sounds like everything is going according to plan.

After 9/11, Bush made two statements:

1. "Terrorists hate America because America is a land of freedom and opportunity."



2. "We intend to attack the root causes of terrorism."

(via /.)

postwar screwup watch: Bizarro World 2nd Amendment

The campaign to win the peace continues:

Baghdad, Iraq-AP -- The U-S military is now telling Iraqis they cannot own or sell guns. Any Iraqi who does faces arrest, according to a new radio spot running in the country.

Of course, the gun-loving Iraqi society wasn't enough to keep them free from a tyrant. And now that we have ostensibly freed them, they can't have guns. This should go over well.

have you no decency, sir?

Tacitus is right, the accusation that the Dept of Homeland Security is interfering wrongfully in affairs of Texas is overblown.



However, as reported by NPR and the Houston Chronicle, DeLay did send Texas Rangers to the neonatal unit in Galveston, trying to intimidate the family of Rep. Craig Eiland and try to ensnare him should he visit his twins in intensive care there. Rangers have also entered the home of Rep. Joe Pickett without permission after his daughter left the door open.



Also, according to AP and the Chron, DeLay is trying to enlist the FBI and federal marshals to try and drag the Democrats back to Austin - which does indeed cross the line as an abuse of federal power. There is no criminal statue against breaking a state quorum that should necessitate federal law enforcement or prosecution.



There is indeed no decency, none.



UPDATE: Charles Kuffner has some critical background information about the history of bipartisanship in the Texas Lege and how this entire affair, orchestrated from Washington, could have been avoided had the current crop of Rovian/Delayite Republicans been a little more open to compromise rather than the tactics of brute force.



And Burnt Orange Report's coverage has been gripping and compelling reading - including the details of his own road trip to Ardmore.



UPDATE 2: Thomas Nephew points out in the comments that the Chron fingered Craddick, not DeLay, in trying to bring the FBI onboard. But given that DeLay has been the primary instigator of the redistricting push, I didn't find the denials of his involvement coming from his office yesterday to be any more convincing than either NPR or the local news. This whole affair has been stage-manged from Sugarland on the Potomac.^[1] He also disagrees about DHS, which forces me to clarify - DHS is designed to be aimed internally. It's not out of character for DHS to be used to interfere in states issues or in personal ones. My objections to DHS stem from its basic purpose, which I think is a powerful potential for abuse. But using DHS in this way is not an exaggeratio of DHS' powers, but rather the real intended use.





^[1] the name of the Houston suburb that is DeLay's political home base.

postwar screwup watch: WMD game over

The Administration calls it quits in the search for WMDs:



Frustrated, U.S. Arms Team to Leave Iraq

Task Force Unable To Find Any Weapons



BAGHDAD -- The group directing all known U.S. search efforts for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is winding down operations without finding proof that President Saddam Hussein kept clandestine stocks of outlawed arms, according to participants.

...

Leaders of Task Force 75's diverse staff -- biologists, chemists, arms treaty enforcers, nuclear operators, computer and document experts, and special forces troops -- arrived with high hopes of early success. They said they expected to find what Secretary of State Colin L. Powell described at the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 -- hundreds of tons of biological and chemical agents, missiles and rockets to deliver the agents, and evidence of an ongoing program to build a nuclear bomb.



Scores of fruitless missions broke that confidence, many task force members said in interviews.



Army Col. Richard McPhee, who will close down the task force next month, said he took seriously U.S. intelligence warnings on the eve of war that Hussein had given "release authority" to subordinates in command of chemical weapons. "We didn't have all these people in [protective] suits" for nothing, he said. But if Iraq thought of using such weapons, "there had to have been something to use. And we haven't found it. . . . Books will be written on that in the intelligence community for a long time."



This is of course referring to the issue of chemical and biological WMD, which Bush claimed Iraq had (speaking through Powell), and which the imminent threat of handing over to terrorists was justification for the war on Iraq. Meanwhile, the Tuwaitha nuclear plant gets raided because Rumsfeld didn't bother to assign troops. Presumably because they dont think the threat from radioactive material falling into terrorists' hands is a threat, unlike bio- and chem materials that don't exist.



David Corn is all over the proliferation issue.... check it out.

kobayashi Maru in the Texas House

There's a reason I love this state, even though I am a transplant.



Yesterday, 53 Democrats in the Texas House left the state, breaking "quorum" (the requirement that a minimum number of representatives be physically present in order to pass legislation). They broke quorum to prevent the GOP from passing (guaranteed, through their majority) a re-districting bill that would have grossly undermined the democratic process in Texas. Of course, the GOP cries foul, claiming that breaking quorum is a dishonest tactic (though the GOP used precisely the same tactic back in 1971. One of the GOP reps who walked out back then was none other than current Speaker Tom Craddick, who is full of self-righteous hypocritic outrage today).



The GOP agenda is to ignore the grievous need for a sane state budget (Texas is in the throes of such a severe crisis that the Governor demanded that ALL state agencies - underfunded as they are, cut 7% from their budgets for next year), and push instead of this outrageous redistricting bill that does nothing to establish fair representation of constituents, but rather simply serves to buttress GOP control of the Texas Legislature. The Burnt Orange Report has a detailed summary of the propsed bill and why this was such a brilliant move.



Imagine that Texas had 50 million Democrats and 1 million Republicans. The principle behind gerrymandering is to draw the boundaries of the congressional districts in such a way that all the Democrats (in this case, blacks and hispanics especially) are concentrated in a select few districts. This could mean that even if the GOP was outnumbered 50-1 they could still have a majority control. This inequality arises because control of the state government is determined at the granular level of districts, not counties (larger) or towns (smaller) as the basic unit. That's an essential feature of the way our government works, but it is open to abuse, as the GOP has demonstrated. It's also why GOP cries of outrage at the Democrats supposed subversion of the "true majority" is so laughably hypocritical. The GOP wants the politicians to choose the voters, instead of the other way around.



The House does have the authority to try and compel the Dems to return for quorum. But all the public alert bulletins aren't going to help the GOP's credibility. And Gov. Perry's laughable attempt to force Oklahoma to cooperate was shut down fast.



The Texas political establishment is on the side of the Dems. The Editorial responses have been overwhelmingly positive. Kos Charles Kuffner has an essential FAQ on the affair at the Political State Report.



All of this reminds me of the Kobayashi Maru test from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan:

SAAVIK

The Kobayashi Maru, sir.



KIRK

Are you asking me if we're playing out that scenario now, Lieutenant?



SAAVIK

On the test, sir. Will you tell me what you did? I would really like to know.



(Kirk looks at Bones, who smiles)



BONES

Lieutenant, you are looking at the only Starfleet cadet who ever beat the no-win scenario -



SAAVIK

How?



KIRK

I reprogrammed the simulation so it was possible to rescue the ship.



SAAVIK

WHAT?



DAVID

(laughs) He cheated!



KIRK

I changed the conditions of the test. I got a commendation for original thinking. (pause) I don't like to lose.



SAAVIK

Then - you never faced that situation - faced death...



(Kirk picks up the communicator.)



KIRK

I don't believe in the no-win scenario.

In politics, neither do I.

reverse the polarity

The other night, I couldn't get my car to start. I solved the problem by reversing the polarity of the car battery, and routing the power through my satellite dish. The resulting subspace plasma caused a rift in the space-time continuum, which created a quantum tunnelling effect that charged the protons in the engine core, thus starting my car. Child's play, really. As a happy side-effect, I also now get the Spice Channel for free.

brilliant! Though for the more serious Star Trek aficianado, I have to plug Jammer's reviews, by Jamahl Epsicokhan. He sufferred through the Voyager years, and was a pure masochist for Andromeda. But the real value is his insightful analyses of Enterprise. For example, from his review of The Breach:

Hudak turns out to be an Antaran, who immediately and adamantly refuses to be treated by Phlox on the basis that Phlox is a Denobulan. Phlox must respect the patient's wishes in accordance with Denobulan medical ethics. Without treatment, Hudak will die in a matter of days.



The bitterness here runs beyond deep. When Archer inquires about the situation, Phlox explains that the Antarans and the Denobulans were once, some three centuries ago, locked in a brutal war. The facts are left somewhat vague (Phlox is not particularly comfortable discussing it in detail), but it seems the Denobulans slaughtered millions of Antarans in the course of this war, using some especially ugly battle methods. "It wasn't our proudest moment," Phlox says quietly.



After the war ended, there began a bitter divide between the Denobulans and the Antarans. The societies no longer had any sort of relationship or dialog between them, but each society would pass down its history and hatred for the other side -- from one generation to the next. Many of those feelings have survived to the present day, even though Denobulans and Antarans haven't encountered each other for six generations.



The story is about the possibility of the healing process and whether healing can overcome centuries of learned prejudice. Hudak, being the guest character, represents the side that initially does not want to budge. Phlox, being a permanent resident of this series, represents the more comforting side of the situation: a man with an open mind who does not wish to judge those on the basis of ancient history. Can an understanding be reached between these two? (Well, I've already answered that question. The answer is, this is traditional Star Trek.)



The early sense of frustration I mentioned is best shown in a scene where Phlox loses his self-control and uncorks his bottled feelings after Hudak persists in baselessly slandering his intentions. Phlox lets loose a brief tirade: "I have tried to treat you with respect, but I refuse to listen to these insults. You're the reason we haven't been able to put the past behind us. You've kept this hatred alive. No Denobulan would want to be in the same room with you!" It's a potent moment; the suddenness of Phlox exploding into this angry outburst comes across almost like an involuntary result of pent-up frustration. It felt very real and also worked as an attention grabber. John Billingsley shows a credible ability to turn on a dime from his usual affable nature to sullen and then emotional.

Having reviews of this quality is a luxury. If you have a favorite episode, you're almost certain to find his review to contribute to your understanding and appreciation for all that is good about Star Trek.

the falsity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

I have asserted that you cannot prove God, for to do so would deny faith. This does not mean, logically, that if you DID somehow prove God (for example, if God presented you with 10 Commandments, or a holy Qur'an) that God would vanish - that is not the point of the Douglas Adams excerpt either. The God that vanishes is the concept of God as an entity whose existence can be proved, rather than the requirement of God as an entity that must be believed in.

While technically true that God revealing Himself to man would constitute a proof of sorts, that also denies faith. Now the man to whom God has revealed Himself does not need faith. He can simply point to God. The believer however, will most likely never perceive God in that direct form, and thus their belief in God is a matter of faith and not proof.

I do believe that God exists, and that belief is independent of whether God proves his existence or not to me. Thus I do not need proof, and in fact God's direct revelation would not be proof. If I were to treat it as such, then I never truly had faith.

This is why an avowed atheist such as Steven Den Beste is my ally, against attempts to prove the existence of God, such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This supposed proof proceeds as such:

1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.


2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.


3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal.

The supposition is that if the Universe had a beginning, which was caused, and the cause was personal, then that proves God. Actually, it doesn't, because the only God the Kalam argument proves is the Deist God who created the Universe and then ceased all interference afterwards. That version of God is incompatible with Islam (or Judaism, or Christianity, according to my understanding).

But the methods by which the Kalam argument "proves" the answer to be (a) in each case constitute a gross abuse of mathematics and science. Note that by relying entirely on Math, Science, and Philosophy to attempt to infer the existence of an entity that transcends those concepts (by definition), the proof is already in violation of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. But a more fundamental flaw is that the entire thesis rests on the postulate that "a trait of the actual infinite is that nothing can be added to it". They attempt to justify this using a thought-experiment called "Hilbert's Hotel" :

Let us imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms, and let us assume that all the rooms are occupied. When a new guest arrives and requests a room, the proprietor apologises, 'Sorry--all the rooms are full.' Now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, and let us assume that again all the rooms are occupied. But this time, when a new guest arrives and asks for a room, the proprietor exclaims, 'But of course!' and shifts the person in room 1 to room 2, the person in room 2 to room 3, the person in room 3 to room 4, and so on... The new guest then moves into room 1, which has now become vacant as a result of these transpositions. But now let us suppose an infinite number of new guests arrive, asking for rooms. 'Certainly, certainly!' says the proprietor, and he proceeds to move the person in room 1 into room 2, the person in room 2 into room 4, the person in room 3 into room 6, the person in room 4 into 8, and so on... . In this way, all the odd-numbered rooms become free, and the infinity of new guests can easily be accommodated in them.

In this story the proprietor thinks that he can get away with his clever business move because he has forgotten that his hotel has an actually infinite number of rooms, and that all the rooms are occupied. The proprietor's action can only work if the hotel is a potential infinite, such that new rooms are created to absorb the influx of guests. For if the hotel has an actually infinite collection of determinate rooms and all the rooms are full, then there is no more room. (Craig, Kalam, 84-85)

The simplest counterexample is simply the infinite set N of real positive integers, ie { 1, 2, 3, ... }. Now all I do is add zero. We now have { 0, N} where N = { 1, 2, 3, ...}, ie {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}. There! We just added one to infinity.

To apply this counterexample against Hilbert's Hotel, simply consider the room numbers to be labeled according to N. Now the hypothetical guest arrives. Build him a new room with room number 0.

The distinction between a "potential" and "actual" infinite is arbitrary. The distinction is solely introduced to justify the claim - note the underlined sentence above in the Hilbert Hotel example, which explicitly tries to deflect my counterexample by labeling it a "potential" infinite. They are essentially trying to claim 1. The Hotel is a pure math construct, not in the Real World. 2. We cannot build a new room because the Hotel is in the Real World, not a pure math construct.

In fact, they repeat this type-confusion by asserting that because "potential infinities" cannot exist in the Real World, that this even applies to God. The implicit assumption that they (probably did not intend to) make is that God is bounded by the Real World. This may have been true for the Greek pantheon, but Allah is beyond human comprehension and the limits of his Creation.

UPDATE: Christopher Landsdown, a grad student in math, has some minor corrections. Most importantly, he demonstrates that - counter to assertions in teh comments below - an infinite subset of an infinite set is NOT equal to the infinite set. The Kalam people also really need to look up the difference between "isomorphism" and "homomorphism" in a group theory textbook.

The website invoking Kalam also argues that Cantor, of set-theory fame, also subscribed to a version of this argument and even tried to present it to the Pope:

In fact, until Gregor Cantor's work in set theory, mathematicians rejected the existence of an actual infinite as a mathematical concept. But Cantor himself denied the existential possibility of the actual infinite. In correspondence with the Pope, he even suggested that the existential impossibility of the actual infinite could be used in a mathematical-metaphysical proof for the existence of God.

This proves that Cantor was a great mathematician, but a poor theologist.

UPDATE: Troy writes in to demonstrate with examples of Cantor's own writings that the attribution above that Cantor denied the existence of "actual infinities" is a blatant lie. Cantor argued with Leibniz that "actual infinities" did physically exist:

"Throughout his tough career at the University of Berlin, Cantor maintained a steady outlook on his adversaries. 'All so-called proofs against the possibility of actually infinite numbers are faulty, as can be demonstrated in every particular case, and as can be concluded on general grounds as well.'" (ref: Georg Cantor, Transfinite Numbers, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago and London, 1915.)

There's also an extended quote from the Leibniz Society Review as well that further documents Cantor's position. It's one thing to argue from authority. It's quite another to lie about what the authority said and then argue from that lie.