Time Slips(1) : Flights of Fancy or Temporal Displacements Based on Real Physics?

Diagram of the multiverse with two localization angles which may be used to pinpoint parallel universes within it. Is it possible for two longitude lines (each designating a parallel universe) to be so close together that an interphasing is possible? Might this account for the phenomenon of "time slips"? 

In L. Sprague de Camp's classic scifi novel  'Lest Darkness Fall', (1939), a 20th century professor - Martin Padway -  finds himself suddenly hurled back to the Roman Empire in the sixth century by encountering a "time slip" in Rome. While doing the tourist thing in Rome near the Coliseum, he's suddenly transported back in time. He is forced to live by his wits, eventually using his knowledge of Latin and how to make paper (from vellum), to produce a newspaper.

The idea of time slips received more fact-based currency with the publication of Oxford physicist Michael Shallis' book, 'On Time'. Therein, (pp. 161-62) Shallis documents actually reported incidents of factual people who - somehow or some way- found themselves cast back into the past. Among the more famous is the incident involving two women from 1901, Charlotte Moberly and Eleanor Jourdain, who found themselves in the Versailles of 1789 while visiting a park in that location in 1901. As Shallis describes it (p. 161):

"To the ladies of 1901 the experience was one they lived through, but if they stepped into another time, they either did so as a sort of ghost or else as real live people".

Meanwhile, the Wikipedia account of  Moberly's reported experience reads as follows:

"We walked briskly forward, talking as before, but from the moment we left the lane an extraordinary depression had come over me, which, in spite of every effort to shake off, steadily deepened. There seemed to be absolutely no reason for it; I was not at all tired, and was becoming more interested in my surroundings. I was anxious that my companion should not discover the sudden gloom upon my spirits, which became quite overpowering on reaching the point where the path ended, being crossed by another, right and left…Everything suddenly looked unnatural, therefore unpleasant; even the trees behind the building seemed to have become flat and lifeless, like a wood worked in tapestry. There were no effects of light and shade, and no wind stirred the trees. It was all intensely still."


What does this mean? Is this the domain of the supernatural, or is real physics involved? The Wiki article goes on to add:

" In the Versailles case, the two ladies were apparently seen, and spoken to, by people they saw"

In other words, there were real physical interactions, which implies a genuine physics basis. At the same time, Moberly's description reads as if the pair were in some sort of simulacrum world and not an actual past Earth ("the trees behind the building seemed to have become flat and lifeless", "no effects of light and shade").

This suggests perhaps a parallel universes "interphasing" effect. Something I had described in an earlier blog:

http://www.brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/08/is-it-possible-to-detect-parallel.html

Therein, I referenced the (David) Deutsch experiment (See: 'The Fabric of Reality') to detect  how the interphasing of a parallel universe can be carried out, and the penetration of our universe by a parallel one validated. In his book(pp. 38-47), Deutsch adopts the setup (Fig. 2-4) of a monochromatic light beam that passes through successive screens with single holes. The image presented on the screen is a central bright spot with darker penumbra around it. With a two slit pattern for the screens (p. 41) the experiment becomes more interesting in that successive barriers to generate the patterns engenders what Deutsch calls "shadow photons".


He acknowledges (p. 45) that "tangible" (i.e. measurable) photons are grounded in our tangible, current universe, but also that shadow photons can be thought of as collectively coming from a parallel universe. He then clarifies this in mind-blowing fashion (p. 45):


For it turns out that the shadow particles are partititoned among themselves in exactly the same way as the universe of tangible particles is partitioned from them...

Is it feasible then, that the two 1901 Brit women time-slipped into 1789 by virtue of  stepping into an interphased domain where two parallel universes merged: one from a 1789 Earth and the other from a 1901 version? Is it possible that the reason their time-slipped Versailles of 1789 appeared "gray and lifeless" is because they were seeing it via shadow photons - the only ones available?

What would the ladies have found had they conducted an interference experiment along the lines suggested by Deutsch? Would the shadows have been more intense to the point of overriding the rest of the pattern?

We consider this in the next part!

Lawmakers in Colorado Want to Repeal the Marijuana Law? Are They Nuts?

Three months ago I noted the travesty of local Colorado communities attempting to invoke local laws to skirt around Amendment 64 passed in November with nearly two thirds of the votes.

I observed that, one by one, communities across the state were trying to peck it to death with idiotic "NIMBY" laws. Never mind this violates a STATE constitutional amendment. In principle, ALL the communities were subverting the will of their own voters, and their "laws" emerged as derelict and UNLAWFUL! Douglas County and its associated burgs started this nonsense and then was joined by others. Then, 3 months ago we learned from a Denver Post piece ('Greenwood Village Ordnance to Test Pot Legalization law', Feb. 2, p. 1A) )that the Greenwood Village City Council - undoubtedly packed with Village idiots-  jumped on the 'Ban the MJ in Our Burg' Bandwagon.


According to the Post story:
“An ordinance passed last month in Greenwood Village is poised to become a test case for how far cities can go to keep marijuana out of their communities after legalization.  In early January, the Greenwood Village City Council voted to ban use, possession and transportation of marijuana on city property."

In other words, any citizen of the state of Colorado caught transporting even 1 oz of MJ on village property would be tossed into the hoosegow.

Now, we learn, from today's Denver Post, it's even worse.  Some insane state legislators want to repeal the state constitutional amendment in entirety. They want to actually do an end run to subvert the will of nearly 2 of 3 Colorado voters.  In effect, spitting on their franchise and telling them by their arrogant actions that citizens don't count in this state, no matter how sizeable a majority a laws passes.

Leading the charge, at least one of them- is Rep. Frank McNulty of Highland Park. But as usual there are traitorous Dem reps- pussies involved too. One Dem, House Speaker Mark Ferrandino of Denver was quoted in the Post saying the plan is: "worth the conversation".

Worth the conversation? Overturning the will of the voters? Are U nuts?

Another Dem, Sen. John Morse of Colorado Springs,  blurted: "I am absolutely supportive of the idea."

Oh really? SO you will now add your name to the already long list of Democ- rats we can't trust? Who spout gibberish about being "for the people" but end up doing otherwise!

What's this all about? It's simple really! When Amendment 64 was first proposed - even before CO voters passed it- every freakin' manjack in the legislature knew that many i's would need to be dotted and t's crossed before the bill would emerge this summer. A host of regulations, including to do with taxes, and whether MJ could be smoked in apartments, or shared at houses etc. came to the fore. All of a sudden something that seemed fairly simple became ever more complex and .....our lawmakers punked out...taking the easy route of restriction and now attempted repeal - instead of doing the heavy lifting.

This is pretty typical of political punks in each party, however, so we must not be surprised. Also that many of those in the league of repression and/or repeal are in the pockets of Big PhRmA or Alcohol and don't want to see those special pet interests competing with MJ for sales. Hence, a clever smokescreen had to be invented. That is along the lines of taxes.

So what have these swine come up with? A new ballot measure in November, to pay for marijuana implementation- via TAXES. Then, if the voters don't ALSO pass that measure, it will be repeal for Amendment 64. (So, look for a clever rider to take down 64 with any rejection of the higher state taxes ballot).  This execrable strategy comes on the heels of a supposed academic paper out of the Univ. of Colorado- that claims that MJ sales and taxes therefrom would never pay for the costs of operation and the state would lose. This is funny bullshit reasoning given our esteemed punk lawmakers have no problems passing fracking leases which essentially give away the store to outside frackers, oil companies - while health costs are sent sky high.

Meanwhile, as this repeal plan continues to be vetted and rewritten (to try to make it more appealing) pro-MJ forces are coming together to counteract it.

And no, this isn't  merely about smoking pot. As someone who never has and likely never will, it's not about me not getting my "daily toke".

No, it's about respecting the will of the voters.

If we can't even exercise the ideals of democracy at this small, state scale, we have no business calling ourselves such or even mouthing rhetoric about "liberty".  We're all simply cogs in a vast corporate machine in which money and lobby interests trump the voters' will. You can be poisoned and get cancer from fracked water unleashed in your groundwater, but you can't smoke a joint.

We are governed merely by a corporate dictatorship which decides the benefits it will allow (mostly to corporations, big business), and which it will hurl into the dumpster (those to be enjoyed by individual citizens).

What's Wrong With U.S. Secondary Education? Just About Everything!

Aug. 1978, giving an astronomy workshop to teachers in St. Lucia.  Such workshops were given in all subject areas at regular intervals and followed by teacher tests.

The appearance of educator Deborah Kenny on 'Morning Joe' was sobering as she described an educational system in crisis. Not only is the U.S. now ranked 17th in science vis-a-vis other nations, but 25th in math. And we won't even go into the latest economics test issued to U.S. students in which they performed deplorably - most not even aware of basic financial indicators or issues.

Kenny, when pressed by Scarborough, went on to list ways the whole system can be improved, first and foremost adopting the "team" concept in which each school sees itself as a team dedicated to solid advancement. She also appealed to "innovation" - allowing teachers to be creative in their classrooms in terms of inquiry, and cautioned that the system needed to drop the gov't gimmicks for easy handouts (based on testing alone) and having administrators in every classroom checking off teacher violations.

All of these are fine, but she barely scratched the surface. (Understandable given she was allotted maybe only one third the time to do justice to the issue).  But how and why is the U.S. secondary education system so terrible? What factors contribute to undermining it, especially in areas of math and science where our nation continually flounders? Below I explore some of the reasons that occur to me, since I myself taught more than 20 years overseas (in Barbados at secondary and tertiary level) before teaching in the U.S. at tertiary level (Univ. of Alaska-Fairbanks, in space physics, physics and at a Maryland community college in calculus physics).

1.  Too much interference by School Boards- low level politicos:

This was the first factor that struck me on return to the U.S.: the degree of interference in all manner of school policies, even choice of textbooks and curricula. School boards, often highly politicized, sought to imprint their schools with their own biased marks, agendas and beliefs. Obviously, such micro-managed oversight will kill innovation and creativity in its tracks. Both of those are predicated on a spirit of free inquiry which absolutely cannot be pursued if hack politicians are looking over teachers' shoulders at every turn.

Thus, a teacher of biology who seeks to examine hominid evolution may be called on the carpet, just as one (say in Texas) who teaches American history and wishes to investigate more at a deep politics level the basis of the JFK assassination. Perhaps he even wishes to use a book ('The Untold History of the United States') that will be more amenable to inquiry as opposed to vanilla regurgitation of oversold myths and bogus factoids. In either case, most politicized school boards will cut the teachers off at the knees.

Innovation? Dead and buried!

2. Being Hostage to Government 'Carrot & Stick' Gimmicks:

Another vast killer of inquiry and creativity are the two government educational gimmick programs: 'No Child Left Behind' and "Race to the Top". In either of these, students and teachers become hostage to test taking for the sake of "making the cut" and not losing out on government largesse, benefits - which will be withheld if schools fail in standarized tests.

Time spent to actually teach is thereby usurped in the interest of making students excellent test takers, as opposed to educated Americans. Not even mentioned by those who push this fetish, is that many students are allowed to opt out especially in "elite" districts. So exactly how is that fair? The test hostages are then being screwed over twice! They're losing time for actual education while also not getting anywhere near the funding those students in the elite districts benefit from. (The ones afforded the privilege of opting out of standardized tests - thereby gaining an even greater time advantage for real teaching).

More pernicious is that the test taking obsession drives educators to step over the line to meet the test standards, even if it means cheating.  Look no further than the Atlanta cheating scandal. True, the cheaters are still accountable, but when the two main gov't gimmick programs put so much at stake in terms of benefits, one can understand how such desperation manifests, even if it can't be accepted.

3. The problem with math teaching in the U.S.

I actually went over this in two prior blogs and readers can reference that content here:

http://www.brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/03/mis-education-of-mathematics-teachers.html

and

http://www.brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/01/college-math-prof-and-why-us-education.html

Additionally, I presented a Caribbean Math test geared to secondary (CXC, or Caribbean Examination Council) students, and noted that it would probably give most U.S. students grief - probably even college students. That link is:

http://www.brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/04/could-us-high-schoolers-pass-basic.html

Perhaps the best insight into U.S. math travails is in Darryl Yong's blog which I cited in the second link above.

4. Science defects:

I highlighted these in a blog to do with why U.S. students have so much difficulty achieving good results in physics, see e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/07/sad-state-of-us-high-school-physics.html

And what applies in this subject area also applies to a large degree in the other main science areas of chemistry and biology.  Chemistry, of course,should have a heavy emphasis on experimentation - and the biology to be worthwhile must address Darwinian evolution and not run from it. However, in too many districts school boards have interfered, as well as the state (e.g. Texas) to dumb down exposure.


5. History teaching defects.

This is very well known and author James Loewen has discussed U.S. history failings at length in his excellent book, Lies My Teacher Told Me.   The gist of it is that 95% of American students who take hsitory are sold a bill of folderol and gibberish that leaves out all the warts and blotches while it extols the 'good stuff'. Some history book are so pathetic they don't even acknowledge the role of other nations (e.g. Britain) in WWII but make it appear the U.S. won it single-handedly!  Other books totally avoid the false origin of the Vietnam War (in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution) and avoid (like the plague) how early white settlers butchered Native Americans to grab their land.

With crap like this being taught, it's little wonder too many Americans don't know diddly or squat about even recent history.


6. Economics teaching deficits:

The recent revelations about secondary students' deplorable lack of financial acumen and economics exposure is also tragic. But again, with so much teaching to the test, what else would you expect? Certainly any student worth his salt ought to be able to identify the main reasons for the 2008 credit crisis and financial meltdown. He (or she) ought to be at least able to identify the derivatives known as 'credit default swaps' even if not the Gaussian Copula formula that was employed to integrate them into otherwise decent bond products.

Any H.S. student ought to also be able to answer questions such as:

a) Jeans are on sale at a big box store for 15% less than the original (marked) price of $24.99. If the sales tax is 5% what will you end up paying for the jeans?

b) You put $1,000 into a new bank account for which the interest is 0.2%. per annum.  If holding any account below $5,000 incurs a $10 per month fee, do you see any gain at the end of the first year? How much? If a loss, how much?

c) Joe and Mary are within 6 years of desired retirement. They estimate they need at least a $300,000 nest egg along with their Social Security. In order to ramp up their savings they put $100,000 of their $200,000 so far saved into equity and bond funds in their 401ks. After three years, their total loss is $30,000. Assuming average 5% gains per year afterward, how long will it take them to make back their original investment?

7. Anti-intellectual culture:

Briefly touched on with Deborah Kenny's appearance this morning, although critical, is that we seem to inhabit an anti-intellectual culture. This is also a big reason why secondary school teachers are accorded little respect. (One former teacher sitting at the table and part of the discussion, noted spitballs being hurled at him each time he entered a classroom)

Altered, higher pay scales will change some of this: making teachers the professionals they should be. But it can't solve an endemic problem in the culture itself. Indeed, Benjamin Barber in his book 'Consumed' points out how the intellectual basis of the nation has been eroded over time by a culture of infantile consumerism. Susan Jacoby ('The Age of American Unreason') meanwhile notes that crass, anti-intellectual religiosity, as embodied in fundamentalism, is also part of the problem.

Whatever, the solution is long term and requires intense education to show how we've all been victimized by the capitalist purveyors of shlock.

Lastly, fixing the educational system in the country is a monumental task. But at least addressing the problem areas I identified above will make it function more in concert with our higher expectations. As opposed to at the lowest level!

Blowback is a Bitch: Why We Need To Leave Afghanistan NOW!

Memorial to the 78 victims of the bombing of Cubana Airlines Flight 455 near Paradise Beach, Barbados. The bombing was done by Venezuelan terrorists at the instigation of the CIA. The primary architect, Luis Posada Carilles, was pardoned by Bush Sr.

In a September 13, 2001 interview with the magazine In These Times, Chalmers Johnson (the author of ‘Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire’,  2000) was said to “have seen the September 11 catastrophe coming”.  Johnson’s 2000 book argued that U.S. interventionist foreign policy and military overextension would lead to unintended and unpredictable consequences. A year later, his warning seemed eerily prescient.

One caller on C-SPAN (in the wake of the attack) observed that this terrorist hit would never be understood in its full context if people disconnected between what happened and the intervening years of U.S. sponsored global terrorism that preceded it. Creating an atmosphere within which ‘blowback’ – the CIA term for unintended negative consequences of national policy– could materialize.

Now we are getting new warnings, and one wonders how many Americans are processing them or simply retiring to their self-made social media cocoons.

The appearance of Farea Al-Mulsimi before congress and then on the 'All In With Chris Hayes' show last night, ought to be a wake up call. Al-Muslimi is a friendly, ordinary guy who lived in the U.S. for years then traveled back to Yemen to try and win goodwill for the U.S. of A. Sadly, it was a non-starter thanks to repeated deadly drone attacks. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Al-Muslimi cannot see any U.S. goodness in his drone-struck village in Yemen. Nor any difference between enemy combatant and non-enemy.

The difference is something that can be contained in a secret memo. This is apparently the case no matter whom a drone strike kills and no matter where it kills them. The world is the battlefield, and the enemies are Muslims. Young men in predominantly Muslim countries are posthumously declared enemies once a drone has killed them. They must be enemies. After all, they're dead.

One wonders how this sounds to a young Muslim man who's taken to heart the lesson that violence is righteous and that war is everywhere at all times.  Do people who blow up bombs at public sporting events think all together differently from people who blow up peaceful villages in Yemen? Is one case murder and the other "killing" and hence more justifiable? (As the biblical literalists seek to argue in trying to justify certain specific instances of butchery despite the 5th commandment's 'Thou shalt NOT Kill", period.)

Or is it something more sinister, abominable and damnable? That American lives are worth much more than any others?

Well, let me be blunt: Those who engage in murder believe that murder is justified, that's all there is to it. The reasons they have, whether secret or known, are irrelevant and unacceptable. Murder is not made into something else by declaring it to be part of a war, especially when such "war" has: a) never been paid for as other wars fought (WWII), and b) no limiting parameters have been defined, either what determines a "victory" or - in its absence-  a conclusion.

Blind paper patriots (like Mikey Marine) may not like to hear this, since they're deaf, dumb and blind anyway, but with America having killed thousands of Muslim civilians in its drone strikes and wars, the expedient (secret memo) rules of exceptional (and "righteous") American terror and murder are thankfully being challenged, and not by someone who is so easily smeared- say a hard core Leftist (Socialist)  like me. Oh no!

By none other than Tom Brokaw. So if anyone wants to piss on a critic's head, let them take on Brokaw. I merely report what HE said! During Brokaw’s appearance on “Meet the Press” last Sunday, discussing revelations that the bombing suspects may be connected to Muslim fundamentalism, he said:

“We have got to look at the roots of all of this because it exists across the whole (Asian) subcontinent and the Islamic world around the world. I think we also have to examine (America’s) use of drones (because) there are a lot of civilians who are innocently killed in a drone attack in Pakistan, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. And I can tell you having spent a lot of time over there, young people will come up to me on the streets and say, ‘We love America, but if you harm one hair on the head of my sister, I will fight you forever.’ And there is this enormous rage against what they see in that part of the world as a presumptuousness of the United States.”

Well, all I can say is 'WOW!' he told it like is, no bullshit, no coddling to pander to the  consumer eye and ear that's converted most of us into infants. He dealt with us as presumably mature CITIZENS. Even more potent since it's coming from one of the corporate establishment’s own.  I mean we're talking of a guy that still believes a lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK! Nonetheles, he remains one of the most venerated voices, and not prone to radical statements.

But  here's the deal and the importance of what he said: In a nation that often avoids acknowledging its own role in intensifying cycles of violence, it is unfortunately considered radical to do what the NBC News veteran did and mention that our violent attacks abroad increase the chance of retributive attacks at home. But if we keep these hidden, how can we ever change and recognize that WE also are the enemy? WE also are terrorists! We just choose to do it high tech, disengaged fashion. As Pogo once said: "We have met the enemy and we are it!"

Of course, Brokaw was merely stating the obvious: With America having killed thousands of civilians in its wars, we should be rightly appalled by acts of terrorism on our shores — but we shouldn’t be surprised by them. We should know that violence will inevitably come from those like the Boston bombing suspect who, according to the Washington Post, “told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack.”

Noting this is not to argue that such attacks are justified or that we deserved them, certainly not civilians just minding their beeswax. It is only to reiterate what Brokaw alluded to: Namely, that blowback should be expected in an age in which Permanent War  is waged incessantly and no moral limits are established. 

More importantly,  the one way to potentially avert such blowback in the future is to try to deescalate the cycle of violence. As long as we are killing, all these outraged across the world will make it their job to kill us. This is also what Chalmers Johnson warned about. You simply cannot continue to do "one way" kills and expect no reprisals, no blowback.

In his 2001 interview Johnson was asked: You implied that this type of terrorist warfare seems to be the warfare of the future. I assume that you would expect to see more?

He replied:

No nation can hope to beat the United States on American terms. Therefore you must devise a strategy that essentially makes our overwhelming military capability worthless. I think they have managed to do so.

People in Washington are continually talking about declaring war—but declaring war on whom? They don't know. If they are going to go out and attack Afghanistan, it will simply produce a further cycle of blowback and retaliation. In the meantime, it will also even further inflame the entire Middle East.


We need now to stop this escalation and insanity and do it now: Get our asses out of  Afghanistan (which cause is already lost and we haven't the $$$$ to keep our planes on schedule, far less nation build) and cease all the drone attacks across the region.

We aren't killing terrorists, we are creating ever more!

Solutions to Fractional Gamma Function Problems

1. G(x + 1) = x G (x)

Then: 


G (3/2) = G ( ½ +  1) = ½ G (½) =  Öp/2


2.   G (-0.70) = ?

Use:  G(x) = G(x + 1) = x G (x)


so that: G (-0.70) = G (-0.70 + 1) =  -0.70 G (-0.70)

Rewrite this as:  

G (-0.70)  =  G (-0.70 + 1) /  - 0.70  = G (0.30)/ - 0.70

But:    

G (0.30) = 2.992   

so  G (0.30) / - 0.70 = 2.992/ -0.70 = -4.274

  3.  We use the form:
 
G (n + ½) = (2n - 1)! (p)^1/2 / 2ⁿ n!

To find:   G (3/2)

Here: n = 1,  i.e. form is (½ + 1)= 3/2,  so that:

(2n - 1)! (p)^1/2 / 2ⁿ n!   =  (1) (p)^1/2  / 2¹  1!    =  (p)^1/2  / 2  =    Öp/2

Which is the same answer as (1) obtained in a different way.


4.   G (5/2)  = G ( 3/2 +  1) = 3/2  G (3/2)  

(Since G(x + 1) = x G (x)  )

And we know:

G (3/2) =  Öp/2

Therefore:

G (5/2)  =  3/2   (Öp/2)  =   3Öp/ 4

Reinhart-Rogoff’s Fuzzy Spreadsheet Math – and The Howling Austerity Fetishists

The recent paper by two Hah-vahd eggheads (Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff) that when debt as Percentage of GDP hits 90% it leads to negative growth, has taken D.C. by storm. Well, let me clarify that: It has spurred the austerity hawks – including Paul Ryan and Tom Coburn – into doing backflips to demand gov’t spending be cut. Only one problem: a grad student ran the numbers himself on an Excel spreadsheet and found the Harvardians botched their analysis- leaving out several rows in their analysis and at least four countries, including Belgium and Canada.


Grad student Thomas Herndon did a run of the mill academic paper, entitled "Growth in a Time of Debt",  in which he exposed several errors including: simple coding errors, data omissions and peculiar aggregation procedures. Incredibly, when the spreadsheet errors were corrected, lo and behold the nations sporting debt at 90 percent or more of GDP were no longer in recession (the Rogoff -Reinhart paper showed growth typically defined for them at -0.1%) but with a reasonable 2.2 %. (This contrasts with 4.2% when debt is below 30% of GDP).

But never mnid uncovering the errors - which are definitely significant because the percent of growth is the issue on which austerity pivots- the abundant austerity freaks in congress don't want to hear it. You see, the issue isn't about whether the Rogoff -Reinhart paper was correct or not, but rather that it provided - at least for a time- special cover for the austerity - spending cut crowd to howl like banshees. Especially for Obama to make many more cuts so they can come to the table, agree no a sequestration resolution, and allow millions to leave on their flights on time.

But as blogger Richard Eskow also observed on smirkingchimp.com:

"Economists Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff seem surprisingly unremorseful. And austerity's paid pitchmen are still hawking their wares."

As Eskow added:

"Their response can be boiled down to "Numbers. Shmumbers. Surely too much debt is bad, right?"

Well, of course such a cavalier attitude isn't suprising, given the dynamic duo are high-powered academics who've clearly invested lots of brain energy into their work. I mean, no academic wants to be forced to recant an error in a paper that earlier received so much welcome (from the Neoliberals) far less several errors - possibly making the whole paper useless.

But what I have found interesting is the inevitable comparisons with this austerity paper and the lies told the American people to justifying making war on Iraq ten years ago. This was noted in a recent article: Curveball: Spies, Lies, and the Con Man Who Caused a War  (American Prospect.) In the interview  therein,  Pete Drogin notes that all of the CIA intelligence used to justify the Iraq War - all of it -- traced back to a single, self-interested party. This fraud was also the source for Judith Miller's highly influential (and entirely false) reporting for the New York Times. All of that, together with the shrill calls from other corporo-media, had the American people polling for war by early 2003.

Curveball didn't need to prove his claims because the decision had already been made to go to war. He just needed to sound plausible enough for Miller and all the other self-interested hacks inside and outside of government.

 

As Drogin says in the interview, the Curveball episode was "a conspiracy of ineptitude driven by tawdry ambitions, spineless leadership, and fear." It wasn't that "they failed to connect the dots," says Drogin. They "made up the dots."

  Hmmmmmm.....sounds to me an awful lot like austerity economics and the babble of the Neoliberal imps who support it. The nuts and screwballs who want their cuts, despite the fact we remain in a low aggregate demand environment.

What has interested me, however, is how the Governor of the Central Bank of Barbados (De Lisle Worrell)  shrugged when recently asked about Barbados low rate of growth (barely 1% last year) and high % of debt of GDP, essentially dismissed it. He also dismissed the worries of some that it might spark an IMF intervention. "What intervention?" he sneered, and in so many words. Adding that Barbados has mainly gone its own way for over 350 years and will continue to do so. He noted the low growth is directly connected to the continued credit crisis and low aggregate demand - especially in the U.S. - where most of the island's tourists hail from. DUH!

So he isn't worried because he grasps that Barbados' economic fortunes are cyclical, with the tourist dollar. For a time this was counterbalanced by offshore banking operations, until capitalist-Neoliberal scumballs like Nicholas Sarkozy (at assorted OECD meets) castigated it and called a pox upon all the banking houses of the Caribbean as harboring monies of  "criminals". In one fell swoop, the economic Neoliberal naysayers set the offshore banking business back at least a decade.  Also, they had better watch themselves if they ever think of tripping in Bim.

But a point Gov. Worrell ought to concern himself with is the $400 m going out each year from the island to pay for fuel imports to runs buses, over 100,000 cars and taxis.  Unless the island gets a grip on this they will enter into a sovereign debt crisis.

As for the U.S. - the real worry isn't any similar such thing but rather another, possibly greater recession, especially if too many imbeciles in D.C. keep buying into and pushing their austerity economics - based on spreadsheet errors in a high falutin' Harvard economics paper!

The Enigma That Is C.S. Lewis

                                                         C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis, noted Christian apologist and fictional author (The Screwtape Letters, The Chronicles of Narnia) appears to be enjoying a revival of sorts as a version of his 'Screwtape Letters' is currently playing here in The Springs. Of course, all the resident fundagelicals are going ga-ga over it, but one wonders why.

Lewis, by his own accounts, certainly wasn't dogmatic or doctrinaire. Indeed, it appears the fundies' love for him is evidently based more on assorted canards and myths than reality. All of this lends an aura of enigma to Lewis' life and actual beliefs.

One of the myths is that Lewis used to be an "atheist" who eventually found the light in his thirties and came back to Christianity. In fact, like another Brit of renown - Antony Flew - Lewis was no atheist.  Flew himself was more a secular humanist than actual atheist. But fundies made a huge deal over his "conversion".

The truth is somewhat more mundane and his book There Is a God, is especially instructional. Just one minor little problem with that, Flew never wrote the book!  According to a piece (‘The Turning of an Atheist’) by Mark Oppenheimer. Flew admitted in an interview that he never wrote the book. The actual author was Roy Varghese, a Christian apologist, who did all the original writing and then showed it to Flew, who for some reason okayed it. This was confirmed by Varghese, to Oppenheimer, who describes Varghese as “a crusader and financial backer of those who believe scientific research helps to validate the existence of God.

Getting back to Lewis, he was actually more a devotee of Celtic mysticism from his teens until his 30s, when he rejoined the Anglican Communion. For a great article skewering his so-called atheism see: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/aah/inniss_8_2.htm  Quoting from the piece:

"Lewis must have been one really chicken-shit atheist. He certainly didn't bear himself with the confidence I have observed in every atheist I have ever met. In Surprised by Joy (now there's a Christian title for you), Lewis characterizes his and others' atheism as follows: "I was at this time living, like so many Atheists or Anti-theists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry at God for not existing. I was equally angry at Him for creating a world." This is kind of like having a dog, but hating it for not barking at prowlers—a dilemma no atheist would recognize."

Indeed, Lewis's alleged atheism borders on the ludicrous. At the very least it's an infantile mutation ...probably much like the self-proclaimed "atheism" espoused by the Columbine Killers. In that respect, it isn't an atheism that any genuine atheist would recognize,  far less embrace. But why be surprised, if so many also thought Antony Flew was a bona fide atheist?

Lewis'  personal Christian re-awakening then spurred his Christian Apologias, including "Mere Christianity", "Miracles", "The Problem of Pain" and "The Screwtape Letters." Chronicles of Narnia can also be included since it plays and reads like a parable-based Apologia, with the evil doers clearly delineated and the Lion ("Aslan") obviously a stand-in for Christ, including the way he's seemingly offered as a blood sacrifice.

Meanwhile, in a kind of reverse theological psychology, Lewis, in The Screwtape Letters,  fabricated an exchange of letters between Uncle "Screwtape" and demon nephew "Wormwood", wherein the mentor demon attempts to educate nephew on the fine points of tempting humans. The letters are elaborate and often go into moral fine points, conundrums and subtleties - so much so that if one isn't careful to remind himself  it's clever  fantasy - he can almost be lured into thinking these are two real demons communicating about human weakness.

At face value,  Lewis’ unconventional morality lesson emerges as a creative masterpiece at getting the unwary to accept demonic reality and personalized evil. But even a minimal application of reason and numerical logic would disclose it is nonsense.

By way of example, in May of 1990 during a debate at Harrison College, Barbados with a Christian who invoked Lewis’ Screwtape narrative I had occasion to do the math for him. I noted that given Lewis’ original likely demonic population of two –thousand, then it followed that when the human population hit six billion each demon would have 3 million humans (each) to try to tempt into a Hell -bound act each day. Given a uniform load, and dividing the labor equally, each demon would only have about 0.028 seconds per day for each temptation.

Obviously, if the world began with only a couple of thousand agents of temptation, they’d never be able to keep up with the temptation burden as the human population increased to hundreds of millions then billions! In this way I used an argument analogous to reductio ad absurdum to show Lewis’ Screwtape fable to be just that, an elaborate fable


Lewis at the time of the original writing (1942), probably expected the serious rationalist to believe that such a clever parable could entice people to accept evil manifested in personal demons. In the same way, he probably expected the same in one of his most famous attempts at attacking Materialism. In that instance, he asserted that "Materialism is self-refuting" - in that if it denies everything (including God) except colliding atoms and molecules in the brain, then one can't possibly account for a consciousness capable of thinking, reasoning and even being critical of itself.

Alas, Lewis was tilting at the windmill of an ancient Materialism - the one conceived by the ancient Greek atomists Demokritos and Leucippus. The one in which matter is reduced to 'hard' atoms and molecules simply interacting with each other endlessly in a reductionist phantasm.  It would be at least 15 more years before a quantum -based Materialism arose that embraced invisible fields, and waves as opposed to basing reality on hard particle interactions. This new view was perhaps embodied best in the quantum potential of physicist David Bohm:


V_Q=   {-ħ²/ 2m} [Ñ R]² / R


I can't fault Lewis too much because in his simplistic approach he couldn't have known how difficult issues of different forms of Materialism would subsequently become. In a stirring article appearing in Philosophy Now, (Nov./Dec. 2012, p. 28)  Graham Smetham cogently argues that since formal quantum mechanics dispenses with the fiction of a truly objective observer (hence configurations of matter are dependent on the observer and his apparatus) then the mind cannot be reduced to the brain.  If any Materialist models do so, or regard consciousness as an epiphenomenon, then Smetham dismisses them as  "false models of Materialism". They embody a false Materialism because they attempt to explain something as complex as thought and consciousness using simple molecular interactions.

Central to discriminating opposing Materialist models of mind are qualia. The term refers to subjective properties perceived in the material world, including colors, shapes and sounds (music). Arguably, none of these have objective existence but are tied to our neural processing and mode of consciousness. The qualia problem is often also called the Mary problem since it presents a hypothetical character (“Mary”) who inhabits a black and white world, but knows everything about colors in physics terms. Still, though she knows what color signifies – a particular wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum – she has never experienced it.  The qualia problem helps to distinguish between what many call monistic physicalism and what I refer to as quantum physicalism.

In this sense, and in hindsight, we now know that a crude version of the monistic physicalist form of Materialism is what Lewis was actually attacking - given THAT form demanded a hyper-reductionist format. Lewis' problem then, wasn't God being omitted from the equation, but the absence of the broad spectrum of quantum mechanics that enables a Materialist explanation of consciousness without invoking supernatural essences.

One wonders how transformative a philosopher Lewis might have been had he had at hand the insights of modern quantum mechanics.

But one thing we do know:  his embrace of Anglicanism rather than Christian Fundamentalism should come as no surprise and not be an enigma. Lewis was a rationalist thinker to his dying day, and though he 're-converted'  he never trusted ideologies or faiths (even operating under the umbrella of Christendom) that arrogated to themselves all truth. This is a cautionary note many of his fundie followers would do well to bear in mind.