I have a grandly dramatic vision of myself stalking through the canyons of the Big Apple in the rain and cold, dreaming about driving with the soft night air of East Texas rushing on my face while Willie Nelson sings softly on the radio, or about blasting through the Panhandle under a fierce sun and pale blue sky….I’ll remember, I’ll remember…sunsets, rivers, hills, plains, the Gulf, woods, a thousand beers in a thousand joints, and sunshine and laughter. And people. Mostly I’ll remember people.
There is one thing, an important thing, I have to tell you before I go. What I’m going to tell you is more than a fact. It is a Truth. I have spent six years checking it out, and I know it to be true. The people who subscribe to The Texas Observer are good people. In fact, you’re the best people in this state. I don’t care if you think that’s pretentious or sentimental—it’s just true.
If I got to naming you, I would never stop, so I won’t. But please believe me that all of you whom I know and many of you whom I know only by letter are in my mind as I write this—even if I do forget your names half the time. Always excepting, of course, the turkey who sends me hate mail after my annual gun-control editorial. Turkey, turkey, turkey.
I wanted to call this “The Long Goodbye” but Kaye won’t let me. She wanted to call it “Ivins Indulges in Horrible Fit of Sentimentality.”
I love you. Good-bye my friends.
The closing paragraphs of Molly’s goodbye column to Texas Observer readers published June 18, 1976, as she left to join The New York Times.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
"And for me, it's leaving time"
Alexandre Grothendieck hiding
Scienceline.ORG writes about Alexandre Grothendieck, an eminent mathematician, who is now 78 years old and he is probably doing well but no one has seen him for 14 years. In 1988, he rejected a prestigious award. He also criticized politicization of science - especially awards that change the real goal of science and mathematics. Also, Grothendieck has predicted a complete collapse of scientific establishment.
I share most of his concerns but I am probably less radical about them. ;-) The scientific establishment hasn't collapsed in the last 10 years. Awards suck and all the other phenomena Grothendieck talked about are here and they are pernicious but it doesn't necessarily follow that the scientific establishment must collapse. Because it's contaminated by careerism and politics, it will just become far less appealing for people like Grothendieck and it will lose - it is already losing - its purity. It will attract - and it is already attracting - a different kind of people.
The article also mentions some proposals to rank members of the American Mathematical Society. While there are good aspects of this idea, I also think that it would lead to an even more obvious escalation of political thinking and careerism in mathematics which are bad things. Such a ranking in AMS could reveal some information to the outsiders but I can easily imagine what kind of people would be primarily fighting, using all possible tools, allies, and emotions, for the higher ranks: the ambitious crackpots and mediocre thinkers who like to be described as geniuses by the media and who never disagree even though they know very well that such a description is a flagrant lie.
Via David Goss.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
EU constitution: 2007
In Europe, some politicians think that a unified continent is an important principle that has been revealed to them by an angel. Some green and leftist politicians see a unified Europe as a perfect tool to spread their favorite ideology. It has become popular among certain people to paint the EU constitution as an inevitably good thing and its opponents as politically incorrect people. Among the good people, there is consensus.
Is there any consensus? Well,
- 57% of the Frenchmen voted NON
- 62% of the Dutchmen voted NEE
There are still anti-EU sentiments in the United Kingdom, despite Tony Blair's attempts to eliminate them. However, the EU also has new members and some of them have very good reasons to feel as self-confident co-determinants of the common policy. Well, so far I am not talking about Romania and Bulgaria who don't really know yet what these questions are all about.
It is Prague that has emerged as a key opponent of a further unification and a foe of a complicated and long EU constitution. Angela Merkel saw it last week. President Klaus wants to replace EU by his Organization of European States. He is certainly not the only one who has similar ideas about these issues.
Jan Zahradil, a member of the European Parliament, was chosen to be Czechia's negotiator in these issues. He shares the opinions with other Czech politicians. Also, he believes it would be profoundly wrong if it became possible for the EU to silently expand its power into welfare and healthcare systems of the individual countries because these important issues could no longer be decided by democratic mechanisms.
Poland shares these Czech sentiments although its politicians are far less outspoken about them. On the other hand, the most Euro-optimistic party in the Czech Republic is probably the Green Party that has become a part of the current government.
Jo Leinen
Have you ever heard of this name? He is a head of a committee of the European Parliament. As far as I can say, I have only heard about this Gentleman whenever he criticized Václav Klaus. In this sense, Jo Leinen is Klaus' misbehaving appendix in the same sense as e.g. CapitalistImperialistPig is mine. :-) Nevertheless, this particular Jo Leinen feels very self-confident in criticizing the Czech president:
It's both sad and entertaining what this Leinen seems to think and say. Klaus is bringing Czechia to isolation, he damages his country and citizens, and must be confronted - and all this crap. Leinen apparently hasn't noticed that there has been quite a serious discussion about these issues in the Czech Republic (unlike some other countries) and many people, not only the president, are also able to think and many of them have made similar conclusions as the president.
Various people simply want to revive the same dead EU constitution that has been rejected by citizens of two pretty important countries. The referendums were just errors in their measurement. They can be neglected. Re-counts and re-re-counts must be organized until this "great" document will be accepted.
Click the picture to get a Russian opinion.
I don't believe that democracy can work at a supernatural level. There are things in which the European unification has been kind of useful regardless of political opinions - free trade, ability to move, simpler bureaucracy, funds to pay for certain projects in certain regions, especially poor regions, and so forth.
But there are topics which are purely political, controversial, and that should be decided democratically as long as the territory of Europe remains an example of democracy. The level of taxation, cultural questions, the healthcare system, pension rights, gay marriage, legal status of drugs and prostitution are examples. If these things are decided democratically, I think that it is rather clear that they must remain national issues.
It is impossible to elect European representatives truly democratically. It will always - at least in the next 10 years - be the case that a primary task for the deputies of the EU Parliament will be to defend the national interests of their countries. It's simply a fact because the national identity within the EU will remain more important than other kinds of identities, including the identity to political blocs, for most citizens of the EU. Most citizens of the EU can't understand what most politicians of the EU want, and how much they want it - because they don't speak their language.
It would be very wrong to create a Europe controlled by a political elite that is electing itself because most citizens can't really influence its composition. It would be very wrong to create a Europe in which politicians are not being chosen according to their political principles and abilities but according to their language skills and their friendship with other similar people with language skills. It is not hard to see that the language requirements impose a drastic reduction of the pool of possible candidates for European politics and there is no good reason to think that something will dramatically change about this fact.
These are some of the reasons why a newer, shorter, more comprehensible, and less ambitious constitution must be written.
And that's the memo.
Czech arts: daily suicides
On Sunday, Mr Karel Svoboda, a music composer and the author of many hits including those of Mr Karel Gott, shot himself dead by a legally owned weapon. He was 68 years old. Is there a pattern here? Well, it's certainly sad.
Another drive-by
-- Vince (and other of my Texblog brethren and sisteren) say that giving Tom Craddick any more power this session is a bad idea. But a comment to Vince's post suggests it would be the better of two evils. Update (5 p.m.): The resolution is defeated, handing Speaker Craddick a loss.
-- Here's your Libby trial update from Marcy Wheeler and Jeralyn Merritt, courtesy Steve Gilliard and Easter Lemming (the Warren Zevon link is icing).
-- Vista's here. This crap by Bill Gates -- planned obsolescence promoted on the Daily Show -- really makes me want to go buy a Mac. Dwight has, as he always does, the best tips on how to make the switch. I'll wait until the last possible moment, i.e., if one of my computers needs replacing or MS stops updating XP. Hopefully that moment will be a few years from now.
-- Some local news: a good article on the state's programs to support families is here, with a cool quiz. I scored a 70. The Auto Show is in town and it's much greener than in the past; this is still one of the best diversions that comes to Houston. I particularly want to go examine the new crossovers -- I drive an Equinox but am lustily eyeing the new Nissan Rogue. The Chronic also has the news that electricity deregulation has failed Texans. This article is about ten days old but provides an update on Jim Turner, who may yet have some political ambitions. And j-a-x has some of the best skyline photos I have seen.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Windows Vista editions
Editions
There are different editions - you may click the green links to get to software@amazon.com and search for "Windows Vista" to get the full list.
The amazon.com [upgrade, full] prices of Windows Vista in USD are:
- Home Basic - replaces XP Home [99, 192]
- Home Premium - replaces XP Prof [153, 227]
- Business - replaces XP Prof for work [192, 283]
- Ultimate - semi-transparent Aero windows [250, 379]
Microsoft will also release Office 2007. Be ready for a completely new arrangement of all tools and commands which is superior and more intuitive but you will need minutes/hours to get used to it.
Hubble mostly blind
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Battle of Antarctica
Note that Prometheus designed by Roger Pielke and humans in general are represented by the IPCC climate panel. On the other hand, Anubis is one of the most powerful and evil Goa'uld in history. Goa'uld are bad guys and parasitic beings that take over hosts such as humans and that came from the P3X-888 planet. You should now ask:
What the hell is he talking about?
Well, sorry that it wasn't clear so far. I am talking about the same battle that Bob Ferguson aptly named
- food-fight over alarmism among the consensus.
Just like in the case of the Catholic Church and Protestants, the environmentalist church of consensus is going to split. Everyone in the church agrees that there is a 100% consensus among all experts but unfortunately two equally strong groups of experts disagree what the consensus says.
Figure 1: The authors of IPCC who are completing their document in Paris are completely free and can obey all standards of scientific integrity. They are not being intimidated at all by an eco-activist organization that has attached a banner to a rather well-known tower. ;-)
This disagreement emerged because of the IPCC AR4 report whose summary will be released on Friday, after four days of secret word-by-word editing. The main point of disagreement is Antarctica. See
- The Observer (of the Grauniad fame)
- Associated Press (IHT, Boston Globe etc.)
There are two groups of experts who face each other. Various Anubis' experts have
- denounced the IPCC report as misleading
- said that the report fails to give the right ✭impression✭ about the CO2 effect on Antarctica
- said that the IPCC neglects the gorillas
- said that the prediction of the IPCC is obviously not the full story because ice sheet decay is something we can't (even) model now but we ✞know✞ it's happening
I agree with Bob that the second sentence above is really characteristic of their movement. The goal of a scientific report is apparently to "give the right impression". The statement about gorillas comes from an Ohio State Anubis' expert and another Anubis' expert, MacCracken of The Neverending Story who used to lead the U.S. government reviews of the IPCC reports until 2001, has fired off a letter of protest because of the gorillas (Greenland and Antarctica deserve this name as the key reservoirs of ice).
The IPCC report is going to say that Antarctica won't see any significant difference even if CO2 levels continue to grow. In fact, Antarctica has seen some cooling and increased precipitation is raising the total amount of ice mass on this continent, as the IPCC report also mentions. The frequent readers of this blog also know that Greenland has cooled down in the last 70 years, too. Its ice mass seems to be increasing there as well, by 6 centimeters per year - see this paper in Science.
These facts are not good enough for Anubis (it's one guy equipped with some forces, as Stargate junkies surely know) who wants all continents, including Antarctica, to obey the consensus. Antarctica must go catastrophic, too! It's time for Antarctica to come in from the cold and join the warming world. If you think that the joke in the previous sentence is so absurd that no alarmist would ever write such a thing, read The Independent. For a sentence with an arbitrarily small "epsilon" of intelligence, there exists a "delta" of people who will say such a sentence seriously. The smaller "epsilon" is, the more likely their opinions will be published in nationwide newspapers. ;-)
The early version of the IPCC report calculated that the sea level will increase by 5-23 inches by 2100. Because the authors of a Science paper published this month obtained a much "better" result - namely 20-55 inches - they will probably complain, too. The 55-inch people include Stefan Rahmstorf who has received 1+ million dollars for alarmism so far. How could IPCC include such inferior numbers and betray the consensus by a factor of four or so? ;-) Isn't the very job of the comrades at IPCC to suppress people who are less alarmist?
William Connolley who is something in between Anubis and humans has joined the humans in this battle. He argues that one of Anubis' experts - William's boss Chris Rapley, a famous advocate of a significant population reduction to fight the climate change - hasn't even read the report and he mixes apples with oranges, for example lower troposphere with the mid-troposphere. Needless to say, most journalists will fight on the side of Anubis and Kraken so it can be quite a ➷battle➷. :-)
The Anubis' critics point out that the IPCC is a "conservative body". Who could have thought? ;-) We report, you decide.
A related war
German car industry finally realized that they are one of the targets of the eco-attacks. They would have to fire about 65,000 workers if the new CO2 limits promoted by Stavros Dimas, the EU environment commissioner, were accepted. At least this is the calculation of the German environment ministry. CSU politicians and the carmakers' trade union have called to stop this madness urgently. S.O.S.
The boss of Porsche warned of an impending business war between Germany on one side and France with Italy on the other side because of the latter countries' support for mad plans to regulate CO2 and destroy German luxury carmakers - and especially because these two countries produce worse, carbon-poor vehicles. "It is an attack on BMW, Mercedes, Audi and ourselves [Porsche] ... This is a business war in Europe. We will fight," Mr Wiedeking told shareholders. For Porsche and others, this is indeed an existential war against the eco-crusaders.
While the luxury carmakers and their cars - especially 911 Turbo above - are the most endangered species, the chiefs of all German carmakers have strongly urged the EU commission to withdraw the plans to force the manufacturers to reduce CO2 emissions of new cars sold in the EU to 120 grams per km by 2012. This includes BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Opel, and Volkswagen. The German leaders are split on the issue. Economy minister Michael Glos and Günther Verheugen whom Central Europe knows as the commissioner for EU expansion oppose the regulation plans. German environment minister Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) supports Dimas' plans. Gabriel also does everything he can to undermine Glos' plans to sue the EU commission.
The Washington Times have described the forced Europe's economic suicide.
Update - cars
The proposal to regulate car emissions in this brutal way has been delayed indefinitely on the same day when this posting was written.
Daniel Holz nationalizes cosmology
because the people have paid for it. ;-) A poem from the MTW telephone book of GR (see below) is used as an additional piece of evidence. In his enthusiastic celebration of the comprehensibility of the Cosmos, Dan mentions that an average U.S. taxpayer contributes about $70 for basic physical sciences a year. While it's less than what the average E.U. citizen annually pays for the Kyoto protocol, it is a nonzero amount of money.
Still, I would recommend to be more careful with these overly transparent strategies to get more money and public support - something that cosmologists clearly like to do and they are good at it. ;-) Cutting edge science doesn't really belong to the public and typical people don't even want to own it. The key scientific insights haven't always been found as a result of some government's spending. And even if it were so, there was no contract that would imply that the discoverers lose their rights. Moreover, a typical taxpayer thinks that a typical cutting edge theory is wrong.
Special relativity was found in the patent office and the key insights of general relativity were settled at the Charles University in Prague - its German section - where Einstein was paid for different things. Isaac Newton was born to rather wealthy farmers and didn't have to rely on the redistribution of resources too much either. Finally, a nonzero amount of money is now coming from rich sponsors such as Fred Kavli or Mike Lazaridis.
More importantly, I think it is crucial to know that the public financial contributions to science can't mean that the public has the right to directly determine the outcomes of the research. As long as the research is science, such a direct influence can't exist regardless of the amount of the money. These facts imply that the taxpayer is paying the money because he or she assumes that the people who are paid know what they're doing and their work moves our cognitive horizons further than ever before, at least in the long run.
The taxpayer may see that something is richer about our present culture and science in comparison with the past, and it is only this very vague feeling that should be enough to think that the investment is a good one.
They pay this money even if they don't understand the science themselves - and even if it looks illogical or useless to them. These are very subtle issues because there are certainly many examples of items in the budget where the money is wasted. The whole budget for science is hopefully not an example but some of its smaller entries might be. In reality, it is impossible to reliably distinguish which of the investments are good and which of them are bad. Such decisions can only be made by real people who are never perfect.
But even though no one is perfect, some people are still more likely to make wiser decisions about a particular question than others and I think that everyone, including the taxpayers, should try to accept this fact. It is nice to thank for funding but both the scientists as well as the taxpayers should realize that the fact of funding of pure science can't directly influence the outcomes.
And that's the memo.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Google maps: Cambridge, MA
View Larger Map
You can drag it, zoom in, zoom out etc. If you find this map useful, bookmark it. For those people who don't live in Cambridge: be sure that I know where you live and I could also draw a map of your neighborhood if I wanted. ;-)
BBC investigates Stern report
BBC has broadcasted a 30-minute program
where scholars such as Prof Richard Tol, another environmental economist and alarmist, decides whether Stern would deserve an "D" for "dilligent" or "F" for "fail" if he submitted it as a master thesis. It is full of elementary mistakes that such a student simply shouldn't make. It's not even flawed. :-)
Simon Cox also interviews other people such as William Connolley and Mike Hulme. He also asks Stern himself why he got higher figures even than the IPCC. Stern replies that IPCC have to be cautious, while he could have extracted better data without being forced to be that cautious. ;-) Connolley and other climate scientists criticize Stern for the unscientific notions that a catastrophe will occur in our lifetime or that hurricanes are exploding because of CO2 emissions.
In the last part of the program, economists such as Prof Tol complain that their papers have been misused. One of the most basic economics errors that Stern has made is that he didn't discount future costs and future benefits - he didn't discount them at all. That's an easy way to get results that are wrong by an order of magnitude or more if you look at the year 2100.
Barack Obama didn't discover general relativity
- Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein's theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a Law Review article that Tribe wrote titled, "The Curvature of Constitutional Space."
The reality is that the concept of curved space as an alternative to Newton's laws of gravity was discovered by Albert Einstein, not Barack Obama, and even the (scientifically meaningless) 1989 article "The Curvature of Constitutional Space" with 3 citations wasn't written by Barack Obama. Obama is one of six people - together with Prof Gerald Holton of Harvard University - who is being thanked in a footnote of this article written by Laurence Tribe.
You just can't say that Obama who is not a co-author has "integrated" these things as soon as such a misinformation becomes politically convenient. I urge Barack Obama to publicly correct this error.
Cold, wet bloggerhea
-- the Discovery Channel scoops CNN relative to an old story: that TWA 800 was brought down by a missle and not a spark in the gas tank. I've always thought that the biggest argument against any conspiracy theory is preventing someone from talking to Mike Wallace (or writing an expose') years later. Keeping hundreds of military personnel quiet -- after retirement -- ten years after seems far-fetched to me. Yet Kristina Borjesson wrote that book almost five years ago.
See, this isn't about a plane crash; it's about a coverup by the corporate media.
Ted Kennedy asks his Republican colleagues: "What is it about working men and women that you find so offensive?" Watch it:
This would be an excellent question to ask our two miserable excuses for Senators from Texas, who have been filibustering the minimum wage bill.
-- Molly Ivins has been hospitalized in her continuing struggle against breast cancer. My family, as some may recall, is going through the same thing at the moment. My advice to Molly fans: say a little prayer (or whatever you say in this circumstance).
-- the Scooter Libby/CIA leak trail has been diligently live-blogged and summarized by Jane and Christy at firedoglake. Here's the two most recent entries. The end of the week's two revelations were: a) Scooter being thrown under the bus by Cathie Martin, former Cheney spokeswoman (and current deputy communications director for the president) ; and b) Karl Rove and Dan Bartlett have been subpoened to testify.
-- The Iraq escalation will 'work' this time, according to the president, because he "told them it had to."
Really.
It's not even clear who he is referring to when he says "them". Is it the generals? the Iraqis? I no longer believe it's alcoholism affecting his thinking. The president is just plain delusional.
Intel: 45 nm chips & high-k materials
This amounts to a material with a higher "relative permittivity epsilon_r" - which the commercial sector usually calls "the dielectric constant k". While the vacuum has "k=1", silicon dioxide (SiO2) that has been used for decades has "k=3.9". There are better materials with higher values of "k":
- High-k materials:
- ---------------------
- hafnium dioxide (HfO2): k=23
- zirconium dioxide (ZrO2): k=20
- titanium dioxide (TrO2): k=86-170
The higher "k" allows one to make the circuits thicker. We were surrounded by silicon dioxide for decades. It could disappear as early as 2008 when most producers start to incorporate the 45 nm technology into their chips. Note that if the linear dimensions shrink by a factor of 45/65=0.7, the areas decrease to one-half. Intel hasn't yet revealed what frequency the chips will have. When was all this miniaturization first predicted? It was in 1959 when Richard Feynman noticed that there's plenty of room at the bottom.
Friday, January 26, 2007
John Conway goes after the Higgs
- Bump hunting 1
- Bump hunting 2
- Bump hunting 3 (not exciting)
- RealAudio Interview (Ireland)
- Bump hunting (redux): the bump is gone in Oct 2007
Figure 1: A simple version of the parameter space of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM). The x-axis is the mass of the CP-odd Higgs boson, the y-axis is tan(beta), essentially the ratio of expectation values of the two Higgs scalars in the model. The broader purple region (dark+light) is the region they expected to exclude. However, the bump only allowed them to exclude the dark purple region. Analogously, LEP 2 at CERN (defunct) has excluded the blue region - in a somewhat complementary fashion to the Fermilab.
D0 is probably getting a deficit of events where John Conway and CDF have an excess which would strongly indicate that the bump is a fluke. It is however not impossible that the Tevatron discovers what looks like a supersymmetric Higgs before the LHC once they have more data.
Angela Merkel in Prague
In her friendly and productive discussions with president Klaus, Merkel has shown a good grasp of the Czech history. According to Merkel, Klaus is a new kind of a hussite who also likes to fight over every theological millimeter. Wow - I didn't know the exact length scale myself, and even Klaus was impressed and he apparently understood Merkel's comment as a compliment. :-)
Figure 1: Hussites, except for the guy in the middle who might be a crusader. Picture taken in 1420 or so.
Recall that the hussites were Czech communists, protestants, and terrorists in the 15th century who built on the teachings of John Huss, an early reformer burned in 1415, and whom most Czechs are proud about. They liked to intimidate the opposing armies - usually the crusaders - by their songs and they have eventually combined their millimeters to grasp a big chunk of Germany, up to the Northern Sea.
The leaders disagreed about some quantitative details - by six orders of magnitude. Merkel thought that the EU constitution was also a fight for some new millimeters while Klaus thought that the constitution would be a jump by a few kilometers. :-) Despite these differences, they stressed that they are going to lead Europe in the same direction. The Czech-German relations are considerably warmer than 10 years ago when the Czech-German declaration was signed. I think that the main difference is not so much the declaration but the fact that Helmut Kohl was a sourball. :-)
Merkel and Topolánek
According to Merkel, the prime minister Topolánek has produced a very interesting framework for future detailed discussions about the constitution: the boss of the Czech government has publicly identified the constitution as a pile of crap :-) and he praised Merkel for her "courage" to talk about this document which Merkel understood as a compliment, too. :-)
Note that the prime minister's approach is a moderate one in comparison with the Czech president whom Merkel met later.
Topolánek has also mentioned that the document must be more readable and understandable for people. Yesterday, president Klaus has met its Polish counterpart, Lech Kaczynski (only one of them), and they agreed that the absence of a constitution doesn't create any kind of a crisis that would have to be solved by some radical and fast decisions: the document that has been rejected by France and the Netherlands is not to be used, it is not to be accepted, the presidents agreed.
President vs prime minister
While Klaus and Topolánek agree about the EU constitution, they're very different people, of course. Klaus is an exceptional libertarian intellectual while Topolánek may be used as a textbook example of an average Czech (except for his height). While I undoubtedly admire Klaus much more than I admire the prime minister, I feel that it is somewhat natural in democracy to have a president who resembles the majority in so many ways.
Finally, the U.S. want to build the radar in Brdy and it should obey the Czech laws.
Help Lara Logan
From: lara logan
Subject: helpThe story below only appeared on our CBS website and was not aired on CBS. It is a story that is largely being ignored, even though this istakingplace verysingle (sic) day in central Baghdad, two blocks from where our office is located.
Our crew had to be pulled out because we got a call saying they were about to be killed, and on their way out, a civilian man was shot dead in front of them as they ran.
I would be very grateful if any of you have a chance to watch this story and pass the link on to as many people you know as possible. It should be seen. And people should know about this.
If anyone has time to send a comment to CBS – about the story – not about my request, then that would help highlight that people are interested and this is not too gruesome to air, but rather too important to ignore.
Many, many thanks.
(Work-safe but not child-safe)
Hat tip to Matt Stoller.
Record cold temperatures: Northeast
According to Wunderground, other places have already breeched their daily record lows. For example, -11 C seems enough in Philadelphia. -13 C (+9 F) in Stamford, CT seems to tie the record from 1982, and they may have already broken it. The flag at Buffalo airport, NY froze in full-wave mode. Recall that the freezing point for flags is rather low. ;-)
The winds from North and Northwest seem to go on. They're the main reason why the high on this day will be a record low for January 26th in much of the East Coast.
Cold weather is also moving to North Dakota and is already creating headaches in Utah. Alaska saw record low temperatures today, too. Frigid weather is expected to go on throughout February in Colorado. Denver's January has so far been the seventh coldest January on record.
Western and Central Europe has experienced some snowstorms. For example, 100 flights were cancelled in Prague. 100,000 families in France were cut out of electricity. Snow arrived in Spain, too. The picture above is a signpost for Madrid.
When the winter was balmy, every other journalist would find a climate scientist who would say that this could really be a result of the "climate change". Once the weather becomes frigid, you won't find any articles about the climate. Suddenly it's only the cold facts themselves - cold weather - that is reported. Isn't it interesting that warm weather is related to the climate but cold weather is not?
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Kasper Peeters: Cadabra
- hep-th/0701238 (manual)
- cs.SC/0608005 (for IT people)
that shouldn't be confused with the Abracadabra website. :-) Both the input and the output is a subset of TeX and it allows you to manipulate with expressions involving tensors, derivatives, Grassmann variables, and gamma matrices, among other things.
Stringin' it
Did you ever dream about seeing physics at the string scale? Did you want to see how the dual colors of the gauge theory emerge from the strings? You can see it now. The perfect illusions from "desktop light show" for $30 will make your life happier and reveal the beauty of 3 dimensions which is pretty close to the total number of 10. Click the picture above or click here.
Thanks to Rae Ann.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
The structural foundations of quantum gravity
I am actually serious. Well, almost. :-) If you think that the book is more than rough toilet paper, you should click and buy this new book. ;-) It is full of structuralism, structural realism - especially ontic structural realism, holism, as well as quantum quandaries and background independence by two colleagues of ours. :-)
IPCC AR4
Imagine that the results of some scientific research are relevant for policymaking. What is the right ordering of the events? Do we first find out the technical results by the scientific method and determine the conclusions for policymaking afterwards, or do we first determine what the conclusions for policymaking should be, and then do the research so that it will agree with the policymaking goals?
That's a stupid question, isn't it?
I guess that most high-energy physicists and perhaps even most scientists would answer that the first scenario is correct while the second one violates every basic principle of science. It is simply impossible to assure that scientific research will confirm some predetermined political conclusions without committing scientific fraud. The whole point of scientific work of any kind is that it can change some of the assumptions we started with. And any research usually does change these things unless it is useless.
Steve McIntyre has figured out that the climate science follows very different rules than science. On 2/2/2007, i.e. next Friday, the summary of the IPCC international climate report for policymakers will be released. However, the full report won't be released until May 2007. What will the IPCC people do in these three months? Well, the answer can be found on page "4 of 15" of this
Search for "grammatical". It explains their version of the scientific method unambiguously:
- Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.
These people are openly declaring that they are going to commit scientific misconduct that will be paid for by the United Nations. If they find an error in the summary, they won't fix it. Instead, they will "adjust" the technical report so that it looks consistent. Very nice. Is it legal according to the existing laws? I don't know. But I am sure that the people behind this outrageous plan are something that I won't write here. ;-)
And that's the memo.
Related:
- Resignation letter of Chris Landsea from 2005 complaining that IPCC is politicized and scientifically unsound
Fred Singer argues that the story is scandalous but not unprecedented. In 1996, lead author Ben Santer was told (?) to revise Chapter 8 of IPCC-SAR to "conform" to the politically adopted Summary. He did so - and admitted it. (See this PDF file for the authorization by the Clinton/Gore administration and for the detailed changes made by Santer). Fred Seitz exposed these shenanigans in a WSJ op-ed and has been attacked over this ever since. So has Fred Singer.
Belatedly linking for choice
Agonist (Ian Welsh):
... (C)hoice is non-negotiable issue for me. I've been pro-choice ever since I first thought about the issue as a teenager.The reason is elemental, as it is on both sides. If I were a woman, I would want to have the choice available to me. I would want to control my body. Without that ability to control her own body, a woman loses a certain amount of freedom.
MyDD (Matt Stoller):
The right to an abortion is about the right for women to control their own lives, and I won't accept any arguments that suggest that women shouldn't have the right to make very personal decisions or should have to make them in some sort of legal jeopardy. That's just immoral. I'm all for legislation reducing the number of abortions through legal assistance, economic help, and sex education, though I would point out that these tend to decrease all social ills and so I would support them for other reasons as well. But anything that makes the state sanction abortion as anything but an intensely private choice by women (and men to a lesser extent) in a vulnerable and difficult position in their lives is wrong, wrong, wrong.
I come at it first from a fundamental belief in civil liberties. It's clear what the "right to life" agenda is and it has nothing to do with the fetus these people pretend to care so much for (until its born.) It has to do with sexual behavior. ... I'm a big believer in the fundamental argument which is that if women don't own their own bodies they are not free. It's just that simple.
My Left Wing (Lilian M. Friedberg):
When my mother was "forced"--not once, not twice, but three times at least--to bring a child into the world which she could not feed, there were no aspirations to be abandoned, no childhood dreams to be shattered, no adolescence or naiveté to be lost: that had already gone down the tubes when she became the primary breadwinner in the family as a teenager--waitressing and cleaning houses to feed and clothe her younger siblings.I was also the product of rape. Marital rape. It must have been a very difficult decision for my mother: this child, to keep or not to keep. She kept. Even though she could not afford it. Even though she must have known what she was keeping was a lifetime reminder of rape--and of her own inability to "provide"--for yet another "unwanted child".
We both bore the scars of that decision-and to this day, I cannot tell you whether her decision was right. I've written about it ; many a time.
Not one pro-life organization in the United States that supports the use of contraception? If you cruise around their web sites, you see that even those groups that don’t explicitly oppose the use of birth control don’t support it, either. For example, you can search the National Right to Life web site for a kind word on the responsible use of birth control until you turn purple; it isn’t there. But as Cristina Page documents, many state chapters have taken firms stands in opposition to any form of birth control.
Is there a corresponding degree of fanaticism on the pro-legality side? Not that I have found. No pro-legality association suggests that abortions should be forced on women who don’t want them. No pro-legality group I know of advocates abandoning the gestational limits on elective abortion set by Roe v. Wade. Not NARAL, not Planned Parenthood, not any of their affiliates. Instead, “legals” work to preserve the legal rights outlined in Roe v. Wade. And Roe v. Wade allows states to ban late-term elective abortions and place some restrictions on mid-term abortions. The notion that Roe v. Wade allows a woman to waltz into an abortion clinic and terminate a third-trimester pregnancy just because she feels like it is not, and never has been, true. Yet pro-legality organizations often are accused of being just as absolutist and extremist ...
Norbizness (from two years ago):
As a uterus-free person, this may be my first and last post on Roe v. Wade, but the disingenuous, historically fallacious, and insulting column by David Brooks (other comments here) required a little clean-up and attention. ...When Blackmun wrote the Roe decision, it took the abortion issue out of the legislatures and put it into the courts. If it had remained in the legislatures, we would have seen a series of state-by-state compromises reflecting the views of the centrist majority that's always existed on this issue. These legislative compromises wouldn't have pleased everyone, but would have been regarded as legitimate.
First of all, I live in Texas. In this, the year of our Lord 2005, we are trying to rip foster children from the loving homes that gay and bisexual couples are providing for them. I'm pretty sure that the 14 million women in this state would be enjoying no such right, nor would they be getting bus vouchers for the nearest state that would (California? Iowa?). The idea that the religious right would have never developed as a political force in the absence of Roe v. Wade is absolutely nuts; they were there all along and would have fought state-by-state to assert their political power.
Planned Parenthood's Lobby Day at the Texas Capitol is February 28.
France and astrophysics
The guy below can win 3,000 euros in "Who wants to be a millionaire". However, he must first answer a rather difficult question: which celestial body gravitates around the Earth? It is a) the Moon, b) the Sun, c) Mars, d) Venus. If it happens to be tough for one particular French intellectual, he can still rely on the French public, can't he? ;-)
OK, maybe the people just wanted to have some fun. Who knows. But you could also call the opinion of the public to be an example of scientific consensus, especially once those 42 percent of skeptics - and let's say it openly, heretics - are decertified. :-)
See also Blonde American geography.
Solar resonant diffusion waves
- Solar resonant diffusion waves, astro-ph/0701117,
in (peer-reviewed) Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (URL). The diffusion waves modulate the dependence of various quantities on the distance from the center of the Sun; the relevant distance is between 0.21 and 0.25 solar radii. These effects are meant to account for fluctuations of the terrestrial temperature at the sub-megayear timescale.
The author uses various methods that will probably be difficult to understand for the scientific consensus - formerly known as the average and worse-than-average climate scientists - for example the Fourier transform. On page 15 you may see how his theory predicts three frequencies of the time-dependence very accurately. I am very impressed by the figure 2 and the simple formula behind it. Ehrlich predicts that the dominant frequencies giving peaks in the Fourier transform should be
- fn = f1 n2
and his figure 2 shows a remarkable agreement with observation for "n=2,3,4". Now, the statement that some frequencies are proportional to a square of an integer sounds pretty fundamental - almost like the spectrum of the Hydrogen atom - and one should look carefully before dismissing such an interesting observation.
Ehrlich believes that his theory should supersede the conventional explanations based on the Milankovitch cycles - where the main driver is encoded in the quasiperiodically oscillating parameters of the orbit of our planet - and he enumerates some of these problems that could be solved in his setup.
Via Benny Peiser.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Duke lacrosse scandal
Crystal Gail Mangum is an attractive exotic stripper who was hired for a party of lacrosse players at Duke University in the residence of two captains of the team in spring 2006. There were actually two dancers.
Mangum later argued that she was raped by the lacrosse players. It could, in principle, happen. But there exists a wise principle of presumption of innocence. Moreover, everyone should be able to determine that such an accusation sounds very unlikely. It is simply much more likely that a person with this job invents these stories than that members of the second best team of its type in the U.S. would commit such a crime under circumstances in which it would be trivial to prove their guilt.
As the investigation continued, Mangum was changing her testimony and it was becoming increasingly more obvious that the accusation was bogus. As Wikipedia decently explains, a large number of DNA molecules of males has been found in her body but neither of them seemed to come from a lacrosse player. Moreover, the second dancer said that the accusation had to be nonsense because they were seeing each other during the whole party except for a five-minute interval.
Despite these obvious observations, an activist (white) judge has violated various rules in an attempt to speed up the punishment for the accused young men and he is now facing an ethics investigation. Equally seriously, 88 Duke professors immediately placed an ad in the newspapers arguing that all this was surely an example of the evil white males who can cover any crime. Some of these scholars were punishing the poor accused students by failing grades, in advance.
This group of 88 people included 80% of the Black Studies Department, 72% of the Feminist Department, and a large fraction of several other humanities departments. The ad was clearly an outrageous and hateful racist act that violates the very basic principles of justice - equality in front of the law and presumption of innocence being two main examples. These departments should probably be abolished because if they're overrun by this kind of professors, their influence on the students can hardly be positive.
Voices from Duke University argue that these mad extremists effectively control what's happening at that university, more or less all administrators are cowards and puppets, and I tend to believe that they are right. These stories sound entirely incredible to a Central European guy like me because almost everyone in Central Europe would always be trying to get some reasonable common sense estimates of the probability that the accusations are right.
If a gipsy woman accuses someone of being a rapist, the judges will give her as much attention and care as they would give to anyone else. But obviously, people who are outside the scandal will think that the accusation is unlikely simply because there haven't been too many cases in the past in which such an event actually occurred: a frequentist probability is the best way to estimate probabilities of things that are not yet known.
The radicals at Duke University prefer their racist dogmas over common sense: a clearly untrustworthy stripper must surely be believed more than a bunch of players from a rather prestigious lacrosse team as long as her skin color is more politically correct.
I think that the usage of the comment that someone is white (or male) and therefore the law or public opinion should be against him or her should be treated exactly as the opposite case - i.e. as racism (or sexism) and hateful crime - otherwise a similar kind of fraud and hysteria will keep on expanding.
The professors from some departments - mostly natural sciences and engineering - didn't participate. Two weeks ago, some economics professors decided to act in the opposite way than the feminist and black departments - a way that is both wise as well as economical: they showed support for the players and explained that the players are more than welcome in their courses. ;-)
State of the union: Bush was shining II
The State of the Union address has just ended. First of all, let me say that I was jealous about the good mood and atmosphere among the participants. Happy, friendly, and smiling faces were everywhere around. And yes, I consider George Bush himself to be one of a small set of people in the hierarchy of influence that can be relied upon.
In principle, it was approximately the same kind of an event as some of the FAS faculty meetings at Harvard University. And George Bush gave a similar kind of speech as Lawrence Summers used to give. Except that most of the FAS faculty never applauded to the big principles and friendly remarks of Lawrence Summers. I feel that most of them are kind of evil and negative people, unlike the lawmakers.
Some observers have noticed that the atmosphere in the Congress was actually more friendly and bipartisan than during Clinton's era. You may ask who is responsible for this improvement if you think it is an improvement. ;-)
Alberto Gonzales didn't attend the event. He was chosen to be the guy who would become the U.S. leader if the terrorists succeeded in exterminating the whole government and lawmakers of America. ;-)
George Bush started extremely politely at the very beginning. He was very proud that he was the first president who could say "Ma'am speaker". Nancy Pelosi was pleased, too. Very touching. You wouldn't believe that it is the same Nancy Pelosi who will start with her outrageous global warming committees and fights against John Dingell and others as early as tomorrow morning. ;-)
Bush praised the great economy, 7+ million jobs that have been created, and the significant & faster-than-expected decrease in the budget deficit that he wants to eliminate entirely. He argued that the inflation was low and I am sure that many economists would disagree with him. I disagree myself.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton was smiling. I think that she is much more ready and suitable to become the U.S. president than Barack Obama, among other examples. The Reference Frame appreciates that she has served as the president of college Republicans, too. Her father was a Republican executive in the textile industry - almost like mine - and she knows what capitalism is. ;-)
Bush has spent some time talking about the healthcare and the No Child Left Behind act that should be renewed because it is a very good law. Some of the specific proposals about the health insurance sounded confusing to me because I am simply no expert. What I understood is that he wanted important decisions to be made by patients and doctors - a principle that was greeted by a bipartisan ovation. I guess that this was not the first time when this assertion occurred in the annual speech.
In the section about immigration, Bush proposed temporary work permits to disentangle relatively innocent immigrants who come to America to work and earn some bucks from the smugglers and other criminals. He said that both animosity as well as amnesty for the illegal immigrants who are already in the U.S. should be avoided.
America seems to depend on foreign oil which can be influenced by the terrorists. So Bush has enumerated a couple of technologies that should be improved and strengthened - clean coal, hybrid vehicles, clean diesel, biodiesel, nucelar power (I accept the Southern version of the word because Bush seems to insist that it is correct), and ethanol production. In 10 years, the gasoline consumption should drop by 20 percent, he argued, and extra goals up to 2017 have been proposed. The strategic reserves should be doubled. The last sentence of this section ended up with the term "global climate change" and Bush essentially said that it will be solved if his other points are accepted, which is clearly incorrect but which I find acceptable enough a compromise about this particular stupidity that some profoundly confused people consider to be one of the most important problems facing humanity.
Bush had to drink some water, too.
Federal courts should have enough judges. Several success stories about the fight against terrorism were enumerated - like the stopped attack against L.A. and some victories of the British allies. Organized Sunnis and terrorists - and even the Shi'ias - are bad guys who dislike democracy and America must support moderate governments and democrats with a lowercase "d" in the world. The ultimate goal is to protect the American people. Bipartisan ovations, including Nancy Pelosi, followed.
Some 2006 setbacks in the Middle East were mentioned but Bush still hopes for victory and everyone should. The goal in Iraq is to make the country safe, democratic, and allied. 20,000 extra troops have to be sent, mostly to Baghdad, and their task is to clean the terrorists with their Head & Shoulders. Applause. Some 92,000 troops should be added in total but I didn't listen carefully what he exactly said about them.
America can't afford to lose in Iraq because of a nightmare and a big conflict of all possible extremists that Bush described in detail. The success in the Middle East may count as the most important task in America's history. Bush asked the Congress for its support and judging by the bipartisan applause, he got it. The president warned that the war on terror is a generational event that will last even after most of the people in the room are gone.
Civilians should be allowed to serve in these critical conflicts and Bush wants to create some civilian reserves. The good world and the United Nations are on America's side. Israel should co-exist with the state of Palestine. America must support good guys in Cuba, Belarus, Burma, and Darfur, and fight HIV/AIDS in Africa and malaria in 15 African countries. That will require some money. America's help to the world reflects the generosity of its people.
Four heroes who attended the event were introduced to the Congress: an NBA player who was born in Kongo and who has paid for a hospital; a female founder of Baby Einstein Inc.; a black worker who has saved a kid; and a white Sgt Rieman (with one "n") who was injured but continued to fight within the mantinels of the Euclidean geometry. The last guy was awarded the silver star.
America is a fine and decent country, the state of the union is strong, and God bless.
Jim Webb (D-VA)
While the president's speech was precious, nice, and constructive, the Democratic answer of Jim Webb was confusing, confrontational, and destructive. He focused on the differences. In the context of the economy, Webb offered a rather distasteful form of economical populism: the economy may be strong but it is not "properly shared". All jobs are outsourced, all services and tuition are more expensive than ever before. Also, Webb argued that the U.S. government has the duty to protect the American bureaucrats and provide them with an unrestricted fattening station. Webb has explained that this goal will be achieved because of the Democratic control of the House. ;-)
As far as foreign policy goes, Webb thinks that we have seen four years of mismanaged war. Jim Webb has proudly shown a picture of his father who was a war hero. Jim Webb himself served not only in the navy but also in the Reagan administration before he became an unpleasant leftist: thanks CIP for a correction here. Webb has enumerated a few American G.O.P. presidents who disregarded recommendations of their advisors. America is now a hostage and it has paid staggering amounts of money and blood, we were told. A majority of the public, military, and the Congress opposes the war and Webb has recommended a quick exit from Iraq. I hope that Hillary doesn't share this opinion with this Gentleman. Finally, Webb has pleased the American public with some historical anti-corporate fairy-tales. Webb think that Bush will either join the Democrats in their fights or they will show him the way, whatever it exactly means. ;-)
The Virginia voters should be kind of ashamed to have sent this guy into the Senate instead of George Allen. Nevertheless, Webb's somewhat painful speech can't diminish the positive and constructive tone of the State of the Union address.
And that's the memo.
MSSM Higgs at 160 GeV: 2.1 sigma signal
Can we prove the minimal supersymmetric model (MSSM, Dine's book chapter 11), the next layer of string theory's predictions about reality, experimentally?
The Higgs sector contains 8-3=5 particles (instead of 4-3=1 God particle - also named Weinberg's toilet by Sheldon Glashow - in the normal Standard Model) because there must be two Higgs doublets in order to allow masses both for the upper quarks and the lower quarks. One of the recent Run II preliminary charts of the D0 detector group is the following:
Figure 1: The decay of the Z boson according to the D0 group
So is there a Higgs boson? The answer partially depends on the question whether there is a bump in the figure above. It would be great if a readers who are good at looking at pictures tried to answer whether there is a bump in this picture. Don't be fooled: the yellow curve is an idealization. The real data are the white circles with the vertical lines representing the error bars. ;-)
Most readers will say "Of course there is a bump". Unfortunately, the bump around 80 GeV is not a Higgs. It is the Z boson. If they see a Higgs, it is a bump around 160 GeV which is much less convincing. Still, you should know that a similar measurement of CDF sees a 2.1 signal for the A Higgs of the MSSM - it can't be interpreted as a non-supersymmetric Higgs boson - which is higher than the 1.7 sigma signal for the 115 GeV Higgs that we see at the end of the life of LEP.
I am unconvinced by the statement that there is an extra bump at 160 GeV in the chart above. The chart would be more likely to indicate a bump at 140 GeV. Stay tuned.
Via Dorigo where you find other data such as a weak excess of some events measured at CDF that could indicate the MSSM Higgs around 160 GeV. CDF will release its version of the figure above in the middle of February.
Monday, January 22, 2007
The candidate left out in the cold
There have already been several lively conversations regarding the focus of the Texas Democratic Party’s 2006 election strategy, its perceived success or failure, who’s responsible and how to fix it and so on. If you need the backstory, begin there and return here.
But this posting isn’t about that campaign or even that candidate; this is the story of Janette Padilla-Sexton, the woman who ran as the Democratic nominee for HD-144 in southeast
Here’s the briefest of biographical data: strong progressive (early Dean presidential campaign supporter, among many activist roles), technical writer for the United Space Alliance, single-income homeowner. A citizen-activist for Democrats and progressive causes, she had no prior elective experience and no visible means of campaign support, but her early announcement for the primary might have scared off attorney Rick Molina, who instead challenged -- and lost to -- Ana Hernandez in neighboring HD-143.
Padilla-Sexton also suffered during the campaign season from a variety of physical ailments which ultimately precluded her from active campaigning: meniscus tears in both knees, a misdiagnosis of osteoarthritis resulting in additional and unnecessary doctor’s visits, hospital stays, incorrectly prescribed medication and so on. She did suffer from arthritis as it turned out but not in that particular knee; she also developed high blood pressure, obstructive sleep apnea and some pre-diabetic conditions.
But that wasn’t all she suffered from: several Houston-area Democratic legislators made promises of help of all kinds, but when she called to take up those offers, her calls went unanswered and unreturned. There were some people who leveled with Padilla-Sexton: state representative Garnet Coleman told her that he and his colleagues had discussed her race and come to the conclusion that they could not assist her because “they had to work with Bob Talton on regional issues”. (I contacted Phillip Martin, Coleman’s chief of staff, for a response but my queries went unanswered.) Mostly she got the cold shoulder: Rep. Jessica Farrar was effusive in her initial offers of assistance, but declined to return phone messages when the time came to help. Padilla-Sexton also reached out to Harris County commissioner Sylvia Garcia (mentoring), Sen. Rodney Ellis (about an air quality question), Rep. Scott Hochberg (regarding state education funding), Sen. Mario Gallegos (for adding credibility to her campaign) and Rep. Rick Noriega (for general help and direction), but none of those people returned her calls, either.
So she soldiered on, spending a total of just $8,000 $13,000* -- virtually all of it her own money $8,000 of her own money* -- on her race, and finished with 40.5 per cent of the vote on November 7th. Talton spent about ten times that. Here’s how she performed in comparison to other statehouse Democratic political novices:
Ellen Cohen: 54.70%
Sherrie Matula: 42.29%
Kristi Thibaut: 41.76%
Janette Sexton: 40.55%
Diane Trautman: 39.87%
Mark McDavid: 38.73%
Dot Nelson-Turnier: 29.93%
Scott Brann: 29.1%
Pat Poland: 25.00%
Sammie Miller: 22.8%
It’s worth noting that Cohen raised $500,000 for her campaign, with the assistance of many of the previously named legislators, an army of volunteers and the wherewithal to take a ten-month leave of absence from her position as the director of the Houston Area Women’s Center. Thibaut, an adroit fundraiser, collected $150,000 and also a core of vigorous volunteer support. Matula, who ran in neighboring HD-129, benefited from the teachers PAC and strong efforts from the Bay Area New Democrats, Area 5 Democrats and Battleground Democrats -- all clubs that could have chipped in volunteer assistance to Padilla-Sexton as well -- enabling her (Matula, that is) to have extensive blockwalking and phonebanking. BAND, to their credit, provided robocalls to Janette’s campaign. John Cobarruvias, the president of the club, admitted that BAND’s efforts were stretched too thin over the
I believe the overall conclusion is that HD-144 was ripe to flip, but none of the power brokers believed it, and consequently none of them decided to try to make it happen. Privately, I was told disparaging things about Padilla-Sexton that I won't bother rehashing here. So could it also have been her fault, as a candidate with initial shortcomings made worse by her health issues? Possibly. Her experience nevertheless adds evidence to the opinion that there are many Texas Democrats who are just too timid to challenge a variety of status quo beliefs: taking on an entrenched Republican no matter how extreme (perhaps in order to avoid the same sort of challenge in their own districts); a state party structure managed by a couple of inside players controlling the selection and momentum of their perceived “winners”; a governing body (SDEC) which has abdicated its responsibility to hold accountable the unelected decision-makers; and finally the perception that Texas Democrats simply aren’t committed to make a winning effort across the board, no matter the odds.
That’s a defeatist state of mind. It’s a loser’s mentality, or in the words of Chris Bell, a strain of battered-wife syndrome. It flies in the face of Howard Dean’s rather successful 50-state strategy, and ultimately provided very limited
So maybe it was a 49-state strategy, come to think of it (without blaming Dean for leaving Texas out).
I’m sure it’s just coincidence: Matt Angle, the political consultant taking the most credit for the narrowly targeted 2006 legislative strategy, served as chief of staff to former
Bob Schrum would be so proud.
Update (1/24): Easter Lemming provides the verification and the financial corrections, noted by asterisk above. (He worked on Janette's campaign, so it's not quite accurate to say she had "no" volunteers, either). And Stace throws in his dos centavos as well.