A New Chandrasekhar Limit?

The Chandrasekhar limit refers to the upper limit on mass for a stellar collapsed core, beyond which the matter becomes "degenerate". The limit is typically taken to be 1.44 solar masses (M(s)). Generally it applies to the end stage of normal stellar masses associated with binary star systems. It is the threshold beyond which the white dwarf can no longer support itself with any outward pressure, and it becomes a "collapsar" - generally meaning a neutron star.

Up to the Chandrasekhar limit, we say the white dwarf exhibits "electron degeneracy". As we saw in a previous blog:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/06/some-more-quantum-mechanics.html


the assorted solutions to the Schrodinger wave equation, yield different wave functions each of which displays a certain set of "quantum numbers". These are:

n, the principal quantum number

l, the angular momentum quantum number,

and m_l, the magnetic quantum number.

In terms of the wave function solutions ("eigenfunctions") each set (n, l, m_l) determines a particular energy level in an atom, for example the hydrogen atom. NO two electrons (which are fermions) can have the same set of quantum numbers. This is the basis for what we call the "Pauli Exclusion Principle". In astrophysics, however, this isn't an ironclad rule as it is in normal lab chemistry, but can be violated in extreme conditions of gravitational collapse.

In the case of the white dwarf this applies and one has degenerate matter, which accounts for why it's often stated that a "teaspoonful of a white dwarf would weigh 15 tons". This could only happen if many more electrons are squeezed into the same energy states such that they share the same sets of quantum numbers.

Thus, the condition of "electron degeneracy" applies and this means that electron occupancy can be such that many more electrons can be packed into the same space or volume. This is what gives rise to the enormous attendant density, for example that we find in white dwarfs .

To get to the degeneracy state in the first place, we must have a violation of one of the foremost conditions of normal stellar structure: hydrostatic equilibrium or pressure-gravity balance.

In this condition, the pressure of hot radiation from the deep interior of the star balances the weight of its overlying layers (think of a star like an onion with layers and layers each of different density- the greater density toward the center). We show this condition as the differential equation (recall our venture into these last month):

dP/ dr = - G M(r)rho/ r^2 = - (rho)g

where M(r) is the mass of a particular layer, G is the Newtonian gravitational constant (G = 6.62 x 10^-11N-m/kg^2) and rho is the density.

The path to the white dwarf follows because of the interior of a star being cooled, due to less efficient nucelar fusion. Because of this cooling, the outward-directed supporting gas -radiation pressure decreases and the overlying layers collapses up to the degeneracy level, since the downward (or inner-directed) weight overcomes the radiation pressure.

Interestingly, when we work out the formula for the white dwarf mass (M(wd)) it turns out to be a function of the ratio (Z/A) where Z = protons, and A = number of nucleons (neutrons + protons). We find when this ratio (Z/A) = 0.5 for M(wd), the white dwarf is at the Chandrasekhar limit. We also have found NO white dwarf mass can exceed this.

Thus, no stable white dwarf can exist beyond the limit because even a theoretically "infinite" central pressure would not keep the star from further collapse.

Now, however, a new finding appears to flout this limit evidently pushing the Chandrasekhar limit beyond 1.44 solar masses. This was reported in the Physics Today issue of May, 2010 (p. 11) in the article 'Overluminous Supernovae Push the Chandrasekhar Limit'.

Could this be possible? The data appear to bear it out (see graph). In the graph of "Ni mass" vs. luminosity (in ergs/s and bear in mind 1 J = 10^7 ergs), we see four data points labelled SN2006gz, SN2003fg, SN2007if and SN 2009dc (from the Supernova Legacy Survey) that disclose an anomalously large luminosity relative to the bulk of Type 1a supernovae.

Of course, because the data points are few much more work needs to be done to provide confirmation. There are also peculiarities that need to be explained, for example SN2003fg appears to have contained 1.3 M(s) of Ni alone. It also displays carbon absorption lines that are weak or absent in typical Type 1a supernovae. Also its shell of material was cast off at a relatively slow velocity: ~ 8,000 km/s rather than the more usual 10,000- 12,000 km/s.

How could a white dwarf attain such mass, if the data are to be believed? Three main hypotheses are up for consideration:

1) The white dwarf may have been rotating unusually rapidly so that the centripetal force produced helped to balance the gravity - thereby preventing the halting of collapse at the usual 1.44 limit .

2) The supernovae could have resulted from TWO white dwarfs merging and exploding.

3) It may have been an ordinary white dwarf exploding asymmetrically with its birght side facing Earth, thereby yielding anomalous L readings.

We'll have to dig further to see what it all means, but in the meantime, the data provide an intriguing puzzle and possible test of what we think we really know about white dwarf physics.

Remembering Some Famous Sayings of Jefferson

On this Fourth of July, it's well to recall again some of the most famous sayings of Thomas Jefferson, who - after all- is responsible for the famous "Wall of Separation" between Church and State. While many Christian fundamentalists continue to try and obscure the facts governing this nation's founding, the true fact is that the Founders were chiefly DEISTS and not bible punching evangelicals. (Indeed it would be nearly another 100 years before any evangelicals would emerge).

To Deists, the word "Creator" (as one Deist named "SJR" from the AARP religious forum noted), meant an impersonal principle providing the putative basis for origin. It did not and never has meant a "personal god". That was a later confection. So long as people keep making believe that the Founders were anything other than Deists, the myth will persist that this is a Christian nation when it is emphatically not! Indeed, even Article 11:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries"

of the Treaty of Tripoli makes this clear:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html


Now, as to some of Jefferson's most famous quotes:

"We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Virginia Baptists, 1808. ME 16:320


"I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to Him, and not to the priests." --Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. M. Harrison Smith, 1816. ME 15:60


"From the dissensions among Sects themselves arise necessarily a right of choosing and necessity of deliberating to which we will conform. But if we choose for ourselves, we must allow others to choose also, and so reciprocally, this establishes religious liberty." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:545


"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.


"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378


"Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198


"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428


"I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429


"It is... proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation is to carry some authority and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed?... Civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428


"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281


"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425


"I do not know that it is a duty to disturb by missionaries the religion and peace of other countries, who may think themselves bound to extinguish by fire and fagot the heresies to which we give the name of conversions, and quote our own example for it. Were the Pope, or his holy allies, to send in mission to us some thousands of Jesuit priests to convert us to their orthodoxy, I suspect that we should deem and treat it as a national aggression on our peace and faith." --Thomas Jefferson to Michael Megear, 1823. ME 15:434


"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind." --Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801. ME 10:237


"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78


"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

Incidentally, Jefferson- on becoming disillusioned with so much in the KJV Bible - undertook to write his own version - divested of the humbug and what he took to be ahistorical additions. That version is available here:

http://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-Bible-Thomas/dp/0807077143

TO all readers, have a happy and safe Fourth!

Getting the Socialist Thingie Straight Once and for all

Below: Elena Kagan, portrayed on some Tea Party blogs as a "National Socialist", because of actual SOCIALIST writings she did in college. Next: Image of Frank P. Zeidler, Milwaukee's Socialist Mayor from 1948-1960, who also is the farthest thing from being a "National Socialist".

There are Socialists, then there are the odious National Socialists. The two are as far apart metaphorically as Earth's poles geographically. Why then are they so often conflated and mixed up, as in the case of some portraying Elena Kagan (see inset) as a would-be "National Socialist" (aka Nazi) Judge? One can only wonder, but when we see Obama called a "Socialist" when he's the furthest thing from it, one has to conclude American education simply isn't what it should be!

Anyway, it seems some have imputed to Elena Kagan a veneer or intent of “National Socialism”, based on some writings she scrawled in college. The example most often selected is:

"Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation’s established parties ? In answering this question, historians have often called attention to various characteristics of American society that have militated against widespread acceptance of radical movements. These societal traits -- an ethnically divided worked class, a relatively fluid class structure, an economy which allowed at least some workers to enjoy what Sombart termed ‘reefs of roast beef and apple pie,' -- prevented the early twentieth century socialists from attracting an immediate mass following. Such conditions did not, however, completely checkmate American socialism."

But, of course, this merely referenced the early American socialism as manifested in the Wobblies, NOT the National Socialists of Nazi Germany! Part of the reason that ordinary socialism continues to be conflated and confused with National Socialism, is the deliberate use of the term in the Nazi appellation – which has continued to confuse many who should know better. The other reason is that history simply isn’t taught properly anymore so it’s more likely people will confuse ordinary socialism with National Socialism and fascism with socialism or with communism.

As a member of the Democratic Socialists Of America this sort of persistent historical blind spot galls me no end. I simply see no excuse for it. But short of countering the false information with actual facts, there’s little one can do. No one has yet passed an amendment (nor will one ever be able, I suspect) making free speech contingent on actual facts and information.

In these terms the points that Kagan made in her college paper echo very much the words of Milwaukee’s last Socialist Mayor, Frank Zeidler (member of the Socialist Party of America - note that before Zeidler, Emil Seidl became Milwaukee's first Socialist Mayor in 1910, followed by Daniel Hogan who lasted from 1916-1940 keeping the city out of debt during the Great Depression). Zeidler (see photo) in his mayoral election campaign noted the problem of ethnic division in other parts of the country and how this was exploited – especially by wealthy Republicans- to keep working class people divided. Zeidler vowed, if elected, he’d ameliorate these divisions and ensure all Milwaukeean Working class folks benefited – whether Croatian, German, Polish or whatever. Zeidler ended up winning three terms, enduring from 1948 until 1960 and turning Milwaukee into a prosperous post-war city.

Jobs proliferated, especially in major manufacturing (Allis –Chalmers etc.) while the Breweries hired thousands with excellent pay and benefits, including health care. Housing abounded as well, affordable housing off of Greenfield Ave. and Teutonia and in other suburbs to the north and west. Parks, meanwhile, were the envy of many other cities for their beautiful layouts, amenities and services. I can still recall going to Washington Park (across the street from where my family lived on 48th and Cherry Streets) on the 4th of July for band performances and later fireworks.

Crime was almost non-existent, despite Milwaukee reaching a population of 747, 000 by 1960. Zeidler also provided health care through the city, so no one needed to go broke to get any treatment. Like all REAL Socialists, Zeidler believed health care was a right, not merely having health insurance!. Education also benefited, and Milwaukee’s schools became some of the finest – not just Catholic but public schools as well, thanks to a higher local taxation rate, and not merely property taxes, which Zeidler knew would hit the elderly hardest.

Was Zeidler a "National Socialist"? Not in any way, shape or form! Or, to put it another way, IF he was, then I'm the Pope. He was an ordinary democratic socialist like me, and I sincerely believe I came by my socialism seeing how Zeidler’s time in office benefited Milwaukee. (Along with living in a democratic socialist nation, Barbados, for nealry 20 years).

Zeidler’s success echoed exactly what Kagan aspired to or hoped for in her college treatise, and it’s a wonder she didn’t cite Zeidler’s experience in Milwaukee, but then few people are aware of it outside those of us who actually lived in the city in those halcyon years. The memory of clean streets, beautiful parks and being able (my two brothers and I) to ride our bikes late into the evening all the way down Vliet St. without fear.

In the Economic Bill of Rights, published by the Democratic Socialists, it is interesting to see:

1.. The right to a useful and remunerative job

2. The right to sufficient and nutritious food

3. Safe, healthy, secure and affordable housing

4. Free, accessible health care to all

5. Free, high quality public education

6. The right to organize to form unions, as well as community organizing


All of these were evident in Frank P. Zeidler’s Milwaukee, none in Hitler’s National Socialist Germany. For example, organizers – usually communists and socialists – were shot on sight or beaten up by the SA, later by the SS. Education had descended to mere propagandizing captive audiences of youths, health care was dicey at best- usually reserved for party members and families, as was the best food. Housing was mainly 'whatever one could get' - usually rat infested dives while the party members seized the best, according to Krimhilde (my sister-in law) who lived outside Freiburg then.

Historian Ian Kershaw (‘Hitler Nemesis’, 2000, W.W. Norton & Co.) minces no words with how Hitler's National Socialists treated REAL socialists, as well as communists (p. xxxvi):

“The oppositional forces on the Left, such as the Communists and Socialists were crushed, cowed and powerless”

Kershaw later notes (ibid.) how the German industrialists cheered as Hitler demolished all the trade unions, and locked many of their members up or dispatched them to concentration camps with socialists. Now, what the indiscriminate Kagan-Socialist= National Socialist portrayers need to answer is: if Hitler was a TRUE Socialist why did he send 94% of all the Socialists in Germany to concentration camps? (The others were killed, of course!) Inquiring minds want to know!

Make no mistake here that the socialism of Elena Kagan and Frank P. Zeidler has nothing whatever in common with the National “Socialism” of Hitler and the Nazis. Those who misrepresent socialism in this way, either have their own axes to grind or no interest in actual history, far less facts. Because to call Elena Kagan a “National Socialist” would be like calling Milwaukee’s Mayor Frank P. Zeidler one – it does not compute.

Perhaps the greatest post-mortem “victory” Hitler and the Nazis achieved was getting people – well, many people- to continue to associate his verminous form of "socialism" (which was actually fascism) with the real McCoy. Thereby making it an even more difficult task to bring this nation closer to economic equity for all, as well as introducing humane standards for housing, health care and jobs.

Tragic.

Apologetics, Textual Analysis and Historical Research

One of the most vexing issues in discussing biblical validity is that several areas have become mixed and melded, and in some cases certain areas or disciplines (e.g. Apologetics) have trumped the other critical domains of biblical exegesis – textual analysis and historical research. This blog seeks to clarify and differentiate these areas one from the other, and thereby show that they do not equally shed light on the veracity of the bible or specific parts (e.g. New Testament).

At Loyola there were some thirteen theology courses by the time I began my scholarship year in 1964. Among these were: Apologetics 120, Biblical exegesis (TH 220) and New Testament: A Historical Perspective, or TH 320. Note here that when one agreed to attend Loyola part of the “covenant” – whether one was on scholarship or not- was that you took at least one theology course each semester. It didn't matter if your major was theology, mathematics or physics.

One did have some choices, for example, between Study of the Old Testament (TH 220) and Apologetics. I opted for the former because I believed it would also prove useful later in Biblical Exegesis and I was correct. I ignored Apologetics because the course summary disclosed to me it wasn’t a serious knowledge area but a defensive PR gambit: learn new and better tricks to “defend the faith”.

Nothing has changed my mind since then, and I regard all Christian Apologists – whatever their background – as basically PR front men whose job is to try to rationalize any critical finding that undermines biblical claims, or doctrinal claims. This is as far removed from serious bible scholarship, say in textual and historical analysis, as Public Relations is from real news in the real world.

For example, while the Exxon –Valdez spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska in 1989 was historically the worst environmental disaster in the U.S. to that time, the PR mavens recycled that to read that Exxon was actually “conducting a great test for their cleanup equipment”

In other words, PR amounts to clever deceptions and even lies to try to rationalize something that factually is quite the opposite. In the sphere of biblical interpretation, we see that Apologetics has enormous clout then, because as years have gone by more and more textual and historical researchers have found the biblical scaffolding of facts hangs on mere threads. So why not enlist a body of apologists to make a case, as opposed to accepting the limits of the scriptures as written – that they were scribbled by defective humans hundreds of years after the fact and bear little or no relation to either biography or history?

Of course, apologists didn’t just emerge on the scene of late because a few atheists, secular humanists, or Jesus Seminar scholars had exposed the New Testament as mostly clever fables. They existed as far back as the early Church, and often arrived (like St. Augustine) from pagan backgrounds. These intellectuals then took up their verbal “cudgels” against any one who heaped scorn or charged the early Christians with make believe or as being impostors. The apologists always had their answers, and why not?

The word itself derives from “ apologia” – the Greek word for defense. So, in other words apologists were first in the business of defense, not truth seeking per se. They instead tacitly conceded beliefs in this or that doctrine, then defended it to the death. Just as well because in those early days a supremely competent apologia was often the difference between being persecuted or not. Even Paul admonished the need for such 1 Peter 3: 15.

Meanwhile, New Testament historical research excises all emotions and preconceived notions of what’s “proper” and sticks strictly to the historical arc of the texts under consideration. It also looks carefully at major anomalies between the quadriform gospels, for example – and why this event is massively included in one, but not the others. For sure, a genuine historical event ought to appear throughout all – not be over elaborated in one while given short shrift in the others.

For example, Prof. Dale B. Martin in his Yale University course, entitled: Introduction to New Testament History and Literature, aptly observes in his lecture No. 13:

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-new-testament/content/sessions/lecture13.html

That the Gospel of John is the only one that contains exhaustive details on the actual trial of Yeshua before Pilate. The other three just offer a few words. This implies the Gospel of John has been elaborated, perhaps by later copyists – who wanted to embellish it to confer the patina of historical moment. After all, what can one make of just a few words, say in Luke or Mark? (Btw, I invite serious readers to watch the whole lecture, and maybe the others from his course here)

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-new-testament/content/class-sessions

Prof. Martin also makes many other salient points including that the arc of NT events occurs in far too disjointed a way to be a historical document. But this ought not be surprising, since the handlers and keepers of the earliest documents – including the Nag Hammadi scrolls, have already admitted that (cf. Rev. Thomas Bokenkotter, in ‘A Concise History of the Catholic Church’, notes (page 17):

“The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or God.”

In other words, the gospels were written as propaganda documents. And why not? The early Christians, in a fight for their very lives, needed all the discursive ballast they could get, including propaganda and apologias. This often meant the difference between being tossed to the lions in the Coliseum and remaining free to preach or spread the word (Kerygma).

But it is disingenuous not to face the truth of the duplicitous origin of many biblical parts, passages and even whole books. For example, as we learned at Loyola, Church Father Origen was perhaps the first Christian Father to complain about the meddling of copyists as he wrote (First Principles):

“The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed or, in the process of checking, make additions or deletions as they please”.

As Bible scholar Bart Ehrman also notes (Misquoting Jesus, p. 54) there were almost no controls for standardization of textual content like there are today because there were no copyright laws! Thus, copyists could literally add or subtract as they saw fit. One estimate has it that nearly all the references in the NT to “Satan” or “Hell” were accomplished at the hands of copyists, leading one Bishop of Corinth to remark that:

“The devils’ apostles have filled it with tares, taking away some things and adding others. For them the woe is reserved”.

Now, what about biblical exegesis or textual analysis? In this case the actual structure of the idiom used in each translation is studied, going back to Aramaic for example, then to Greek and Latin and English. We use something called hermeneutics which asks what the writer (in that vernacular) actually meant in the idiom of his day (NOT our day!) and what losses in meaning that idiom encountered as it was transcribed to other languages in succession.

Thus the primary objective of exegesis is interpreting what the passage in the original language meant in terms of its OWN CONTEXT not simply putting it into the new one. THIS is why so many biblical literalists foul up and end up in a ditch.

As I noted in an earlier blog, the process for the literalist is basically 1:1 onto:

[Text x] -> [Text x]

Thus, [text x] undergoes no modification from what their eyes detect or parse in the passage.

In fact, there are three primary phases of the hermeneutics process so that at least three stages have to be covered, so:

[text x] -> [1] ->[2] –[3] -> [Text Z]

Even this is oversimplified, since technically each step also needs to be checked and parsed from one language to the other. For example, what did the author MEAN in Aramaic? What did he mean when this was transferred to GREEK? What did he mean when this Greek was transferred to Latin? What did he mean when the Latin went to English? Then step [2] – repeating the same. When we did exegesis at Loyola we used columns for the four main languages and parsed each passage for EACH step before arriving at the final meaning. (As anyone who's ever studied foreign languages knows- and I've studied Latin, Russian, German and Spanish- it is essentially impossible to get a perfect translation from one to another!)

What we acknowledge in doing this procedure is the fact that we have NO ORIGINALS of any scriptures, only error-ridden copies. But, if we can take the passages through the above sequence, then let the light of the historical research shine upon the effort, we can at least approach the truth. We are not so naïve as to claim or expect we HAVE the truth, since hermeneutics itself – its very use- is a tacit admission one can’t take passages literally.

The many logia in the Gospels would, if they could convincingly be shown derived from a single personality or source, be strong evidence that a historical Jesus existed. But such is not the case. In tandem textual analysis and historical research (see the Yale lecture)discloses we are left with an artifact created or invented by eager followers.

Two books for readers who are seriously interested in textual analysis:

1) The Authentic Gospel of Jesus’ By Geza Vermes.

2) 'Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why' – by Bart D. Ehrman

Tempest in a Teacup: The Kagan Nomination Hearings

You have to hand it to the Republicans who know how to churn up faux outrage at the drop of a hat. They did it with Obama, and didn’t waste any time as the Elena Kagan Supreme Court nomination hearings approached. Within days, thanks to GOOPers like Sen. Jefferson Bureaugard Sessions (AL) the approaching hearings had been nearly turned into a circus- as Sessions threatened to bring in Gen. Jerry (“My God’s bigger than yours”) Boykin to confront Kagan about her stances on the military.

One of Sessions’ complaints was Kagan barring Army and Marine recruiters at Harvard while she was Dean there. In fact, they got it all wrong. Kagan didn’t “bar” them – as they were allowed to recruit in a separate hallway apart from the main recruitment center. Kagan already explained the reason, namely that Harvard’s rules prohibited any discrimination on the basis of race, creed, or sexual orientation. The military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” didn’t meet that standard, so they were allocated separate space. Big deal!

Another conservative shibboleth passed around was that Elena Kagan isn’t “qualified” since she wasn’t an actual lawyer. This is nonsense. Kagan served as Editor of The Harvard Law Review which is the surpremo standard for law competency, irrespective of whether one actually later practices law (apart from this, the complainers fail to note that 38 previous appointees have had NO legal experience, period, and weren’t even Harvard Law editors!)

These folks so consumed by Kagan’s “deficiencies” turn a blind eye to those of Clarence Thomas who – at the time of his nomination hearings – had the least favorable American Bar Association ranking of any nominee dating back to the 1950s. Apart from that, Thomas had never written a legal book, article, or brief of consequence, and had been a judge for only a year. Kagan meanwhile has written dozens of articles as well as briefs while Editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Others complain about the “irony” of “liberals” wanting Kagan to be nominated, while objecting to Sarah Palin as Veep. But they mix chalk and cheese. Kagan, as noted, was Editor of the Harvard Law Review- and she also clerked for Chief Justice Thurgood Marshall- so is amply qualified to sit on the court just on that basis. A comparative standard for Palin (for VP) would have been being Editor of a Constitutional Journal in college – as opposed to being head of the women’s basketball team!

Kagan’s bona fides prompted even TIME magazine (no longer the "liberal" voice of yesteryear) to note: “Kagan has compiled a remarkable legal record while winning frineds across the political spectrum”. Reeps also forget she served as Solicitor General, or equivalent to being the “10th justice” in the words of TIME.

Reeps also like to argue nonsense that at least Palin “served in office” (governor or Alaska) but they never make note of the next little item – that she quit before she completed her term of office. Indeed, she had nearly 18 months left. How capable of being veep (or president for that matter) is someone who leaves a formal, state executive office for speechifying at Tea Party conclaves?

But beyond all that, Palin didn’t even demonstrate minimal knowledge that would be expected of a veep, for example, in her interviews with Katie Couric on CBS. Her explanation of her foreign security bona fides was claiming she could “see Russia from my house”. But having actually lived in Alaska (1 year over 1985-86) I can assure people that is impossible –especially from Wasilla, a little bumpkin hamlet not far from Anchorage- and well land-locked. At least if one were living at the extreme western edge of Nome (hundreds of miles northwest of Palin’s home) one might see Russia (Siberia) on a totally clear day, if one also avails oneself of a good telescope!

Palin’s paltry and pathetic answers to Couric’s hardnosed questions, not any “liberal bias”, were what led to her downfall and by extension the misshapen McCain- Palin ticket.

Since the nomination hearings have commenced, Elena Kagan has amply demonstrated she’s no Sarah Palin. With a combination of wry, deflecting humor, common sense, commanding insight into the law and artful English – she’s held her own and shown herself to be superior in intellect to her most determined inquisitors.

A Denver Post editorial yesterday praised her honesty and also her humility and noted that “this is a useful reminder of how confirmation hearings can work”.

The much more salient point in all this tempest in a teapot is who will Kagan’s rulings or siding benefit if anyone? TIME (‘Judging Elena’, July 5, p. 30) isn’t so sure at all it will be “liberals”. As the author of the piece (Adam Cohen) observes:

“Liberals would seem to have the most at risk if Kagan is confirmed. She would replace Stevens, one of the court’s most reliably left-leaning members. If she breaks from the liberal line on even a few issues, the court’s waning left of center bloc will erode even further.”

And all it would take is a few 6-3 decisions the wrong way to confirm that.

So, we will watch and wait before making judgments on Kagan’s liberal fitness. In the meantime, we know she is fit to sit on the High Court, contrary to all the right wing posturing and phony outrage.

The Flash Trade Game Continues

The May 6 “flash crash” of over 500 points on Wall Street brutally demonstrated the perils of so –called “flash trading” wherein high speed computers use special algorithms to detect large buy and sell orders to adjust their trades. Since the high speed computers can then act in nanoseconds to either buy or sell with the flash information, they inevitably get the better of the more conventional (slower) investors. The “flash crash” likely occurred because a number of flash computers processed information too quickly or inaccurately inciting a mass sell off.

What’s the little guy investor to do? Not much, and as I’ve repeatedly stated before, no little guys belong in the Wall Street scene, especially if they have lots of money (say in 401ks or IRAs) they are depending on for retirement. The reason is not just flash trading but many other gimmicks, including market timing (for which I’ve just received an invitation to participate in a class action suit for one fund – Janus Worldwide- I held in the 1990s, but dumped before it tanked), as well as burning yield, churning and collusion using ‘micro caps’ to keep clients buying and selling stocks within a closed artificial market (Source:‘License To Steal: The Secret World of Wall Street Brokers and the Systematic Plundering of the American Investor, page 211).

Also, beyond all these gimmicks and gaming, the stock market is a vast pyramid scheme. Humping assorted funds or stocks on business shows entices small folks to buy in which increases the P/E or price to earnings ratio – effectively inflating the stock price. At that point the “sharks” – usually hedge fund owners or other sly operators- cash in when the stock or fund price hits a certain threshold, taking their winnings and leaving scraps for the little guys (who, of course, are told to “buy and hold”).

Little guys can’t be blamed because usually there are no warning lights or buzzers telling them when to dump a fund or stock. (Though the WSJ noted yesterday that one marker that’s often been used is a stock index cross or “crossing” point, where the DOW and S&P500 cross over each other in a time graph. That just occurred two days ago.)

How influential is flash or high frequency trading? According to The Wall Street Journal (‘Fast Traders Face Off with Big Investors over ‘Gaming’, June 30, 2010, p. C1) it now accounts for two-thirds of total stock market volume. All other things being equal, that means unless one has access to a flash trade system or algorithm himself, he’s got a 2 in 3 chance of being victimized by flash trades, if even peripherally.

Let’s look at one example. Say a flash trade system or firm is using its high frequency computer - algorithm combo as noted earlier, and detects a large buy order for a stock listed initially at $20 a share. Then the flash trade firm will immediately begin scarfing up the stock – driving up the share price – say to $25 or $30 a share or more. The large conventional (institutional) investors then buy it at that price, and the flash firm makes a killing.

Usually the institutional investors are those who manage 401ks, for example, which means the little guy 401k owner ends up paying more in this case. (In another case, a mass flash trader selloff may see the little guy’s fund share value plummet).

Bear in mind here 401ks are typically invested in mutual funds comprised of a body of stocks, maybe ten or so. The flash traders’ capability with their high speed system is such that it can control the numbers for all the stocks of a particular fund, though true, there are some funds (e.g. Vanguard Group) which offset some of the effects by systematically lowering trading costs. This is often done by narrowing the spread between what investors pay to buy and sell shares.

Other funds don’t fare as well since the flash traders’ systems “front run” them. Thus, a stock’s orders (or many stocks in a fund) get “picked off” by the flash traders’ computers that detect the orders, then adjust to benefit. Not surprisingly, large institutional investors and consortiums are now trying to fight back with anti-gaming methods.

Others want federal regulation of high frequency trading, and Sen. Ted Kauffman (D, DE) has been a lead advocate. This has come amidst an avalanche of complaints that flash trading is tilting the field against the conventional investor, both big institutional version and the little guys. (Once charmingly referred to as "dumb order flow" by Wall Street brokers, at a particular brokerage house.)

One minor step taken by the SEC has been to unveil a plan to identify high frequency trading firms with unique identification codes to better track their activities. In the meantime, algorithms for high frequency trading are projected to account for 60% of all stock trading this year up from 28% in 2005.

On the plus side, the increased volume of flash trades has caused the stock trade volume to go down. The average size of a stock trade is now around 220 shares compared to 724 shares per trade in 2005. The net effect is it’s now more difficult for flash traders to buy large chunks of stock at once.

Of course, the high speed traders, to recover advantage, are now altering their algorithms to detect any signs of a “large chunk” trade. And the beat goes on.

My advice to those who would hold Wall Street stocks is save your money- and instead put what you can’t afford to lose in safe money fund accounts (in 401ks, IRAs), or in CDs and money market accounts. If you have some spare bucks you can afford to lose, then try the craps tables on the Las Vegas strip – you’ll do much better than on Maul Street!

Where I Part Ways with the ACLU

The Denver Post editorial header this morning was blunt and to the point : 'Reject Attack on Political Speech'. In the editorial, Democrats are admonished to respect the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling now known as "Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission" in which corporations were awarded the power to take down any president or party they want to, if they have enough money to fund their "political speech".

In its wake, more than one commentator has recoiled, noting we have passed from any semblance of a democracy to a plutocracy- a government controlled by money. As one articulate Denver Post writer (Buie Seawell) put it soon after the ruling: "The Republic Jefferson and Madison gave us no longer belongs to most of us, it belongs to the rich and the corporate".

Is this just exaggeration? Not really! The ruling essentially overturned years of case and federal law that conceded that awarding unlimited spending rights to corporations - for political campaigns- amounted to the undermining and de facto censorship of citizens' speech. This is really a no -brainer and one doesn't need a Harvard Law degree to see it.

With unlimited spending thresholds vast corporations, especially multinationals like Monsanto or BP - are capable of purchasing thousands of hours of political commercial time on radio and tv, whereas the average citizen (even if in a group) would be able to barely afford one - commercial, not hour. It would be tantamount to being shouted down on every stage or forum.

Some apologists have claimed the "little people" can still "have their say" - and I agree, on blogs like this, we do, and maybe in the occasional letters to the editor, or just standing on a street corner. But how vast is our influence compared to a multinational that - come this fall - will be able to purchase literal HOURS of prime time tv space? It's like comparing Barbados military might to that of the U.S. and insisting that in a square off, little Bim would still have half a chance, say to resist a full-fledged invasion!

People also lack the insight to see that "free speech" cannot be extended to money! Money is no more free speech, than a stock share or a bond. It is a medium of transaction for goods and services, but when spent on political advertisements, it can assume a power that diminishes the freedom of the rest of us. Much of this is tied to the "personhood" origin of corporations, making them de facto equals of all flesh and blood citizens.

The first vehicle to do this was the 1886 Santa Clara decision of the Supreme Court to award corporations the rights of citizens, and extend to them special definitions as "persons" under the 14th Amendment.

This is the same one that established rights for emancipated slaves, and was specifically intended for that purpose. This legal bastardization of the meaning of 'person', in conjunction with the perversion of the 14th Amendment occurred despite the fact it countermanded any sensible definition, or interpretation. (Since practically every semi-conscious human knows that a corporation is a legal-business artifice, not any flesh and blood 'person' with "rights".)

The egregious Santa Clara ruling, then, legally created an instant class of 'supercitizens' - and de facto 'super persons'. Unlike the normal person-citizen, these were able to live forever, or as close to that sublime state as de-regulating laws allowed. They could live in multiple places at once (branch offices), and even transmogrify themselves via mergers, etc. or 'amputate' themselves into smaller companies bearing the same overall identity, and run by a single interlocking directorate.

These 'corporate persons' were (over time) also able to access a host of special rights and privileges - not afforded ordinary flesh and blood citizens. These included: special tax-write offs, government and state subsidies, as well as deductions.(Like 'tax deferred benefits' packages for CEOs). And, in the late 20th century, a generous form of government subsidy known as 'corporate welfare' - which extracts, on average, $1,991/year from each taxpayer to fund and underwrite corporate profits and projects. The ostensible reason to 'create jobs', but of course this is a rank myth. (Most corporate job creation is only temporary, and comes when a community virtually sells itself down the river to appease them with tax write-offs, subsidies and other extortion. Then when these vultures leave - often after three years or so, the jobs are gone but the costs, e.g. pollution, remain to clean up or pay for.)

In effect, the stage had been set for endemic and anomalous political and economic imbalance that was built into the very legal system, and manner of governance. That imblance has now reached a critical mass with the Citizens United ruling, since it essentially paves the way for corporations to succeed citizens as the inheritors of this nation, and - based on their already vast lobbying and legislative influence (please refer to the "Medicare Modernization Act") thtat over time will reduce us all to serfs or indentured servants.

What the Post (and now the ACLU) is carping about is what's called the "Disclose Act" , recently passed in the House, which aims to exercise some mild control over the no-holds barred insanity of the Citizens United refuse ruling. The aim and reach of "Disclose" ('Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections') is very limited and confined to the most powerful corporations, which would be able to harness the most immense funds during any political campaign. For example, they'd be able - if they so chose- to make an actual film about Obama being some kind of deranged "socialist" or worse, then be content that so many ill informed knuckle-draggers would buy it, hook, line and sinker. Most of these one can already reel off with little effort: the ones ensconced in Big PhRMA, the Health HMO Insurance Consortium, the Oil companies, the large multinationals, and the banking industry - not to mention Wall Street's ever present shylocks.

Basically, then, to use an analogy, with the corporate "person" aiming a gun to the collective head of citizens, the DISCLOSE act at least ensures the "gun" is secured in a trigger lock.

For example, it would ban corporations with 20 % or more foreign control or ownership from making independent expenditures in a political campaign. It would have to be done in conjunctions with PACS which are limited. The act would also ban any independent campaign expenditures from businesses (e.g. defense contractors) that have more than $10 million in contracts with the federal government.

Both provisions amount to basic common sense. By comparison, in Barados - a 370+ year old democracy (oldest in the hemisphere) no corporation is allowed to spend in any political campaign if it even has 1 % foreign ownership. Thus, Texaco, when it operated there, wasn't allowed to spend money in any Bajan elections. This is sensible and also expected, since no one in their right minds wants the influence of a foreign power in their elections - but the Post evidently does, yelping that DISCLOSE "decides which groups are allowed to particpate in democracy".

They then list the exemptions, including: unions, the NRA, Planned Parenthood, PETA, the Sierra Club and others.

Bu they mix chalk and cheese. Because while these are all certainly "special interests" they are together unequal to the power of a vast multinational corporation like BP or Monsanto, or even Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan Chase. It's somewhat like calling out congress for a new pest control law that nails the largest and most deadly pests- like scorpions, Black Widow Spiders, giant centipedes and wasps, but doesn't go after the grasshoppers or harmless spiders.

Meanwhile, the ACLU argues that DISCLOSE:

"would have a chilling effect on political participation" and that the legislation "fails to improve the integrity of political campaigns in any substantial way while significantly harming the speech and association rights of Americans"

Which is fulsome rubbish!

First, the only entities on which it would have a "chilling effect" are the most powerful corporations, including part foreign owned (which tend to be multinationals, some of which now rival the power of whole nations, see William Greider: 'One World Ready Or Not - The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism).

Technically, as "corporate persons" wielding power out of all proportion to citizens, they ought not be allowed in the electoral process, period. As I've noted in earlier blogs, even their lobbying and existing campaign funding needs to be curtailed. They are trumping more and more votes each election cycle and thereby discouraging more and more citizens from exercising their franchise - since those citizens are wise enough to see that lobbying and high power wheeling and dealing trumps votes every time.

Secondly, the legislation does help the integrity of the election process in a SMALL way, and that is better than nothing. What it does is expose to view the highest spenders, who may have the most nefarious investment in undermining a particular party or president. SO all the better to shed light on them! As with the health care reform, in a highly polarized political climate one must move in baby steps.

Thirdly, there is NO "significant harm" to the speech rights or assocation rights of average Americans. There may well be to super rich Hedge fund owners and operators who want to try and get rid of the Democrats in the mid-terms, but I don't care about them, OR the wealthy and powerful corporations that really run most of this country. (Like the odious defense contractors, who with the Pentagon, keep us tied to a futile "war", consuming over a hundred billion dollars a year now, much of it now being stolen. When are the deficit hawks going to look at that?)

As for any average Americans who want to associate and invest in the "political speech" of a multi-national (say via ads this fall praising poor little BP because Obama is "shaking it down", a la that idiot Joe Barton), fine - just don't expect me to support or applaud your siding with the enemy: an artifact devoid of emotion, and based upon a contract that has no innate rights, period.

And don't expect me to endorse your "speech", which I regard as little different from shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater, so long as it enables and assists corporate hegemony.