ought to be striving for, as opposed to "living to 500" (the claim of Bill Maris of Google Ventures) or  "people now in middle age never dying" (according to Aubrey de Grey).  

The trick, as with isolating fake news from the genuine article, is to separate  the hubristic bunkum from the real and achievable goals with a human (and humane) aspect. 

Saturday, September 19, 2020

Justice Ginsburg's Death Should Mean NO Rush To Fill Her Seat - So Dems Need to Prepare For War (Even Retributional)



Supreme court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Friday evening.  Her death leaves the court with eight members just weeks before it starts its new term and raises the possibility that the court’s balance of power could shift further to the right.  As messages of grief and gratitude for her life and career swept the country, millions of citizens now realize what the liberal icon’s death means for the Supreme Court and an already jittery nation.  

What SHOULD happen is Mitch McConnell and the Reepo Senate ought to adhere to the late justice's wishes, i.e. no filling of her seat until the new president is seated in January.   That was Justice Ginsburg's wish and it ought to be honored.


But we know the Reeps lack any sense of decorum or decency so no surprise to learn Friday night McConnell said that he would seek to confirm any Supreme Court nominee that Trump puts forward,  We also know last week Trump added 20 more names to his list of potential Supreme Court nominees, all of them with views sharply to the right of Justice Ginsburg.  Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees includes three Republican senators: Josh Hawley of Missouri, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Ted Cruz of Texas.  All of them disasters especially Cotton  who not long ago wrote a rabid op ed in the NY Times arguing for use of active military in protests. This is not a guy we want on the highest court.

This is also given the matter of serious long term ramifications.  Some of which we've already seen include repealing aspects of the Voting Rights Act, rolling back union protections as well as making it easier to fire older workers, and going after women's reproductive rights including abortion.  Make no mistake a 6-3 rightist court would be a living grotesque nightmare, not just for people of color, but for women and many other citizens. 

Further, just take a look at the cases looming on the Court's future docket, including: the future of the Affordable Care Act, issues of separation of church and state, and congressional access to grand jury materials. A Supreme Court finalized at 6-3 for the Right could also play a role in litigation of any contested elections, with the potential to give the benefit of the doubt to Trump's lawyers over Biden's.    That is the ultimate near future nightmare scenario.

In any case, any majority conservative Supreme Court could affect the lives of literally millions of Americans for decades, if not generations - on matter ranging from abortion to health care to the role of religion in public life. To put it in blunt terms, this is the outcome the Right has been salivating over for nearly 50 years. 

 We cannot let the bastards win, especially as it looks more and more likely the Dems can take the presidency as well as the Senate. 

 So Dems have to fight like junkyard dogs to ensure McConnell doesn't get to stuff some walking turd like Tom Cotton onto the court before inauguration day.  They need to use every procedural device in the book to delay, and maybe off the books.  (Preventing a vote for extension of gov't funding, as Sen. Mazie Horono suggested on ALL IN.)   If nothing can be done to stop the rush to torpedo Justice Ginsburg's wishes now then a retributional response can be done - assuming Dems win the presidency and Senate. That means killing the filibuster, and packing the court  - maybe up to 15 members, with 9 Dem picks.  As Janice put it: "It's time now we learn to fight like they do!"  Agreed!

What they - or we- can't do, is go quietly into that dark night.

See  Also:

Friday, September 18, 2020

Barr - The Trump Toad - Goes Berserk With Authoritarian Babble (Applying Sedition Law To Protesters? Seriously?)




Image may contain: 1 person

The bombastic 'Brat-in-chief' pleads with his Top Toad to go after DOJ prosecutors, medical experts, protesters and others - to help him sneak into  the Oval Office again.

Attorney General and Primo Trump Toad, errr. Toady, William Barr, told the nation’s federal prosecutors to be aggressive when charging violent demonstrators with crimes, including potentially prosecuting them for plotting to "overthrow the U.S. government", people familiar with the conversation said.  


In a conference call with U.S. attorneys across the country last week, Barr warned that sometimes violent demonstrations across the U.S. "could worsen" as the November presidential election approaches. He encouraged the prosecutors to seek a number federal charges, including under a rarely used sedition law, even when state charges could apply, the people said.     

This is, of course, totally deranged  and the calling card of an all out extremist authoritarian,  totally following in the footsteps of his authoritarian master, Dotard. It was also a prelude to more recent batshit crazy rhetoric (as media commentator Charlie Pierce noted on All In last night) showing how dangerous this guy is.  What rhetoric?  Well, appearing at Hillsdale College, in a "Breitbart-laden"  brain fart fest,  this fat toad compared pandemic lockdowns to "slavery" and  "house arrest", babbling:

"This is one of the greatest intrusions on civil liberty in American history."

Which is choice, given this is the same toad  wanted to use sedition law against protesters.   Barr in his harangue also went after DOJ prosecutors, saying:  

"Individual prosecutors can sometimes become headhunters all too often and are consumed with taking down their target.  When the most junior members set the agenda might be a good philosophy for a Montessori pre-school but it's no way to run a federal agency."

The  Trump Toad didn't mention any specific cases by name but he has been rightly criticized for moving to drop the prosecution of Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn - for his collaboration with the Russkies and even admitting guilt.  Indeed,  the report from the FBI Flynn interview, known as the FBI 302, showed clearly Flynn was not coerced in any way, and further was given every chance to take an honorable out.   To that end during the interview the agents gave Flynn every opportunity to come clean, even parroting back his own words to try to jog his memory. But Flynn insisted on lying about his conversations with the Russian ambassador Kislyak - regarding U.S. sanctions and a UN vote.  Given the FBI had intercepts of the phone conversations the FBI couldn't help but notice they conflicted with the public account. 

So Barr is yapping bare bullshit. What's more, the statement filed at the time of Flynn's guilty plea showed Flynn coordinated the substance of his calls to Kislyak with a senior member of the Trump transition team.  A collusion no brainer, hell a conspiracy no brainer.

Barr in his meltdown against his own DOJ prosecutors (none of them "juniors" - but rather seasoned career civil servants) also clearly chafed at the criticism he took for wanting to lighten the sentence of career criminal and pathological dirty trickster, Roger Stone.  Recall at the House Judiciary Committee hearing in July, this  bloated Toad had the effrontery to ask (WSJ, July 29, p. A3):

"Let me ask you, do you think it is fair for a 67-year old man to be sent to prison for seven to nine years?"

When a perceptive onlooker could have pointed out that Bernie Madoff - at age 71 years - was sentenced to 150 years for his esoteric  crime of using a Ponzi scheme to bilk his investors out of millions.  

Back to his blabbery about pursuing "sedition" charges against protesters.  Barr knows damned well the chilling effect this "sedition" bunkum is bound to have on first amendment free speech rights.   Jenny Carroll, a University of Alabama law professor put it into perspective (WSJ, Sept. 15), noting that  

“There’s all these different statutes the government can use if they are worried about things like property damage. If you start charging those people, even if you don’t get a conviction, it may make people think twice before going out to exercise their right to free speech.”

As I noted in previous posts, all this proves is that Barr is Trump's devoted  lapdog or primary toady. Doing the Dotard's bidding any which way to try to shoehorn this Hitler Jr.  authoritarian into four more years of misrule and destruction of democracy.   For that is Trump's  prime directive: disrupt and lie, bring specious charges and above all, weaken all agencies in the government- from the DOJ, to the FDA, to the CDC, to the NOAA.  Oh, yeah, and increase the U.S. death toll from the virus to 6.4 million to achieve "herd immunity" a la Scott Atlas quack theory, e.g. 

Barr has already done a bang up job on the DOJ - bringing this once - venerated independent arm of justice into disgrace by turning it into Trump's personal grievance and revenge outfit.    He's undermined the DOJ to the point of even calling career prosecutors "preschoolers"  because they believed in equal justice under the actual laws, not some "Reich" version that would set  criminal rat traitors like Michael Flynn free and pond scum like Roger Stone free earlier.   Meanwhile, at Hillsdale, Barr effectively declared HE is the final arbiter of justice as he took umbrage at the criticism that he interfered in the Flynn and Stone cases.  In his words:

"What do you mean by interfere?  Under the law all prosecutorial power is invested in the attorney general."

But that does not include undermining the law to pursue righteous prosecutorial power!   As former prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg put it thusly:  "The principles articulated may be appropriate. But he fails miserably in the execution. He continues to weigh in on behalf of the friends and allies of the president, which is deeply disturbing.."

It also flouts any even-handed recognition of justice as defined in our constitution. Which document was never intended to set the AG up as a law  unto himself. 

Barr, according to many pundits, is also likely to unleash an "October surprise" (assuming the Trumpies and Pompeo don't  find a way to start a war first) targeting the FBI operation "Crossfire Hurricane". That FBI investigation started after Trump lackey George Papadopolous shot his mouth off to an Aussie about campaign connections to the Russians.   Now, Barr aims to discredit it using a puppet named John Durham. 

Recall, for perspective that a 434-page report issued by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded the FBI had an “authorized purpose” when it initiated its investigation into the Trump campaign. In doing so, Horowitz implicitly rejected GOP assertions that the case was launched out of political animus, or that the FBI broke its own rules on using informants. 

At the time Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham  -  who Barr handpicked to conduct an investigation parallel to that of Horowitz-   wasn't having any of Horowitz conclusions, issuing his own statement:

Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.

This, of course, is total codswallop. How do we KNOW this? We have foreign intercepts of meetings of Trump cronies, e.g. Carter Page, with Russian  (GRU) agents.  It was these intercepts and related documents - including  FISA warrants- that disclosed just how deep the Trumpies were in with the Russkies. For more on those connections and even conspiracy to toss the election to Trump, read the Senate Intelligence Committee report final volume, entitled :  Volume 5: Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities,” 

We now know because of Barr and Durham's hijinks in trying to upend these earlier investigations,  a top aide to Durham (Nora Dannehy) has resigned (WSJ, Sept. 10, p. A4).   A colleague of Ms. Dannehy's said "the resignation was especially surprising because of her close relationship with Mr. Durham with whom she worked on complex and sensitive investigations."

But perhaps what she saw as Durham's betrayal of the rule of law, and especially cooperating with Barr in its destruction, was a bridge too far.  She likely was especially motivated to ditch the cesspool Durham was involved in after Barr told NBC News that "others would be criminally prosecuted in connection with the probe".  That includes anyone and every one involved in operation Crossfire Hurricane.   All this to try to whitewash the Mueller probe, the FBI investigation and all else that makes Trump into the conniving criminal he is.   

As Charlie Pierce said on ALL In last night:

"Not only was Barr making the argument (that you can prosecute members of the other party) he was saying that's the way the system is designed. It's crazy!  He's making the argument that the Department of Justice should operate as the political arm of whatever administration is in power.  And I'm sorry, that's just nuts."

Pierce then reminded viewers this was Bill Barr's modus operandi going back to the first Bush administration. Then he advised the elder Bush to pardon all those criminals connected to the Iran-Contra conspiracy who might testify against him.   As Pierce put it:  "Two times now he's taken the side of defending the executive branch instead of the American people and the Constitution."

That segment ended with a warning for voters to be aware of a trumped up "October surprise" and not be  misled by it.  We also need to heed Matt Miller's warning on the previous 'All In' expressing concern about what Barr might do regarding the mail ballot counts on election night or after. Especially as this Toad has - like Trump - gone after mail voting.  We need to be aware then, if his October surprise doesn't have the effect he wants, i.e. on polls,  he will try to scuttle the election's legitimacy (if Biden wins, or is leading) for his master Donnie Bonespurs.

Buckle your seat belts, kiddies, because we are in for a rough ride over the next 46 days- and beyond.

See Also:

AND:

Thursday, September 17, 2020

Solutions To Angular Momentum Problems

 1) Write each of the angular momentum operators:’

L x op   =  -i h   [y  (/x ) – x (/y)]
L y op   =  -i h   [z  (/x ) – x (/z)]
L z op   =  -i h   [x  (/y ) – y (/x)]

In spherical coordinates.

Ans.

L x op   =    iħ  [sin  f ( / q )  +  cot  q cos f   ( / f)]

L y op   =   iħ  [- cos  f ( / q )  +  cot  q sin  f   ( / f)]

L z op   =   -  iħ  ( / f)


2)   Consider the form:   [H, L x ]

Show that [H, L x ] = yZ  - zY and give the condition for H  and L x   to commute.

Soln.

Hamiltonian H  = p 2/ 2m  + V(r)

[H, L x ] = [  p 2/ 2m  + V(r)  ,   L x  ]  =  1/ 2m [ p 2 , L x  ]  + [V(r)  ,  L x ]  

[p 2 , L x  ] =  [ p x L x  ]  + [ p y L x  ]  +  p z L x  ]


 p x L x  ]  =   x  p x  L x  ]   +  p x  L x  ] p x


 p x  L x  ]  =  p x   y p z   - z p ]  =  0  

And, for constant angular momentum:  

p x  L x  ]   =  0   =  [H, L x ]  

Then:  [H, L x ] = yZ  - zY   

REM:

Z = z   = -i h   (/z )   and Y =  y   = -i h   (/y )

 H and L x  do commute ([H, L x ] = 0)  since a key property of central potential problems is that the angular momentum operators commute with the Hamiltonian .

Then:  [L x , H] =   0,   And  [H, L x ] = 0

i.e.  For all central potential Hamiltonians: [^L i,  H ] = 0 =   [H, ^L i 

 The above commutator implies that the  ^L i  operators are conserved in central potentials. 

3)  (a)

 (L’ x -  i L’ y) =

(0...0)
    (1....0)

And:  (L’ x +   i L’ y) =

(0...1)
    (0...0)

Hence the matrices are found to be Hermitian, which means the matrix is equal to its conjugate transpose.


b)  If ℓ  =  1   calculate (L’ x + i L’ y) m m’   


Soln.

(L’ x + i L’ y) m m’   =

ħ  [ ( -  m’ ) ( +  m’ + 1 ) ]1/2  exp (i m ℓ j)  d m m’+1  

=  ħ  [ (1  -  0 ) (1 +  0 + 1 ) ]1/2  exp (i 0  j)  [1]

 ħ   [Ö2 ]