Thursday, July 30, 2020

Solutions To Atomic Physics Problems

1)Find the Lande g-factor for an atom in each of the following states: 

3 F 3 ,  3 F 2  and   3  F 4  


The Lande g-factor is:

g  = 1 +  [J (J + 1) + S (S + 1) - L (L + 1)/ 2 J(J+1)]

For 3 F 3:   J = 3, S = 1,  L = 3

g  = 1 +  [3 (3 + 1) + 1 (1 + 1) - 3 (3 + 1)/ 2 x3(3+1)]

g  = 1 +  [12 + 2 -  12 / 24] = 1 +  1/12 = 1.08

For 3 F 2:   J = 2, S = 1,  L = 3

g  = 1 +  [2 (2 + 1) + 1 (1 + 1) - 3 (3 + 1)/ 2 x2(2+1)]

g  = 1 +  [6 + 2 - 12/ 12] = 1 +  (-4/12) = 8/12= 2/3

For  3 F 4:   J = 4, S = 1,  L = 3

g  = 1 +  [4 (4 + 1) + 1 (1 + 1) - 3 (3 + 1)/ 2 x3(3+1)]

g  = 1 +  [20 + 2 – 12 / 24]  =  1 +  5/12 = 1.41

2(a) Assuming the L· interaction to be much stronger than the interaction with an external magnetic field, calculate the anomalous Zeeman splitting of the lowest energy states:

2 S 1/2 ,  2 P 1/2  and   P 3/2  

In the hydrogen atom for a field of 0.05T

Present a table with the results of the calculations showing the energy states in the extreme left side column under ‘State’, with the headers of the other columns: 
L, S, J,  g  ,  M JD E (in eV x 10 -5  )


From the example problem :  

m J =   m J    J / | J |  =   g  (-e ħ /2m) Ö J (J + 1) [  J/ Ö J (J + 1) ħ =   
- e ħ /2m  (g J)

The energy splitting is then given by:

D E =  -  m J  B = e ħ /2m  g J·B  e ħ /2m  g B Je ħ /2m  g B M J

And we know already from quantum mechanics that:

M J   = J, J – 1,……, -J + 1, - J

So that for a given field intensity B each energy level will split into 2J + 1 sublevels with the amount of splitting determined by the  g –factor.

Then:   D E =   e ħ /2m  g B M J

  = (5.79  x 10-5 eV/T ) g  (0.05T) M J

So, calculate the value of g for each energy state, i.e.

g  = 1 +  [J (J + 1) + S (S + 1) - L (L + 1)/ 2 J(J+1)]

Then substitute into the equation for  D E   with the correct value of  M J

We obtain for the results table:

2(b)  Given that: m s  = - e (2S)/ 2m and:

m  =    (-e (L)/ 2m)

Show in a vector diagram that m  and J  are not parallel.

The Fed Warns Of Economic Calamity If People Don't Change Behaviors - And Dotard Retweets Idiot Quacks

Brane Space: Demonic Disease: How Belief in the Satanic turns humans into  Satanic beings
"I know it's true, what that Stella Immanuel said about demons! And I'm gonna retweet it! And yeah, I am a very stable genius!"

"I was probably the healthiest person you ever met. No pre-existing conditions, ski seventy to one hundred days a year.  But I got Covid, had sepsis, had MRSA, had a collapsed lung, and on a ventilator for thirty -one days. Hospitalized for sixty. Loss of blood pressure caused me to lose several fingers. I was on my death bed. This thing is for real, This virus is no joke,"      Greg Garfield,, Covid survivor, this morning on CBS

"It's so fundamental we can't say it enough. Until the virus is contained  the labor market won't be able to fully recover, leaving people in need of support. The path of the economy will depend significantly on the course of the virus."  - Fed Chair Jay Powell, WSJ, 'Business & Investing', p. B12. today.

As we learned this morning that the GDP shrank by 32.9 percent in the previous quarter (see WaPo link at bottom), we are now on notice that we had best change behaviors - or NO  part of the economy is coming back.  The news backed up  Federal Reserve  notices and interviews (over the past 4 weeks)  that if Americans don't collectively get on board in dealing with the virus, we are all for the economic high jump ('Fed's Outlook Grows Gloomier', WSJ, July 28, p. A2).    As noted therein:

"Officials have warned this month in speeches and interviews that the economy faces a deeper downturn and more difficult recovery if the country doesn't take more effective action to slow the spread of infection."

Boston  Fed President Eric Rosengren was even more blunt in his assessment:(ibid.):

"This economy will face severe economic consequences if the public health response doesn't improve."


"The Fed's policy response is not going to be able to offset all the losses if we continue to make serious public health mistakes."

This was endorsed by Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan:

"How well we follow the health care protocols from here is going to be the primary economic tool we have.left."

In other words, the Fed is out of miracle moves to rescue the economy, and this is the crux of the problem - as so eloquently stated by Jay Powell (see top quote). . It's now up to U.S. citizens to get their act together and work together to alter the course of the virus in the U.S.  This instead of engaging in endless mask wars and other self defeating idiocy while buying into fake notions of personal liberty.  We have to understand in this moment of peril our personal freedom has to be sacrificed for the greater communal good.  If we don't grasp that, if we don't act accordingly, you could as well write our epitaph - and not just for the economy.  In addition, the economic disaster coming will almost surely be compounded if a new huge Covid benefits package  (HEROES ACT) isn't passed, and I mean by TODAY!  If that $600/week unemployment extra benefit isn't in the package you can pretty well kiss the GDP and economy goodbye.  GDP depends on spending, and little or none will be done without the enhanced unemployment benefit.  As  financial contributor Jill Schlesinger said on CBS this morning:

"That extra $600 a week was spent in the economy. So without a new package I think we are going to see the economy flatten out." 

Alas, any change in behaviors for the 1 in 4 Americans who think it's all a "plandemic" or "hoax" may be a long way off.  This is given we have a  leader who is totally incompetent in his response to the pandemic, and done everything -including sidelining top medical experts - to ensure the death toll hits hundreds of thousands by November.  Worse, he has now started pandering to a classic crackpot and spreading her idiocy with his retweets.

Maybe Trump  sings the praises of Stella Immanuel -  a Houston pediatrician and demon believer -

because he senses her IQ is as low as his.   Immanuel, leader of Fire Power Ministries,  believes endometriosis and other potentially dangerous gynecological conditions are the residue of sexual intercourse with demons.  Incredibly,  this quack based at  the Rehoboth Medical Center in Houston, also has claimed "alien DNA"  has been used in medical treatments.  (I do hope in none of my prostate cancer treatments, including cryo-freezing of cancer cells back in 2017.  Were these replaced by 'alien DNA'?  Inquiring minds want to know!)

This crackpot quack Immanuel also teaches that demons, known as “spirit husbands” and “spirit wives”, once walked the Earth in physical form. After they drowned in Noah’s flood, however, they carried on only in non-corporeal form. They visit humans in sexy dreams, which aren’t dreams after all but spirit spouses making a booty call. This is almost as cracked as one "minister" (Contessa Adams) once claiming incubi and succubi inhabited sex toys and could possess the humans using them, see e.g.
By contrast, Immanuel's  demons are responsible not only for diseases of the female reproductive system but also for male impotence, most financial troubles, marital discord and spiritual malaise.

No, folks, you cannot make this bullshit up.  But this is the sort of irredeemable crappola our  great leader wastes his time tweeting and retweeting.  As well as watching on the tube.  Don't believe it?  You can find Immanuel on Trump’s Twitter feed, where she testifies to the power of hydroxychloroquine - the magic snake oil Dotard and his ass clowns have been humping for months now.   Sadly, millions of Americans heard or saw her advice, thanks in part to the Dotard's amplifying effect,  this before Facebook took down her page and the video (after 20 million views).

Earlier Twitter took down the offending video because (WSJ, July 29, p. A6):

 "It violated its Covid 19 misinformation policy which prohibits misleading claims asserted as fact to influence others' behavior."

In the wake of that a Trump spokesman fulminated (ibid.):

"It is beyond the pale for Twitter to silence the views of medical professionals who happen to dissent from the establishment's anti-hydroxychloroquine  narrative."

But those weren't "medical professionals" but a gaggle of medical quacks and associated hare-brained imbeciles, like Stella Immanuel.  As for the anti-hydroxychloroquine narrative, that is pure bollocks.  The malaria drug has already caused a number of deaths from inappropriate use and the FDA rightly revoked its emergency use authorization.

The most gratuitously odious event from Tuesday's show news conference? Trump asserting Dr. Anthony Fauci "had misled the public"  and also "Fauci and the Democrats perpetuated Covid deaths to hurt Trump."

Fauci fired back squashing the Trump claim.  As far as hurting Trump, the only one who's done that is the Dotard himself, because of his colossally incompetent response to the pandemic.  Tweeting his numskull conspiracy ideations and watching Trump TV when he ought to have been doing all he could to protect American lives.

The Reeptards, including two Colorado idiots now filing a lawsuit  in Fort Collins, to claim masks are "unconstitutional"  and are "political speech" - ought to be forced to see an image of an intubated Herman Cain - before he croaked from Covid.

 Cain, recall, posted a photo of himself at the Trump Tulsa rally, hamming it up with other unmasked goobers.
Cain sits among a group of fellow maskless Trump supporters who hold up "Black Voices for Trump" signs.

A pity this lot didn't see Greg Ip's WSJ piece today (p. A2) noting the death rate from Covid 19 is "5 to 40 times deadlier than seasonal flu."

Not that it would have made much difference.  It seldom does to those on the lower end of the IQ (Bell) curve.

See also:

Economy shrinks at fastest quarterly rate on record

by Robert Becker | August 3, 2020 - 6:19am | permalink

Wednesday, July 29, 2020

At House Judiciary Hearing Barr Proves He's The Disreputable Trump Toad We Suspected.

Bill Barr proved he remains Trump's personal Toad ....errrr  toady, at the House Judiciary hearing yesterday.

Bill Barr, Trump's pet AG,  toady and gofer, faced a combative grilling during a House Judiciary hearing yesterday that proved how cannily he had mastered the dark arts of dissembling, distraction and disinformation.  In other words, Barr emphatically confirmed he was the Trump toad we always suspected: a shameless, clueless, pandering toady who'd do or say anything to protect his lord and master, Dotard.

Democrats on the House Judiciary committee pointed to the  reprobate's use of federal law enforcement to clear peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square, Washington D.C. last month.  This was so Trump could stage a photo op with a bible so toady Barr ordered a harsh crackdown using pepper spray, flash bangs and non-lethal projectiles  The same weaponry being used on protesters in Portland, Oregon.

Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler was blunt in describing to Barr what Trump was  up to:

The president wants footage for his campaign ads, and you appear to be serving it up to him as ordered,” 


"You use pepper spray and truncheons on American citizens. You did it here in Washington. You did it in Lafayette Square. You expanded to Portland. Now you are projecting fear and violence nationwide in pursuit of obvious political objectives. Shame on you, Mr Barr. Shame on you.

Eliciting a question as I watched:  How do you shame a Toad?

Barr, of course,  denied the interventions were motivated by Trump’s re-election:
I just reject the idea that the department has flooded anywhere and attempted to suppress demonstrators. The fact of the matter is, if you take Portland, the courthouse is under attack.The federal resources are inside the perimeter, around the courthouse defending it from almost two months of daily attacks where people march to the court, try to gain entrance and have set fires, thrown things, used explosives and injured police, including just this past weekend, perhaps permanently blinding three federal officers with lasers.”

But Rep. Pramila Jayapal wasn't having any of the toad's B.S.,  e.g.

You take an aggressive approach to Black Lives Matter protests but not to armed right wing extremists' threats to lynch and behead a governor if it's for the president's benefit."

Pointing out bluntly that he went after the D.C. and Portland protesters because they are affiliated with Black Lives Matter, while he left the armed white nationalist,  extremist protesters  in Michigan alone- even when they invaded a state capitol building, e.g. 


The implication was clear: Barr and Trump are invested in protecting the Right's domestic terrorists and radical extremists (like the "Proud Boys"  and Boogaloo Bois)  who side with Trump, e.g.

But not the innocent, peaceful BLM protesters  whose ranks have been infiltrated  by Agent provocateurs on the Right- who then use violence to impugn the protests as "violent"..  Barr actually responded:

We are on the defensive. We’re not out looking for trouble"

Defensive, baloney!  Of course he wants 'trouble' lots of it.  Enough to incite images in protests that can be integrated into Trump campaign rally ads in the fall.  All to pump up the "law and order" theme and meme which is the only card Trump has left to play given his total fuck up in the pandemic response.  All of which justified Jerrold Nadler's harsh assessment of Barr's M.O in his opening remarks, e.g.

The message these actions send is clear: in this justice department, the president’s enemies will be punished and his friends will be protected, no matter the cost,” 

And then there was the histrionic Reich buffoon Jim Jordan, a close Trump ally and serial bootlicker. He  chimed in his 0.02, echoing a Reich conspiracy claim that's been repeatedly debunked:

Spying. That one word. That’s why they’re after you, Mr Attorney General!”

No,  they're after Barr because he deliberately misrepresented the Mueller Report, then went on to undermine the DOJ's cases against Trump's co-conspirators in the Russian plot - including Michael Flynn and Roger Stone,

Jordan, now on a tear, also said Barr has spoken “the truth” that Barack Obama’s administration spied on the Trump campaign, a claim that has repeatedly been debunked.

He then proceeded to play a selectively edited video for nearly eight minutes which showed TV hosts and Obama saying the words “peaceful protests”, then cut to the grieving family of David Dorn, an African American retired police captain killed last month in St Louis, Missouri, then to undated, un-located footage of people jumping on cars, buildings ablaze, an injured officer, a looted shop and people yanking and chainsawing a fence.

The clips echoed talking points by Trump and conservative media,  but they glaringly showed how the Right has almost uniformly become Trump's enablers and accessory traitors.

In his own opening statement, Barr acknowledged that “the horrible killing” of George Floyd  by a white police officer in Minneapolis saying it  “jarred the whole country”.  But then he insisted police forces were more diverse than "ever before".  Which statistics show is not true.  Well, check that- unless your reference point is the Jim Crow era of the 1950s.

Barr added in his typical disingenuous style: 

Unfortunately, some have chosen to respond to George Floyd’s death in a far less productive way – by demonizing the police … and making grossly irresponsible proposals to defund the police … Violent rioters and anarchists have hijacked legitimate protests to wreak senseless havoc and destruction on innocent victims.

Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas questioned Barr on whether he considered the killing of Floyd to be indicative of a systemic problem in policing. He said: 

I don’t agree there is systemic racism in police departments generally in this country.”

Again resorting to a semantic ploy, given the  systemic racism typically  resides in police  unions.  

Barr then faced hard-hitting questions for pushing for a more lenient prison sentence for Trump’s ally Roger Stone, convicted of witness tampering and making false statements, a move which prompted the entire trial team’s departure. Trump eventually commuted Stone’s sentence, sparing him prison..

Barr said in reply: “Stone was prosecuted under me. I said all along I thought that was a righteous prosecution. I thought he should go to jail.”

Yep,  but he then insisted the original  sentence was far too harsh for an "esoteric" crime, as opposed to say a "meat and potatoes" crime. E.g.(WSJ, today, p. A1):

"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?"

Forgetting 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. But in Barr's reckoning all tax cheats as well as the college scandal cheats (and presumably Madoff),   merited only relative wrist slaps because their crimes were "esoteric". As opposed to say, out and out armed robbery.

But he cleverly parsed the difference this way:

I agree that the president’s friends don’t deserve special breaks but they also don’t deserve to be treated more harshly than other people and sometimes that’s a difficult decision to make, especially when you know you’re going to be castigated for it.”

Please, Barr, spare us the fake rectitude.    You merely show even more why you need to be impeached  like your master, Dotard.

Hopefully, the  House will do this sooner rather than later.   Especially given how Barr has essentially destroyed any trust in the rule of law-  and equal treatment - in this nation.

See Also:
by Heather Cox Richardson | July 30, 2020 - 6:38am | permalink


The Pandemic Has Removed Much Of The Problem Of Consumer Overchoice

The basic assumption of  economists is that humans are rational agents and, when offered a set of choices - say for a particular product -  will end up making the optimum one. But in an excellent book: The Paradox of Choice - Why More Is Less, the author (Barry Schwarz) showed this isn't the case and when humans are offered a surfeit of choice they punt! They either don't make any purchase, or they opt for the first one that comes to mind or in their field of vision.

A worse effect is paralysis of action or decision, as well as depression,  occurring because excessive choice presages a lack of control and autonomy. As noted by Schwartz (p. 104):

'Like the mechanical rabbit at the dog racing track that speeds along just ahead of the dogs no matter how fast they run, aspirations and expectations about control speed ahead of their realization, no matter how liberating the realization becomes."

In effect, more choices may not mean more control,  ccrtainly if they lead to paralysis in making the choice.  Consider just the case of Medicare and Medicare Advantage which choices often lead seniors spinning their wheels in confusion and costly inaction, indecision. 

This arises because each year prospective beneficiaries  must confront a miasma of more than 500 different plan choices for Medicare Advantage and Medicare proper.   In the latter seniors can choose from Parts B, D, and F but often make choices that end up being extremely costly. Worse, the whole Medicare system is contrived of constantly moving parts with changing prices, benefits year to year.  Especially Part D - the Prescription Drug Plan. The situation has become so intractable for many seniors, they are having to hire special services to wade through all the issues and make a decision.

A Wikipedia item references 'overchoice' :

"The phenomenon of overchoice occurs when many equivalent choices are available.Making a decision becomes overwhelming due to the many potential outcomes and risks that may result from making the wrong choice"

In a nutshell, the more decisions we make in any given day, and the more novel information we attempt to absorb, the more mental energy we use up. Worse,  the lower the quality of our resultant decision-making.  Or as Schwartz puts it (ibid.):

"To avoid the escalation of such burdens we must learn to be selective in exercising our choices. We must decide individually when choice really matters and focus ot energies there."

It appears now the pandemic has reduced a lot of the choices - namely in purchases such as groceries- that bordered on the ridiculous before, e.g. "275 varieties of cereal and 175 types of salad dressing" according to Schwartz' findings (p. 10)

But now, as a WSJ article points out ('Why The American Consumer Has Fewer Choices - Maybe For Good',  June 27, p. A10):

We may have crossed the Rubicon to the world of less choice.  And it will help our brains expend less wasted energy.   Example?

"Some IGA Inc. grocery stores now offer only four choices of toilet paper. A few months ago, before the coronavirus pandemic, IGA’s 1,100 U.S. stores typically carried about 40 varieties."

As IGA Chief Exec John Ross aptly put it:

"We may not need 40 different choices of toilet paper."

Indeed, why would anyone need more than 4?  (1-ply environment friendly, 2-ply, 3-ply, 4-ply) All the excess does is clutter the brain, overwhelm its decision making processes. That includes having to choose from 220 varieties of chicken soup or 275 kinds of cereal.   Why the surfeit of choice and why the trend to downshift now?  According to the piece:

"Consumer -oriented companies spent the past decades trying to please just about everyone.  The pandemic made that impossible and now some no longer plan to try. Sellers of potato chips, cars, meals and more have been narrowing offerings since the coronavius snarled supply chains and coaxed consumers back to familiar brands." 

 Which is welcome as it's a move back toward sanity, toward temperance, and essential conservation.  Ultimately, let's be clear that the spawning of vast numbers of "choices" in products was a deliberate effort to ramp up consumption - which is 70 percent of GDP.    As the WSJ piece points out: 

 "For years companies added choices and their execs told investors by putting a token salad on every fast food menu chain or stocking a detergent for 'extra sensitive skin'  they could cater to the whims of more people in a family."

Thus, instead of ONE detergent for a whole family, these companies conceived of one for each member, ever so slightly tweaked from the base product.  Instead of one purchase, maybe 3, 4 or 5 at once.  And as we learn (ibid.):

"These efforts helped goods makers claim more shelf space as more retail stores and supermarkets expanded into more big box stores. "

In this way, a strategy of offering less choice was deemed "contrarian" and even anti-capitalist.   But a strange thing happened as producers were poised to jack up choices even more:  the pandemic hit and with it panic buying -   which cleared supermarket shelves of staples, especially toilet paper, hand sanitizer and even soap.   Suddenly, choice sobriety and sense emerged as retail execs realized a change in course was in order.  Thus:

"Retailers and food companies over the past several months have convened calls in which it was decided food makers should cut back on options and concentrate production on the most in-demand goods."

And lo and behold the food producers have responded.  For example, Smucker pausing production of JIF low fat peanut butter and Nestle permanently dropping some lean cuisine varieties. Meanwhile, Mondelez has removed 25 varieties of its snacks to simplify the supply chain and reduce inventories.

The question now is whether this sober reduction in choice can last, analogous to whether the lowered CO2 emissions (also a result of the pandemic) would last.  A future post will touch on that.

Tuesday, July 28, 2020

WSJ's Regular News Staff Strikes At Their Op-Ed Cohort's Flood Of Propaganda

Nope, you cannot make this up. As the frenzy in the nation continues about "cancellation" and "loss of free speech" it was a veritable hoot to see the WSJ editorial last week ('A Note To Readers', p. A13, July 24)  whining:

"We've been gratified this week by the outpouring of support from readers after some 280 of our Wall Street Journal colleagues signed (and someone leaked) a letter to our publisher criticizing the opinion pages."

280 peer critics from the same paper? Wowser!  But why not?   Especially when one reads some of the recent codswallop consuming its op -ed pages - which those 280 other contributors (to the Journal's main sections)-  had to know is chucked full of garbage. Crap like:

'America Isn't A Racist Country'  (July 23-25, p. A11)

'You're More Likely To Catch Covid at Home Than In Jail'   (Ibid.)

'No More Blank Checks From Congress For Coronavirus'  - July 24, p. A15

Oh, and Holman Jenkins' Jr's typical baloney (p.A13) wherein he barks:

"We shouldn't let labels confuse our understanding: The virus was never locked down.  Certain business and social gatherings were banned but human beings were as free as ever to spread the disease

And earlier (July 24, p. A 15,  'The Unasked FBI Question:Why?) spouting:

"The latest news? Christopher Steele is revealed more than ever to be a fabulous fraud - or a practiced spy practicing his penchant for disinformation."

In your dreams, sonny.  In fact, the likes of you aren't fit to spit shine Mr. Steele's shoes.   But dreck like this is exactly why the Journal's 280 serious scribes saw fit to call out the Foxite clowns and propaganda pushers in its op-ed pages.   Of course, the clowns try to make it appear they are taking the high road, i.e. (ibid.):

"In the spirit of collegiality we won't respond in kind to the letter signers. Their anxieties aren't our responsibility in any case."

Hmmm....but it seems neither has the truth or facts been your responsibility.  Which these cheese balls admit when they go on to scribble:

"The signers report to the News editors and the Opinion Departments operate with separate staff... This separation allows us to pursue stories and inform readers with independent judgment."

Translation:  These disinfo dweezils can dream up whatever spin on the fact they wish, and put it out as if as valid as what appears on the main news pages. A dichotomy I have often referenced.  It also stands to reason the PR spinners and fake news purveyors would take umbrage with the 280 who deal in facts, as the editorial goes on to squawk:

"It was probably inevitable that the wave of progressive cancel culture would arrive at the Journal, as it has nearly every other cultural, business, academic and journalistic institution."

Which is simply sour grapes, as I also pointed out with former NY Times contributor Bari Weiss who left in a huff e.g.

Don't Waste Your Time Feeling Sorry For Bari Weiss...

Believing in her twisted little heart that "left wing cancel culture" caused her to depart.  Not so, as I wrote in the post, she simply believed she was too high and mighty to take feedback ('blowback'?) from online media sites like Twitter.

More evidence of how the WSJ op-ed denizens admit to slanting the facts toward their ideology:

"Most Journal reporters aim to cover the news fairly and down the middle - but our opinion pages offer an alternative the uniform progressive views that dominate nearly all of today's media."

But what they left out is admitting they're tired of the journal's own "fair and down the middle" brand of reporting.  Look! It's in their own words.  So they admit to a desire to skew perceptions and fact, well - I guess they fancy propaganda more than adherence to "down the middle" coverage. 

The WSJ wise guys the zombie readers who gravitate to their skewed fare that they have no intent to change,

"So long as our proprietors (e.g.  Rupert Murdoch - my insertion) allow us to do so.
The WSJ editorial bozos then have the gall to finish off their spiel by asserting:

"These columns will continue to promote the principles of free people and free markets  which are more important than ever in a culture of growing progressive conformity and intolerance"

Blatantly leaving blank why they also feel compelled to diverge from all their WSJ colleagues and their "down the middle" reporting.  Is it not possible for these editorial nabobs to offer opinions in their editorials that are consistent with what their 280 peers report? 

Evidently not.  It's more important to them that their attention to "free markets and free people" also include a huge dose of unhinged, free twaddle.

See Also: