Sunday, May 20, 2018

Arrested Development: The Creep State - 2

Think so?
In this series we are taking a look at, among other things, the "myth of the majority."

The "myth of the majority", in this case, is the belief that the majority can prevent a "despotic minority" from developing.

That is not a historical reality (Arrested Development: The Creep State).

It can and will happen again:
"Eugenics is a well-known low point in the modern history of science. In the United States, from the late nineteenth century to the 1940s, credence was given to this pseudoscience focused on the notional 'improvement' of human populations by halting the reproduction of supposedly lesser genes. Less well known is the story of how US law rendered eugenics intellectually respectable across the world, supporting programmes from Canada to Sweden. Ultimately, this egregious failing led to the enforced sterilization of at least 60,000 US citizens, and was used by the Nazi regime to justify its own programme of sterilization and, later, extermination."
(History of Science, emphasis added). Even the best universities can fall for the majority myth and embrace it:
"In August 1912, Harvard president emeritus Charles William Eliot addressed the Harvard Club of San Francisco on a subject close to his heart: racial purity. It was being threatened, he declared, by immigration. Eliot was not opposed to admitting new Americans, but he saw the mixture of racial groups it could bring about as a grave danger. “Each nation should keep its stock pure,” Eliot told his San Francisco audience. “There should be no blending of races.”

Eliot’s warning against mixing races—which for him included Irish Catholics marrying white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, Jews marrying Gentiles, and blacks marrying whites—was a central tenet of eugenics. The eugenics movement, which had begun in England and was rapidly spreading in the United States, insisted that human progress depended on promoting reproduction by the best people in the best combinations, and preventing the unworthy from having children.


The former Harvard president was an outspoken supporter of another major eugenic cause of his time: forced sterilization of people declared to be “feebleminded,” physically disabled, “criminalistic,” or otherwise flawed. In 1907, Indiana had enacted the nation’s first eugenic sterilization law. Four years later, in a paper on “The Suppression of Moral Defectives,” Eliot declared that Indiana’s law “blazed the trail which all free states must follow, if they would protect themselves from moral degeneracy.”

He also lent his considerable prestige to the campaign to build a global eugenics movement. He was a vice president of the First International Eugenics Congress, which met in London in 1912 to hear papers on “racial suicide” among Northern Europeans and similar topics. Two years later, Eliot helped organize the First National Conference on Race Betterment in Battle Creek, Michigan."
(Harvard’s Eugenics Era, emphasis added). Scary ... couldn't happen here ... eh?

Stay Awake
There is no protection in the embrace of the myth of the safe majority via elections either.

So, do what scientists do when one of them does a paper (test that science yourself; see if you can find myths by doing the relevant science; prove or disprove it, rather than having Scrubblers-R-us-blind-faith).

Because, it takes actual diligence all of our lives all of the time ... not just at election time (“Experience has shown that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” – Thomas Jefferson; “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson).

Be on the lookout ... don't trust any myth ... practice constant and continual vigilance.

The previous post in this series is here.






Saturday, May 19, 2018

On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 36

Fig. 1a
Thermal expansion of pure water does not have the same thermodynamic events that the thermal expansion of sea water has.

Nevertheless, you can search the Internet and find videos of someone pouring pure water into a flask, making a mark on the flask, then heating the flask with a Bunsen Burner.

Then, after the water warms, they will put another mark on the flask ostensibly showing that the heat has caused the water to increase in volume.

Then they are apt to declare that this proves that thermal expansion is the major cause of sea level rise because "as water warms it expands."

The problem with this Mickey Mouse trick is that 
if the pure water they use is at a temperature that is not below its maximum density temperature of 4 deg. C when they apply heat to the flask.

If it was, the pure water would contract (lose volume) rather than expand (gain volume) until the pure water temperature reached the maximum density temperature of 4 deg C.

From that temperature on, it would begin to expand as more heat is applied (see Fig. 1a).

Fig. 1b
For example, if the pure water temperature is 2 degrees C and heat is applied, the water will contract (lose volume) until its temperature increases to the maximum density temperature of 4 deg C, at which point it will expand (gain volume) if more heat is added.

Determining the maximum density of sea water is more difficult than with pure water, because sea water contains other substances, and also is impacted by depth pressure (Is A New Age Of Pressure Upon Us? - 14).

Fig. 1c
The graphs at Fig. 1b and Fig. 1c show a history of the sea water temperature in WOD Zone 5611 (Amundsen Sea area) at 20 meters deep.

Following the principles depicted in Fig. 1a, I have marked the expansion and contraction events to show the almost unbelievable expanding and contracting actions as the sea water temperature (black line) dips below or rises above the maximum density temperature (maximum density temperature is shown by the red line).

The gist of it is that when the sea water temperature (black line) is above the maximum density temperature (red line) the volume change is the opposite of what it is when the sea water temperature (black line) is below the maximum density temperature (red line).

The non-marked-up version of the Fig. 1b graph is shown at Fig. 1c.

Today, I used only one zone, specifically for emphasizing that the net balance derived by adding up the thermal expansion (pluses), and subtracting the thermal contractions (minuses) does not result in either "the major factor" or "a major factor" of sea level rise.

The graph at Fig. 1c, as well as the following graphs, were computed by using the TEOS-10 function gsw_ct_maxdensity to create the red line, and gsw_ct_from_t to generate the black line (see On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 35).

Each of the following graphs (Fig. 2a - Fig. 2p) was generated using data from a different depth, but they are all constructed from WOD data collected in WOD Zone 5611.

TEST: see if you can determine expansion and contraction segments of the black line as I did in Fig. 1b. [Remember to follow the time line flow (left to right): Answers]

Remember that (in terms of whether expansion or contraction will take place) when the black line is above the red line, sea water thermodynamics are the opposite from when the black line is below the red line (cf On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 35).

This is why we need this focus:
"The vast Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, plays a starring role in the future of climate change. The global oceans together absorb over 90 percent of the excess heat in the climate system and roughly three-quarters of that heat uptake occurs in the Southern Ocean. In addition, the global oceans absorb around 25 percent of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and the Southern Ocean alone accounts for about half of the uptake of CO2.

Despite its critical role in our climate system, the Southern Ocean has gone almost completely unobserved. Scientists have struggled to gather precise measurements because of the harsh environment and extreme remoteness. The changing dynamics of the Southern Ocean will in turn drive key aspects of our future climate, including how sensitive the Earth will be to further warming and increases in carbon dioxide emissions. As a result, improved observations are crucial to helping scientists understand and predict how our climate will change."
(Antarctica 2.0 - 3, quoting Climate Central). When the sea level is rising and the net result of thermal expansion / contraction totals is a minor player, a small number, then melting tidewater glaciers and other melting ice in the Cryosphere quite obviously must be the major player.

Finally, yes the lines on the graphs are somewhat jerky because that area of the world makes it difficult to take measurements.

There are not as many measurements over the decades as we would like (especially at deepest depths), but there are enough to give us a heads up.

The previous post in this series is here.

Fig. 2a

Fig. 2b

Fig. 2c

Fig. 2d

Fig. 2e

Fig. 2f

Fig. 2g

Fig. 2h

Fig. 2i

Fig. 2j

Fig. 2k

Fig. 2l

Fig. 2m

Fig. 2n

Fig. 2o

Fig. 2p

Answers

CAUTION: This is not the understanding of all scientists who have ever lived and published papers, so (for the scientifically timid) ask your momma if it is ok to read it.

Here are the follow up answers to the question (in the main post here) which asks how the expansion and contraction segments in the graphs should be marked:

Fig. 2a

Fig. 2b

Fig. 2c

Fig. 2d

Fig. 2e

Fig. 2f

Fig. 2g

Fig. 2h

Fig. 2i
Fig. 2j

Fig. 2k

Fig. 2l

Fig. 2m

Fig. 2n

Fig. 2o

Fig. 2p

Thursday, May 17, 2018

Follow The Immunity - 5

Impeachment Proceedings
I. Above The Law?

In this series we have been analyzing and discussing the cultural phenomenon that is called "immunity" (Follow The Immunity, 2, 3, 4).

The street description for "immunity" is "being above the law."

Actually, however, in some instances immunity is the law:
"The Senators and Representatives ... shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same ...."
(U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). There are valid reasons for that, such as the potential for one political party being able to cause or instigate the arrest of a number of members from the opposing political party (which could or would keep them from being able to show up and vote on an issue that is very close in the vote tally).

II. Is The President Above The Law?

If Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations are "the law" then we can say that there are times when the U.S. President is above the law, or that the President is immune from felony indictment while in office:
"In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination. We believe that the conclu­sion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution."
(DOJ Regs, PDF). Both "opinions" indicate that it is DOJ policy, now, that the president is above the law in terms of a criminal indictment while he or she is still in office.

The U.S. President's lawyer, Rudolf Guliani, says that he was informed by Robert Mueller, the "special counsel" (who heads up a team that is investigating Russian tampering with the outcome of the most recent election), that pursuant to DOJ regulations the DOJ cannot indict the president while the president is in office (CNN, NYT, NBC).

III. Immunity For The Wee People?

In a recent federal court decision, the federal judge pointed out that this is not the case for "regular" (Wee The People, 2, 3) citizens:
"Defendant Manafort has moved to dismiss the Superseding Indictment.  He contends that when the Acting Attorney General issued the Appointment Order, he exceeded limits imposed on his appointment authority by the Department of Justice Special Counsel Regulations, and that therefore, the Appointment Order, and the acts undertaken by the Special Counsel under its auspices, are invalid. Manafort also argues that even if the appointment was valid, the Special Counsel overstepped the authority he was granted when he investigated and prosecuted the particular charges in this case.

It is important to note that Manafort does not challenge the entire Appointment Order; he objects only to paragraph (b)(ii), the grant of authority to pursue “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation,” which he claims is too broad.

Thus, as Manafort acknowledges, his motion does not support the dismissal of any charges if they were properly brought under paragraphs (b)(i) or (iii) of the Appointment Order. See Tr. of Apr. 19, 2018 Mot.Hr’g [Dkt. # 281] (“Tr.”) at 8–9.

The motion to dismiss [the indictment] will be denied for a number of reasons. [Order at p. 2]
...
"Defendant does not argue in his pleadings that the Acting Attorney General violated any statute when he defined the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction to include “any matters that arose;” his claim is that paragraph (b)(ii) of the Appointment Order is inconsistent with the Department’s Special Counsel Regulations. But those internal agency regulations do not create rights that an individual under investigation may enforce in court."
[Order, p 13]
...
"The word “collusion” does not even appear in the Appointment Order, and the Special Counsel was tasked with taking over the existing investigation, “including” “any links and/or coordination.”
[Order at pp. 14-15]
(US v Manafort, Opinion & Order). The DOJ and Special Counsel have broad powers of investigation over the wee people:
"28 C.F.R. §600.7(d) (providing that a Special Counsel “may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General”)."
...
"Nevertheless, it is intended that ultimate responsibility for the matter and how it is handled will continue to rest with the Attorney General (or the Acting Attorney General if the Attorney General is personally recused in the matter)" ... (Final Rule, 64 Federal Register at 37,038)
(ibid, Judge's Order).  The judge cites to and quotes several of what the President and the defendants incessantly call "fake news" media (Order p. 17-18).

It would seem that a lot of the ancient "the King can do no wrong" ideology survived the trip across the ocean to the Colonies from The British Empire (Sovereign Immunity Source: Toxins of Power?).

IV. The Only Remedy

What, then, is the remedy available to wee the people when a president runs amok (Arrested Development: The Creep State)?

If the DOJ opinion holds up, the only remedy available to wee the people when a president runs amok is Impeachment:
"At the federal level, the impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer, the President of the Senate who is also the Vice President of the United States.

In theory at least, as President of the Senate, the Vice President of the United States could preside over the impeachment of him/herself, although legal theories suggest that allowing a defendant to be the judge in his own case would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of anyone besides the President), the duties would fall to the President pro tempore of the Senate.

To convict an accused, "the concurrence of two thirds of the members present" is required.[37] Conviction removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring him or her from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. Conviction by the Senate does not bar criminal prosecution. Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of his prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote "guilty", the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed."
(Wikipedia, Impeachment Process). Thus, wee the people are at the mercy of the politicians who are at the mercy of the voting public.

V. Conclusion

Unless there is some challenge in the federal courts, and unless the federal courts, the Supreme Court being the final arbiter, overrules the current DOJ opinion, that opinion will have the force of law for the foreseeable future.

Which means "impeachment is off the table" (a bi-partisan view in the House of Representatives) (Pelosi: Impeaching Trump 'not someplace that I think we should go').

That, even though it is a constitutional command and the duty of the U.S. Congress to remove deviant office holders: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" (Presidential Impeachment).

Yet, "The involuntary removal of a sitting President of the United States has never occurred in our history" (ibid).

So, the opinion of a few trumps the constitution it would seem.

The previous post in this series is here.