Looking At The Heisenberg Microscope Ansatz In Quantum Mechanics

 

The Heisenberg microscope (above) is a simplified theoretical device used to teach basic quantum mechanics. We visit that again, in order to become more clear on what exactly is meant by the "particle" and "wave" observational limits. The same drawing is reproduced, but now for convenience, I also show the momentum vectors, p(x) and p(y).


Particle approach:

Consider a measurement made to determine the instantaneous position of an electron by means of such a microscope. In such a measurement the electron must be illuminated, because it is actually the light quanta (photon) scattered by the electron that the observer sees. The resolving power of the microscope determines the ultimate accuracy with which the electron can be located.

The resolving power is approximately:

 l/ 2 sin q

In order to be collected by the lens, the photon must be scattered through any range of angle from -q to q. In effect, the electron’s momentum values range from:

h sin q/ l   to   -   h sin q/ l  

Then the uncertainty in the momentum is given by:

D p_x  = 2 h sin q/ l   

 Where  l is the wavelength of the scattered light and q is the half-angle subtended by the objective lens of the microscope.  Then:

Δx   =  l/ 2 sin q

Consequently, the electron’s momentum value values range from:

h sin q/ l   to   -   h sin q/ l   

Thus the uncertainty in x-component of the momentum, D p _x, is given by:

D p_x  = 2 h sin q/ l   

in agreement with the Uncertainty principle. Then the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle product is:

D p _x   Δx   =    (2 h sin q/ l   )  (l/ 2 sin q)    = h

The key in the particle approach, is that any scattered electron (or photon) will be describable by the de Broglie relation:

p = h / mv

where m is the mass of the particle, and v its velocity.

In the wave approach, the end result will simply be consonant with replacing the quantity (mv) by L the wavelength.

Wave approach:

Imagine that the shutter shown (top of diagram with Δx ) is open abruptly and then closed again, allowing a single particle to pass through. A wave function whose spatial dependence is of the form: A exp (iK1 x)  arrives from the left as shown (Fig. 2).

We call the associated wave function y(x) , then its profile can be described:

y(x)    = 0, for x < -l /2

 y(x)  =  A exp (iK2 x)  , for -l /2  <   x <  l /2

so, the particle's position is localized between (-l /2) and (l /2). So, Δx  »   l .Then, to find the momentum wave function we simply integrate as shown in Fig. 3, leading to the result shown (bottom line):

which is again in agreement with the Uncertainty Principle. Thus, the same device can be used to obtain uncertainty principles for particles and waves, in slightly differing limits.

Whether a particle or wave will be visible depends on the scale of  Δ(k) in relation to Δx . The wavelength in general will be such that  l    »  1/k. I.e. as k retreats in size, l   becomes larger.

Technically, the wave-particle duality is actually a reflection of the Principle of Complementarity in Quantum physics. usually expressed via the Poisson brackets (with non-commuting variables x, p):

[x, p] = -i h = -i h/ 2p

where h is the Planck constant of action. If two variables a, b commute, then one has:

[a, b] = (a· b - b· a) = 0

if not, then: [a,b] = (a· b - b· a) = -1

And we say a and b are 'non-commuting'. (You may observe one aspect at any one time, but not the other).  In term's of Bohr's Complementarity Principle, the variables x (position) and p(momentum) are regarded as "mutually interfering observables". This is why only one can be obtained to precision, while you lose the other.

In another sense, one can think of approaching a particle in such way (or with such apparatus as the Heisenberg microscope) that it suddenly gets 'wavy' (on account of the scale of k in relation to dx). At that stage, as Bohm notes, the particle aspect vanishes and you have a wave.

Suggested Problem:

Consider the 1D quantum system shown,

 With maximum dimension L in direction +x. Find: (a) the probability P _ab  the particle is between a = 0 and b = L; (b) the expectation value <x> and (c) show the energy for the particle can be quantized according to:

 E _n = (h²/ 8m L²) n²

 Let the wave function be: y(x)  = Ö2/ ÖL    sin (kx)

 

Moving Beyond The Canned Response Of "Prayers" After Horrible Events, Personal Tragedies & Losses

 

"Prayers" seem to be the canned response after any tragedy - whether a natural disaster, a mass shooting, or a terrible personal loss.  But maybe it is time to change the brain's auto reaction mode here. The classic problem for belief in the effectiveness of any prayer is why it is always inconsistent. Until believers can provide satisfactory answers (other than “it is the Will of God”) then they don’t merit serious consideration or credibility.

Why does prayer work for some and not others? Why does it “work” sometimes for person X- then not at other times? Why does it work for half the people in a given disaster (say like the USAir crash in 1992) but not the other half?  

In each of these cases, a myopic and self-referential perspective is at work which translates into an arrogant deity believer.  This person believes his or her personal deity only works wonders on behalf of some (maybe she and friends), but not all people. This preferential deity model was especially fascinating in the aftermath of the horrific 2012 Aurora Colorado theater massacre, when 12 were shot dead by an assault weapon wielding murderer, but 58 survived. Among the survivors, all kinds of personal special dispensation stories were narrated afterwards.

 One of the surviving victims, Bonnie Kate Pourciau, actually claimed “God was holding us in His hands” as the shooting unfolded, and hence she and her friend Elizabeth  managed to walk out of the Century 16 cinema with Bonnie having only one gunshot in her leg[1]. (One wonders, of course, how an infinite deity with presumably infinite power he could have allowed even that stray bullet to hit her.)

A question arises here for Bonnie Kate and other Personal Divine Exceptionalists: How is it that your deity’s power did not extend to the others under fire or running for their lives? How is it that It could have allowed little 6-year old Veronica Moser-Sullivan to die? Didn’t that child deserve life and survival as much as you did?  Why didn’t that umbrella of presumably infinite divine power and protection cover all and sundry, instead of just you and your friend?

 In the end it really matters not, except again, that The Denver Post gave credence and legitimacy to such shallow views and beliefs by publishing them. The truth is that those like Bonnie Kate and her friend simply lucked out. There was no real personal (and supernatural) divinity clasping her hand except in her mind. It was a case of pure dumb luck that her seat wasn’t more directly in the gunman’s line of fire.

But let us imagine an actual deity exists and propose the dynamic behind the Aurora 12 and other episodes, e.g. like the five little girls who sought refuge in a church in Birmingham AL in 1994 -  and were promptly crushed when a tornado leveled the building - even as they prayed.

 If one accepts that the  existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is not supported by evidence that matches the outsized nature of the claims made for it, what is the alternative?   This deficiency between real events and expectations (i.e. of an infinite, omnipotent being)   could be redeemed if the concept was modified, for example to the Socinian deity.  First proposed by Socinus, it  is limited by never knowing more than the most advanced consciousness existing in the universe at one time. 

If limited in consciousness, this deity will also make errors. Physicist Freeman Dyson in one of  his books  ('Infinite in All Directions') describes an entity almost like a child[2]:

 

The main tenet of the Socinian heresy is that God is neither omniscient or omnipotent. He learns and grows as the universe unfolds.

 

Dyson adds that the beauty of adopting this construct is that it leaves room at the top for diversity.[3]   As this entity grows to fill the universe it becomes as much a diversifier as a unifying force[4].  In a manner of speaking, it would be something like an evolving Holomovement (Physicist David Bohm's term for a hyperdimensional, nonlocal consciousness) . The evolution, by the nature of the role of consciousness with in it (as a kind of integrated creative agent), would then advance as the constituent consciousness advances.   

Why then couldn't this Socinian deity save all in its sights, say at the Aurora cinema? Well, because it did not possess the full consciousness or awareness to do so.

However, a number of mystics believe the "rolls of personal dice" can to some extent be controlled by individuals, provided they enhance their own awareness.  In this sense, it bears some resemblance to Bernard Haisch's pantheistic- activation deity  (in his book The God Theory) wherein he observes that:  an Infinite Intelligence turns potential into experience, actualizes the merely possible, lets things happen that otherwise would not, lets novelty arise.

The novelty to which Haisch refers is what differentiates the puppet self  (which merely reacts to external events)  from the authentic SELF - which uses enhanced consciousness to help control events, outcomes.   Once one adopts specialized canned prescriptions he merely  reverts to puppet hood and novelty is abandoned.  This means one can't run one's life chained to any simple formula or authoritative artifact, whether the latter be a bible, a dogma, a Pope’s Encyclical, a statue, a prayer.

 As Andrew Newberg writes in his co-authored(with Eugene D'Aquili)  book Why God Won’t Go Away:

      At the heart of our theory is a neurological model that provides a link between mystical experience and observable brain function. In simplest terms: the brain seems to have been built with an  ability to transcend the perception of an individual self

 This last statement is extremely important, because it defines the potential encounter of the individual awareness ‘a’  with the totality of Being: ~ O, e.g. via defined in the esoteric relationship:

ॐ ~  O  ® Σ_i[y('past')_i + y ('future')_i]

Or more simply (for our purposes now):

ॐ ~ ®  O  ~  O

For which the undefined implicate (AUM)  ॐ - or totality - acts upon the explicated individual awareness a.  The latter is presumptively located in the brain’s OAA or orientation and association area (according to Newberg):

Which does not allow human rationality to limit it to the personal dimension. Once we do that, it ceases to be real. This means that all the personal God concepts used by most religions are only caricatures, since they actually impede attainment of the Unitary state of Being. In other words, one cannot simultaneously have an Absolute Unitary Being and a personal divinity, putatively described as the “One True God”. Haisch, in his own book is clear on the repercussions:

"Much of today’s religious dogma concerning God and the nature and destiny of mankind is flawed and irrational. It fails to resolve basic paradoxes, like why bad things happen to good people – and why some are born into riches and other, starvation and misery”

Again, suggesting people need to become active agents in mastering and directing their own consciousness -  and unifying it with the ultimate unified consciousness of the universe -  as opposed to remaining passive 'puppets'.

Hopefully, these insights will help make sense of my central thesis: That we are each explicated aspects of a single unified holistic Being but which we can access via the individual self-reference state:  ॐ ~  O .    Accessing means  we have the potential to affect the underlying reality in our favor, e.g. by enhancing its consciousness with our own.  In my new book, The Metacosm, I go into detail how this can be achieved in the last two chapters:

The Metacosm: Excursions In Advanced Metaphysics: Stahl, Philip: 9781304259332: Amazon.com: Books

See Also:

Brane Space: Is Mysticism Ruled Out By The Copenhagen Interpretation Of Quantum Mechanics? Not Really

And:

Brane Space: Bernard Haisch’s God Theory (I)

 

---

[1] Bartels,, Lynn.: The Denver Post, July 26, 2012, 1A

[2] Dyson: Infinite in All Directions, 119.

[3] Op. cit.,120.

[4] Ibid.

Solutions To Differential Geometry Problems (2)

 Problems:

1) Sketch the graphs of;

x ₂  = - Ö( 8 ²   -   x ₁ ²)

And:

x ₂  = - Ö( 16 ²   -   x ₁ ²)

On the same Cartesian axes.

Solution:

2)(a) Write the polar form of the equation of the line:

3 x ₁   +   4 x ₂   =  5

b)Determine the polar (r,  q) equation for :

x ₁ ²  + x ₂ ²   -  2ax ₂  =  0,    a  ≠   0

And sketch the resulting curve.

Solutions:

(a) x ₁ = r cos q

x ₂   =  r sin q

then:  3 x ₁   +   4 x ₂   =  3 r cos q + 4 r sin q

The polar form of the equation is:

r [3 cos q + 4 sin q]  =  5

(b) x ₁ ²    +    x ₂ ²  =   ( r cos q ) ²  +  ( r sin q ) ²

=   r ² (cos ² q   +   sin ² q) 

=> (eqn. of circle)   r    =   2 a x ₂  =   2a  sin q  

Here's A Clue: Having the Most Popular Propaganda Cable Network Is Nothing To Brag About.

 

The  NY Times columnist Thomas Edsall spares no balderdash in his latest (12/11)  piece 'Democrats Have No Easy Way Out'.

He blabs:

"The weakened condition of the Democratic Party leaves it ill prepared to defend itself against a Republican Party determined to eviscerate liberalism and the left."

Huh? What 'weakened condition?'  Last I checked the Dems had picked up the last four House seats and now have ensured the slimmest majority for the Pukes in recent history, 217-215, after the three picks Trump nominated for cabinet posts leave in January. 

Further, let's get clear Trump did not win a majority (defined as > 50%). He snared 49.8% meaning this is still basically a 50-50 country, not a 90-10 one as Edsall would have us believe. We now know, as with 2020, a barely 300 k switch in votes transpired in the swing states - which created this situation. And one can almost singlehandedly blame Elon Muskrat for pumping some $98 million in targeted ads  into those 7 states, to brainwash it minions - enough of them anyway - to vote Dotard.   

Examples of his planting the fear bug in susceptible brains:

- Dems secretly letting school kids be subjected to trans surgeries

- Trans kids being allowed to take over school restrooms as well as sports

- Migrants illegally casting ballots in border states.

- Illegal immigrants being allowed to run amuck with gangs in assorted cities (e.g. Aurora, CO) and also killing honest American citizens

-Crime soaring in numerous 'blue' cities, prefiguring what will happen across America should Harris be elected.

- Out of control inflation in food and housing owing to Biden's economic policies ("Bidenomics")

- FOX News (and WSJ, NY Post) incessantly pounding the Dems' "lawfare" - claiming it "victimized" Trump as a candidate.

Muskrat the billionaire knew exactly what he was doing with this barrage of 'micro-targeting' ads, and he knew the demographics which would be most vulnerable to their siren calls, including: suburban white ('Soccer') moms, Hispanics already blessed with citizenship or green cards,  Gen Z kids terrified of exploding housing, food costs.

According to The UK Independent:

"From criminal, evil, and crazy to great, strong, and good. Voter perceptions of Donald Trump have gone through an extraordinary transformation during the past six months as the former president moved into a polling lead and then won the election."

Look, I attribute this erosion of just enough brain cells to tilt the election to Dotard to a preponderance of the victimized parties-voters to get their news from podcasts, social media (which often re-posted FOX News material, clips).  This in essence is what had snookered significant fractions of key demographics to switch their allegiance and votes to Trump in the past half year or so.

Yet Thomas Edsall seems blissfully dismissive of these corrosive impacts, preferring to scribble:

"Evidence of the fraught state of the party can be found everywhere. Pew Research asked Democrats and Republicans whether they were optimistic or pessimistic about the future of their party after the five presidential and midterm elections from 2016 to 2024. Republicans in 2024 were more optimistic, 86 to 13, than after any of the previous four contests, including Donald Trump’s 2016 victory. Among Democrats, optimism fell to 51 percent, while pessimism rose to 49 percent, well below the 61 to 38 for Democrats after the 2016 election."

Which, of course, proves nothing. Only that party optimism would naturally have taken a dive (as it has in 2024) given the expectation of the first female president being dashed - and instead a self-admitted pussy grabber and felon-traitor won.  This also torches Edsall's citing  Ken Martin, the chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party  when he fired off a memo to party leaders, reading:

For the first time in modern history, the perception that Americans have of the two major political parties switched. The majority of Americans now believes that the Republican Party best represents the interests of the working class and the poor, and that the Democratic Party is the party of the wealthy and the elites. It’s a damning indictment on our party brand.

Which again, is based on subjective perceptions, not facts. That a "majority" of Americans now believes the Reeps "best represent the interests of the working class" merely proves the extent to which these respondents have been manipulated and swallowed wholesale misinformation and propaganda.  

It is not an "indictment of the party brand" but rather of the intelligence of the average American voter. Whose inability to see beyond Trump's lies ('I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution,') and the barrage of false ads - showed a disarmingly low level of objective recognition - and yes IQ. And no, those Trump words were not 'channeling a nation's rage' as Rahm Emmanuel seems to think. They were rather channeling a gullible segment of the electorate's misplaced rage.

Confirming what one Cambridge University Polysci Prof opined before the election:  that he didn't believe Americans had the intelligence not to put Trump back in office. And he was proven correct. Now these political lemmings are rushing to Best Buy and Costco to stock up on goods before Trump unleashes his tariffs. As one goofball quoted in the WSJ put it: "I gotta take the man at his word!"  Before high-tailing it to Costco to get 10 pkgs. of  Peet's roasted coffee for his wife.

So why didn't you take the man at his word before voting for him, dummy?

Further evidence that this Cambridge U. Prof was spot on emerges in Edsall's next paragraph:

"Polling suggests that Trump is ideologically closer to the median voter than Kamala Harris. Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank, conducted a post-election survey asking voters to place themselves, Harris and Trump on a scale ranging from zero (very liberal) to 10 (very conservative). The mean response was 2.45 for Harris, 7.78 for Trump and 5.63 for all voters."

Again, this merely shows the affected voters' brains were mutated away from a standard of normal political recognition that would confer a modicum of intelligence.  To actually believe a 34- times convicted felon, and twice impeached insurrectionist, adjudicated rapist could be 'placed' within the spectrum of a median voter is insanity. It shows either: a) Most voters now side with a criminal scum, or (b) most voters have such low IQs (<80-85) they are unable or unwilling to see Trump for what he is.

Then we have Edsall going on to cite another set of hog swill from Matthew Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University.  This so-called historian:  "voiced serious doubts by email about the ability of the Democratic Party to compete successfully with the Republican Party".   The doofus actually wrote;

"A party whose base consists of culturally liberal, largely well-educated white Americans and a shrinking share of voters of color is almost by definition going to find it impossible to defend American democracy." 

The "shrinking share of voters of color" to which Dallek refers is actually a distortion. The share shrunk - as numerous postmortems revealed- because a significant sliver (9-10%) of black males decided to change their votes for Trump. Why? Because: a) they were more enamored of his 'macho' patina, especially after getting shot, and (b) they absolutely did not want to see a woman president.  These reflect a defect and dysfunction in the voters themselves, not in the party or candidate. The shrinking share of voters of color then, is largely a matter of their own prejudices which are beyond the bounds of reason to control. 

 Further, Dallek omits that both white and black non-college educated males played the major role in the slide to Trump. But what would one expect of half-educated simpletons?  And yet, what?  He fulminates about the Dem party having "largely well-educated voters".  Well fuck, I'd rather have them than poorly educated! (Trump already bragged in the 2016 campaign he 'loves the poorly educated'. Well sure, because they can be more easily bamboozled!)

But Edsall then quotes more Dallek bunkum:

The Democratic Party is perhaps more rudderless than at any time since Bill Clinton’s presidency. Its leadership is aging. The party seems culturally out of touch to many Americans. Its brand is associated with championing niche interests, and the party — despite some crucial electoral victories — has ultimately failed its overarching mission since 2015 of defeating and defanging the MAGA movement.

 In fact, the Dems are not "rudderless".  Look, large fractions of voters were bitching about Biden's age in polls right up to when he bowed out. Kamala Harris then entered the campaign and excitement reigned for a brief time as this younger candidate (by 2 plus decades), also clobbered Trump in their first and only debate, e.g.

In ABC Debate Kamala Devastatingly Shows Only One Candidate Is Sane and Fit to Be President.

WTF happened? Well, despite Kamala Harris "knocking Trump for six", his distortion and agitprop machine went into overdrive to misrepresent Kamala and the Dems - with no small help from Muskrat's $200 + million in campaign support ads ($98m to swing states alone). By the time the dust settled, just on the eve of Nov. 5th, the Trumpsters had convinced enough swing state voters to cast ballots for a 34x convicted felon and traitor. As one Denver Post comment writer put it in yesterday's paper:

"In November this country elected a man to be president - a convicted criminal - who cares only about himself.  This country has lost its soul and the only letters that matter now are M and E."

Which pretty well nailed it in my opinion.

Another Dallek quote is worthy of attention:

"The Democratic Party faces a heavy burden: It has to defend democratic institutions in a time when these institutions are reviled by a large majority of the American electorate. Its message to the public that it is a bulwark of democracy failed to resonate with voters in November. "

Why is this? It helps to recall Thomas Jefferson's words in his Notes on Virginia, i.e.

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves therefore are its only safe depositories. AND TO RENDER THEM SAFE, THEIR MINDS MUST BE IMPROVED"

Jefferson knew every government did disintegrate if the "rulers" alone determined its fate. There would always be tyrants, kings etc, seeking to impose their will. This is why he expected the PEOPLE had to become its safe depositories, i.e. in protecting their democratic Republic. Also, this had to go beyond "bread and butter" issues which were bound to vary year by year. So Jefferson's words meant the voters being attentive to the nation's politics and political dynamics. But NOT being misinformed by bogus political ads and propaganda networks. Again, it's all on the voters to be educated and responsible.  

One last quote from Thomas Edsall factors into the mix:

• "Forbes reported on Nov. 29 that “MSNBC’s prime-time audience has dipped 53 percent since the week before the election,” closely followed “by a 47 percent drop by CNN — while Fox News has largely held on to its audience since President-elect Donald Trump’s victory.”

Again, in the "DUH" category. Of course, MSNBC's prime time audience would crater given its intelligent viewers remain in a state of shock. Shock that so many fellow citizens could be driven down a rabbit hole of insanity to vote for a proven criminal, felon and traitor- who promised retribution on political "enemies".  But I do expect viewership will pick up as Trump and the Reeps suffer a succession of losses, starting with his ghastly nominations of terror apes crapping out. (Mitch McConnell has already warned Trump that none of them will be "automatic" in terms of confirmation.)

 Let me be blunt: A cable news network - like FOX - that earns its mass audience via brainwashing and propaganda-  to undermine Jefferson's advice - isn't worth an ounce of doggie lickspittle. Further, the recent glorification of the murdering punk Luigi Mangione - to the extent of even creating deranged 'Christlike' images of the imp:

Falls in the same category as the glorification of the psychotic traitor and felon Trump - e.g.

Leading to millions casting votes for the POS, antithetical to the protection of democratic principles put forward by Jefferson.  It also captures the insanity of the moment described by Catherine Rampell in a recent Washington Post piece:

"This is an escalation of an existing political trend: public bloodlust for destruction and retribution. Americans are rejecting leaders who propose solutions for their problems in favor of antiheroes who want to burn everything down — figuratively or literally."

Needless to say this is an ill omen, which may presage the destruction and dissolution of our democracy that so many have fought to protect  - and even died for. But when too many lose sight of the path of reality, and are sucked down rabbit holes of gibberish and lies, this is what can happen.

On that note, the biggest pile of balderdash to yet emerge in parsing the post-election results emanated from a piece by Schoen and Cooperman (The Hill), blabbing:

"Our poll suggests that Democrats ran the wrong campaign. Whereas they ran a “values campaign,” focused on a government Americans could trust, what voters really wanted was an effective government, and on that, they preferred Donald Trump. "

In other words, these dumb, clueless voters actually believed a twice-impeached traitor, egomaniacal felon, congenital liar and braggart would be more "effective" in meeting their needs, and screw the values (honesty, decency, truth) in total opposition to Jefferson's words. But it does explain why a majority of these numbnuts approve of Trump's derelict nominations.  Picks that former Georgia Lt. Governor Geoff Duncan recently skewered, i.e.

Ex-GOP Official Shreds Donald Trump’s Picks With Withering Metaphor

To wit:

“If you told me that Donald Trump was building an administration to run a frat house, I’d believe you,”

We are in parlous waters indeed if so many voters think it's cool to have our nation run by a bunch of frat house Bozos.

See Also:

Trump says reducing food prices will be ‘very hard,’ after campaign promise to cut costs - The Washington Post

And:

Donald Trump

‘Did He Lie?’ Trump Questioning His Price-Lowering Promises Sparks Anger

by David Badash | December 13, 2024 - 6:43am | permalink

— from Alternet

As a candidate, Donald Trump campaigned—and won—this year on the promise he would lower prices for Americans angry after the COVID pandemic’s inflation brought steep price increases, but now he’s backtracking, saying he’s not sure he will actually be able to fulfill those vows. Outrage at Trump, and the people who voted for him based on that pledge, was palpable on Thursday.

As recently as Sunday, MSNBC reports, Trump insisted, “We’re going to bring those prices way down.”

On Monday, Fox News reported: “Pointing to high grocery prices, Trump says, ‘I won an election based on that'”

But in his TIME magazine “Person of the Year” interview, Trump suggested he might not be able to lower prices as he promised to do. Appearing to remove himself from the equation, he declared: “It’s hard to bring things down once they’re up. You know, it’s very hard.”

» article continues...

And:

 Donald Trump | Elon Musk | Social Security

The Trump-Muskrat Plot To Kill Social Security

by Robert Reich | December 10, 2024 - 7:05am | permalink

— from Robert Reich's Substack

Sorry to intrude on your inbox for a second time today, but Elon Musk has revealed the truth about what he plans to do with his so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE): Gut Social Security and Medicare.

Musk retweeted a series of posts by Utah’s Republican Senator Mike Lee, who dubbed Social Security “deceptive” and called for its dismantling. “Interesting thread,” Musk added.

» article continues...

And:

Pardons

Pardoning Trump’s Opponents Isn’t Weakness—It’s a Stand for Democracy

by Thom Hartmann | December 14, 2024 - 6:20am | permalink

President Joe Biden should not only pardon Anthony Fauci, Liz Cheney, and the entire January 6th congressional panel, but hundreds more who are potentially in the crosshairs of Trump, Musk, Patel and his other malevolent henchmen.

If you think the chances of Trump’s enemies getting prosecuted are small because, after all, none of them have committed crimes of any consequence, I refer you to Hunter Biden, who was pursued by David C. Weiss, a rightwing inquisitor appointed by the Trump administration under Bill Barr to take Biden down.

Hunter bought a gun and checked the box that said words to the effect of “I am not using illegal drugs” on federal Form 7743. So did millions of other Americans who possess and smoke pot, a federal crime even though it may be legal in their state.

As Jacob Sullum, writes for Reason, the “survey data suggest that millions of American gun owners are illegal drug users, meaning they are guilty of the same felony that Hunter Biden committed by possessing a firearm.”

» article continues...

And:

Immigration

Time for Truthful Narratives on Immigration

by Sonali Kolhatkar | December 9, 2024 - 6:29am | permalink

A quiet panic has broken out within immigrant communities across the United States ahead of Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2025. Mixed-status families are expecting to be separated, DACA recipients foresee their status being revoked, those with Temporary Protected Status are pessimistic about the program remaining valid, and asylum seekers fear the worst. Indeed, if Project 2025’s anti-immigrant agenda is fully enacted, the horrors of family separation that the nation witnessed in 2018 under Trump’s first term will pale in comparison to what’s coming.

And yet, Trump might claim that this time, he’s merely following the public’s desires. The prevailing story of the 2024 presidential election is that voters were so fed up with immigration upending their lives that they picked a leader who promised to do something about it. Headlines such as this New York Times piece on Election Day claimed, “Voters Were Fed Up Over Immigration. They Voted for Trump.” Indeed, polls showed likely voters ranking immigration as either the top issue, or second only to the economy.

» article continues...