Russ Feingold on Target

Game, Set, Match........

In the United States of America, the people are sovereign, not the president. It is Congress’ responsibility to challenge an administration that persists in a war that is misguided and that the nation opposes. We cannot simply wring our hands and complain about the administration’s policy. We cannot just pass resolutions saying “your policy is mistaken.” And we can’t stand idly by and tell ourselves that it’s the president’s job to fix the mess he made. It’s our job to fix the mess, too, and if we don’t do so we are abdicating our responsibilities.

Friday Crab Blogging

Handsome guy, wouldn't you agree?

Can you say obscene?

NEW YORK - Oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. on Thursday posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company — $39.5 billion — even as earnings for the last quarter of 2006 declined 4 percent.

A billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon....

From here:

The top five Gross Domestic Product (in billions of dollars):

Rank……Country………………..GDP
1…....United States.............$10,112.25
2…....China……………………….$6,716.20
3…....Japan……………………….$3,408.53
4……..India………………………..$2,808.83
5……..Germany………………….$2,126.60

Further down we have:
70.......Ecuador.....$42.27
71.......Ghana.......$41.96
72.......Croatia......$40.58

Exxon Mobile...........$39.50

73.......Libya........$39.04
74.......Slovenia......$36.72

In fact, Exxon Mobile made in PROFITS more than GDP of 108 out of the 183 countries in the world!

There are some very poor countries:

Country GDP/capita/year
Congo.........$883
Mali..........$877
Somalia.......$867
Nigeria.......$854
Niger.........$851
Yemen.........$831
Madagascar....$774

When you consider that:

In 2005, Lee R. Raymond (CEO of Exxon Mobile) raked in $48,922,808 in total compensation including stock option grants* from Exxon Mobil Corporation.

Which is at least $407 a minute, or about 1/2 the GDP per capita of someone in Nigeria, Yemen or Madagascar,

it makes you want to puke.

Some Thoughts on Information - III

This is taking a lot longer than I thought it would, and I'm still not to where I really want to be. So, tolerance, tolerance, please. Also, once into the nitty gritty here if I make a big boo-boo, please let me know.

I think we all agree that one of the most important events in life, maybe even the definition of sentience, is the reception, use, and ultimately dissemination of information (just gilding the lily on the dictionary definition of sentience.) So, the next thing to think about is how information gets to the human brain. Consider that, at the very root of this process, as, indeed the root of all biological processes, is a bimolecular chemical reaction. Hopefully, if I make it through this stage, that fact will lead to some interesting conclusions, if not many more questions, about information and its uses.

What follows is extremely simple at the basic level. The details (like the details of our discussion so far that seem to branch out further and further as the Mandelbrot set) become unbelievably complicated, e.g. the physics of photoisomerization. Please ignore the details if you wish. I will try to bring it to a very simple scheme at the end. Throughout, I have used Wikipedia. It is the current library of Alexandria.

First, consider a human who is in a tank of water that is at a temperature that is completely neutral (skin temperature). This person is able to breath with an apparatus and there is no light or sound. In other words, consider a person in an “Isolation Tank.” For short periods, this can lead to an enhanced state of self awareness, creativity, etc. However, after prolonged periods, the subject can experience anxiety, depression and, I suspect, just go crazy. (That sensory deprivation has been used routinely in the detention of “unlawful combatants” at Guantanamo and elsewhere is one more crime by the Bush administration, because it is certainly tantamount to torture.)

The point here is that the human brain has to have sensory input to function in a normal manner. In other words, it needs information. Without constant information input, the human brain and mind would go off on some wild tangent from reality. So, it makes a lot of sense to examine in detail how information gets to the brain and, by extension, how it is handled once there.

I would like to go through the process by which a visual sensory input (photons) makes it to the brain. Again, please try to see this in its simplest terms, since the devil is not in the details (except one, which I will come to).

It is of extreme interest that visual sensory input is quantized into photons. Please recall that Einstein won the Nobel Prize for this discovery, and the photoelectric effect, that he published in 1905 (along with the theory of special relativity!). While light behaves both as a wave and a particle (a photon), it is the latter that is of most interest here. In spite of this “quantization” it is my view that quantum mechanics plays no real part in the mechanism that we are about to discuss. We could talk about this at length later. Indeed, Einstein himself never really accepted quantum mechanics since it could not be brought into his general theory of relativity (i.e. couldn't explain gravity.)

I will try to show that at each stage of the process the information is digitized at the most basic level. This has profound implications for how we process the information and, ultimately must have some reflection on how we think. It also has a real world prediction about free will (don't choke, please).


Figure 1 - Structure the eye and retina


Figure 2 - Structure of the retina

First, consider the retina. It consists of multiple layers (see figures 1 and 2) with the rods and cones, the photon sensors, at the bottom of the layers (this is arrangement counter intuitive since you would think the photon receptors would be the first thing that a photon encountered). The rod cells of a human eye are capable of reacting to a single photon! That is, they are as sensitive as the Hubble Telescope since this is the ultimate limit of electromagnetic information.

In the cell membrane of a rod cell (cones are similar but are used for color perception) is a molecule called opsin (Figure 3).


Figure 3 - 3D structure of opsin

Buried in the center of opsin is a molecule called retinal (tiny red figure in Figure 3 and Figure 4 A). This is actually Vitamin A and, of course, the favorite of Bugs Bunny (carrots). It is also, sadly, very low in the diet of some third world children leading to blindness. We give it as a supplement to infants. Too much, though, is toxic. It is related to Retin A for acne, and, most interestingly, to the treatment of acute promyelocytic leukemia with all-trans -retinoic acid. How this causes differentiation of the leukemia cells to mature, non malignant cells probably involves G proteins, but I digress.


Figure 4A - Cis-retinal and 4B - Trans-retinal

When a photon of light hits retinal, it can be absorbed, causing the photoisomerization from the cis configuration to the trans configuration (Figure 4A -> 4B).

How exactly this is accomplished appears to be quite complicated. It can be understood in various ways. Since I am an aficionado of molecular orbital theory (vs valence bond theory) I prefer to think of it as the photon exciting an electron in the bonding orbitals of the retinal molecule to a higher orbital. Once in the higher orbital, the molecule is more stable in the trans configuration. However, if you are really interested, fly to here. This isomerization takes place pretty fast, somewhere on the order of 200-500 femtaseconds.

In the trans configuration, the retinal molecule doesn't “fit” into the opsin protein, and this causes a G protein signaling pathway to be activated. I am not sure of the exact mechanism of the pathway activation.

A nice animation of this process can be found here.

G proteins are ubiquitous in metabolism as “second messengers.”

The G protein in the rod cells is Transducin. Transducin contain both G-alpha and G-gamma-delta subunits. Activation of Transducin by the conformational change of retinal causes GDP (guanine diphosphate) to be exchanged with GTP (guanine triphosphate) from the cytosol at the G-alpha subunit. In turn, the now activated G-alpha subunit dissociates from the G-gamma-delta and increases the activity of cyclic GMP phosphodiesterase. This enzyme closes ion channels to passage of Na+ and K+ causing hyperpolarization of the cell membrane.



To be continued.....................

Odds and Ends

I am really working hard on the next "Information" post. I've gotten hung up on action potentials but, for anyone interested, I'll have it up later this week. I had to review such simple things as electrochemistry.

The Growlery has a couple of posts that bear commenting:

The source of the word "limey" is indeed from the practice of eating limes for vitamin C by the British Navy. I didn't mean it in a scurrilous tone by any stretch. While all the other sailors were getting the handle "scurvy bastard" attached to them, the Brits were drinking gin and tonic (quinine - malaria prophylaxis) with, of course, limes. There you are.

As for Pommie, I always heard it as "Pommie Bastard" when I lived in Ireland. But this was so long ago that it was at the beginning of the last "troubles" in North Ireland and it was used by the "Jackeenes" in Dublin. They're the ones who've lived in Dublin since before the Vikings got stomped by Brian Boru at Clontraf. I always thought was a reference to that little "pom" on the top of the British soldier's cap. I accept that it might have arisen in WWI with the influx in Europe of all those Australian troops fighting the "bloody Turks" and losing their legs as in "The Band Played Waltzing Matilda." Pomegranate sounds fine to me.

Aside stimulated by WWI and British soldiers: My college roomate's grandfather lived in Boston (on Beacon Street.) He was a doc in the British Army in WWI and had been in a mess tent in Egypt when T.E. Lawerence came rolling by. Small world.

Oh, about your Prince:

Prince Charles has been reminiscing about living in Australia as a teenager, saying he hiked for 70 miles and was called a "pommie bastard".

Here's another thing from the Growlery:

This question of symbols is one to which Jim Putnam periodically returns, for example here and more recently, less explicitly but just as certainly here ... it's a fascinating one, and goes to the very core of every area of human activity. Every one of us holds within her or his mind a model of the universe, and that model is built from symbols.

This whetted my appetite since there is no doubt that the internal workings of the mind must use symbols in some nuanced way and I don't, at the moment, have a biochemical explanation for this.

---------------

As for the comments by the Growlery re education and information, I wish I had an eon to reply. I can see I would have to sharpen the pencils since he has got the hands on experience.

Hat tip to Jim Putnam and his recent comments here. Again and again I go back to the scenario of "what should a good German have done." Norman Mailer's new book is about Hitler's early life; essentially an attempt to understand how someone could become such a monster. It may be that he was born that way, but certain experiences shaped him in his course. Are we not shaping the experience of children both in Iraq and, to a lesser degree in the West by perpetrating an endless civil war? What will be the result on the emerging Iraqi population? What will a young man of 5-10 years old be like in 15-20 years after having lived through this carnage. Has it not radicalized the Lebanese and Palestinians? Where does Ha mas and Hezbollah get its recruits except from this pool of radicalized young men, and, increasingly women?

We have much to ponder.

Friday Crab Rockfish Blogging

Slightly Limey?

Quick Comments

I feel very honored to have another blogger commenting on some of the things the Growlery and I have been throwing around. It just amazes me that the closer you look at even the most simple question the further it spreads out into even more interesting fields, like a Mandelbrot set. Take this remark:

In a previous life, my job was to assist clients to develop information systems. Reading Felix and Dr. C., I now become aware of how we limited our definition of information. Information, when designing a computer system, was data that was not previously known. In other words, our computer information systems allowed the manager to view data in such a way that some bit of data was used in a manner that allowed the manager to make better decisions.

Actually, I find this a provocative definition: "data that was not previously known." It casts information into a utilitarian role. Who would dispute that except perhaps an aesthete, i.e. one who valued information just for the sake of information. Perhaps an art connoisseur, or cellist. But then, you might rejoin that someone who just wanted pure information (if there is such a thing) was a dilettante.

You see what I mean, its like opening Pandora's box.

On another note, the Growlery has taken issue with my disparagement of Intelligent Design. That is a discussion that needs to be had, but I beg off until we get further into our current doings. However, I accept full sackcloth and ashes for belittling Intellectual Freedom even the slightest bit.

----------------

I suspect that we could go on talking about localization and dispersion of information for a long time and not even scratch the surface. It was interesting to follow the course from the Neanderthal, where almost all was localized in the individual, with some shared in the immediate community, to Homer where it was further dispersed, to the ages of libraries and print, and now to the age of the Internet. In each age the individual human has varying levels of on board information. As the Growlery points out, with A.I. robots coming on the scene, the delocalization of information is even more complicated.

But, we still have to get information into the human. From my standpoint, there are a number of interesting aspects of this process which we can go into in the next post.

Exactly how much information can someone know? How much should a person know (onboard v.s. access via, e.g., the Internet)? Is there a threshold amount of information after which the brain starts kicking things out the other end (wherever that is)? Furthermore, do we really forget things that we have learned or are they just non retrievable? Once you start asking these questions you can’t stop. Maybe I can make a stab at it after we develop information intake.

Aside: I am impressed that pedagogy spends little time teaching children facts anymore, at least as we were taught facts only 50 years ago, but I am not sure what is taught in its place. For instance, do they even teach the times tables anymore with the advent of hand held calculators? What about all those poems that people used to memorize. God forbid that I should ever have to go through medical school again (a recurring nightmare) and face that memorization gauntlet.

My staff, a number with children, informed me yesterday that they do not teach cursive handwriting anymore and that even in the early grades they learn keyboarding (which rhymes with skateboarding and, of course, snowboarding.) Children when they have to “write” by hand use printing. Sounds like regression to me. I suspect they will next be knocking out cuneiform script on clay tablets.

The Dying Children of Iraq

I promised not to blog on Iraq but I just can't stand this:

"Sick or injured children who could otherwise be treated by simple means are left to die in hundreds because they do not have access to basic medicines or other resources," the doctors say. "Children who have lost hands, feet and limbs are left without prostheses. Children with grave psychological distress are left untreated," they add.

They say babies are being ventilated with a plastic tube in their noses and dying for want of an oxygen mask, while other babies are dying because of the lack of a phial of vitamin K or sterile needles, all costing about 95p. Hospitals have little hope of stopping fatal infections spreading from baby to baby because of the lack of surgical gloves, which cost about 3.5p a pair. (emphasis added)

Yes, that's 3.5 pence, or 7 cents!

In the meantime, we are spending $2,000,000,000 a week killing Iraqis. The total cost of the Iraq "War" if over a Trillion dollars. Yes, that's $1,000,000,000,000. This would buy over 10,000,000,000,000 pairs of gloves. Ten trillion pair of gloves.

And I sit here doing nothing.

(Oh, and "Up to 260,000 children may have died since the 2003 invasion of Iraq." If America was Iraq, that would be over 3,000,000 children. That's three million. I can't even think about these numbers without getting ill.)

Some Thoughts on Information - II

We got as far as Homer with our thinking about information.

The reason I picked Homer is because, to my simple mind, he marks the transition for an oral tradition of information passage to a written version. When written language developed exactly is hard to determine (for interested parties, go to to the Wikipedia entry on the History of Writing).While there are surely sagas, stories, information (such as that found in the Egyptian pyramids) that had been written (using various hieroglyphic and cuneiform languages) prior to ~1200 BC, in the Western tradition, we credit Cadmus with bringing the Phoenician alphabet from Tyre (bombed to smithereens by the Israelis last summer) to Greece and introducing the written word there (as described in “The Marriage of Cadmus and Harmony” by Roberto Calasso.)

After this, information was written. At first cumbrous by hand, reaching its apogee in the scripting monks of the wee islands off the southern coast of Ireland (see “How the Irish Saved Civilization” by Thomas Cahill and, if you really want an experience, go see the Book of Kells at Trinity College in Dublin). This was a learning experience for humans, translating the spoken, observational world and mapping it onto the written page. This is the essence of writing, a mapping process. Interestingly enough, it is exactly what DNA does when it maps information onto the milieu of the cell. (To let you know where I am driving in these spiels, DNA maps its information onto proteins that have specific, kinetic rates. The proteins have primary (i.e. amino acid structure), secondary (i.e. how the amino acids are arranged determined by the code), tertiary (how the protein folds in three dimensional space) and quaternary (the rate of the reaction that the enzyme performs. Much more about this later, if you are interested, later.)

So information important to human survival is mapped onto the page by writing. Then, after Gutenberg, by printing. (Project Gutenberg is interesting in its quest to get as many books as possible onto the digital library of the Internet).And in the late 20th century by the digitization into ones and zeros.

This reminds me a little of the Jorge Luis Borges’ tale where the king asks his cartographer to map the kingdom and he makes a small model. Next he asks him to make it larger. If you know Borges, you can figure out what happens next. Gradually the map (model) gets bigger until it encompasses the whole kingdom. What I mean is that the Internet is digitizing our lives, at some point entirely. We don’t need to travel to distant stars. We can just send all the information necessary in digital form and another civilization will reconstruct us. DNA and all.

Now where is this information localized. Growlery emphasized that Homer’s information space was across Greece, several hundred kilometers. I would certainly agree with this but would also add that the next big thing after with written word was the localization of information in libraries, particularly the Library at Alexandria. It must certainly rank right up there with the seven tragedies of the ancient world the destruction of that library in that this was the largest collection of texts (many on papyrus) ever assembled until that time. It may have reached as many as 500,000 scrolls. (Laura Croft has an encounter with the Library in one of the Tomb Raider adventures, I forget which.)

As an aside, Egypt has recently decided to open a library to commemorate the ancient library. Do we not find an intense irony here that the written word is now digitized so that, rather than a library, we could store this on a few CD’s, or DVD’s, or Blue Rays, or whatever? (The library I now use is eMedicine, Google and Wikipedia, although I have a home library of 2-3,000 books. I just like to sit amongst them. Cheap thrills.)

So, back to the thread. In spite of the exponential increase in information, much of it localized in books, then books in libraries, one has to ask how the single human progressed in this. Did all this information make life easier for the human, or, paradoxically more difficult. And, of course, how do we get and process this information.

Stay tuned.

Friday Crab Blogging

An Oldie, but Goldie.

Further post on information this weekend, if anyone is interested.

Commenting before moving forward;

The Growlery has two posts up (here and here) with some pithy comments on what we discussed below. As I had suspected, there are large numbers of people who are thinking along the same lines, sort of like a “swarm.” Here are a few extracted memes:

Concerning Information handling in the human:

Now, though, I did think about it. And, she (his dentist talking about his tongue) pointed out, all of this is just one small subroutine within the total body monitoring run by the central nervous system - which is, in itself, only one function of that system amongst many others.

This comment is interesting from a number of points, not the least that it suggests that human processing of information is a massively parallel affair. This coincides with current ideas of neuroanatomy with the “executive” center being in the prefrontal cortex and the areas such as Brocca’s speech center (having been described several centuries ago) and the motor cortex being ancillary to this directive. Of course we don't really understand how it works yet.

Concerning Intelligent Design:

Human beings, as I said in an earlier post, are a package evolved by evolution (or, if you are from the other shop, designed) to meet a very different world from the one within which robotics are developing.

I disagree with the Growlery on tossing a bone to the intelligent design crowd. While they pretend to be scientists, their agenda is clearly political and it pains me that we have to continually recognize their influence. Hopefully it is waning.

Concerning Lagrange points L1 an L2
I looked them up in Wikipedia. It took me less than a minute. Talk about information handling.

Concerning deposits of information in robots:

...to duplicate them onboard is unnecessary, unless security or the transmission delay is unacceptable for a particular purpose

I think I would like to say something about this in the future. Something about the fragility of information transfer (upon which all these visions of robotic swarms heavily depend). Have you ever worked in a Hospital?

Concerning the robots of the future:

It's not impossible that dentistry, like radiography, will one day be carried out by machines; but not by a humanoid robot.

This is very poignant. It just like the American auto worker in the 50’s and 60’s looking forward to the future. Little did they know that their jobs would first be shipped over seas and then be taken over by automation. I don’t think that doctors (or lawyers, for that matter) have even considered what is going to happen to their professions when EMR’s (electronic medical records) get fully implemented. In fact, they are clamouring for my office to implement a prototype information collection on all patients with respect to their mental health that will be shared by all health care professionals!!

Talk about Brave New World (a Shakespeare quote, by the way. Never to be replaced by a robot.)

Concerning the definition of “living”:

When will a machine, robot, automaton, be deemed “alive”?

I would say that this is purely a philosophical question akin to “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.” It is interesting if you read Wittgenstein to see how many of his “questions” about language are equally irrelevant a 100 years later. We should return to this after an appropriate science of neuro-informatics has been developed. Consider that working on these problems is just like Steven Weinberg and his theory of everything.

Next the Growlery refers us to five separate comments by Babbage and Lovelace. These appeared in 1998-1999 but are very relevant. The first of these is here:

What follows are just some quotes out of these commentaries that I found interesting:

Concerning “swarms” of automatons (I like this word in this context better than the word robot):

…It is not, he feels, a very great leap to imagine a linked ‘swarm’ of such vehicles, comprising, like ants, a greatly flexible, dispersed entity. The loss of a single automaton would not fatally injure the swarm, which could repair itself or even manufacture complete new vehicles. Perhaps such swarms are the future of planetary exploration and much else besides.

I think that this is a comment on the definition of life. What else is an organism but something that can “repair itself and manufacture copies of itself?” Of course that covers the Andromeda Strain and I despise Michael Critchon.

Returning to this question again:

Human sentience, it has been argued, derives from manipulative capacity and a critical number of neural connections. How large must a swarm be, Babbage wonders, to provide that critical number? He finds the question fascinating; but with the prospect of automata free to decide to copy themselves or to kill, Mary Shelley’s warning about irresponsible scientific creation carries as much weight today as it did when Babbage, as a young man, first read Frankenstein.

The Pope does Computers:

Lovelace turned to the radio, where she heard that the Vatican reputedly plans to computerise "the search for God's fingerprints in the chaos of Creation".

What an enticing little tidbit. Except, as they point out, how do you decide what is a fingerprint of God?

Dance, angels, dance on that pinhead.

On the fundamental constants of the universe:

that the fundamental constants of the universe - seemingly tailored to our existence - may also have evolved Darwinistical

I am not a physicist, but this seems to be contradicted by the fact that, as time goes on, we are able to reconstruct the universe further and further backwards in time. I am almost certain that this presupposes that the constants don’t change (wouldn't be a constant, would it). There is much speculation about these constants and, of course, the possibility of alternative universes comes up. It is my understanding that humans couldn't’t live in an alternative universe simply because only these constants only allow life as we know it.

Finally a comment on robotic surgery:

Of the medical endorobotics experts Babbage spoke to, some foresaw automated surgery useful in battlefield or other hazardous environments. Others saw brighter prospects, a way out of resource shortages in a world of escalating clinical demand. But whatever the applications for daVinci and the daVinciettes, their increasing part in medicine seems to Babbage inevitable.

Did I just see my job go down the drain? This is a long time in the future, but it is probably a real possibility. What will humans do when we are all replaced by robots. Oh, you Ludites, if you only knew!

Some Thoughts on Information

Some thoughts on the compartmentalization and dispersion of information in the biological world in response to questions posed by The Growlery.

This is such an interesting topic, and it ultimately reflects on the larger question of human knowledge, that it is certainly worth pursuing. Let me say from the outset that I am in no way an expert on these matters. I prefer to be viewed as a curious layman. And, I am sure, that people like Daniel Dennett have explored these issues far more deeply than I could even imagine (I have two of Dennett’s books and another on consciousness that I have yet to read). However, to just paraphrase what another writes, no matter how elevated, isn’t half as fun as thinking about it yourself. That’s why I like the Internet, it allows this kind of thing for a while (until the Korporate Takeover).

When was the first information necessary for an organism to survive? Well, it must have been pretty early in evolution that informational molecules were required. If we look on DNA as the current and ultimate repository of biological information, some prototype informational molecule must have been present from the word "go" to direct reproduction. If we had time travel, this is the first thing I would find out. What was the ur-molecule of life? Some have speculated that it was RNA, or an RNA precursor, but I think that unlikely. Even RNA, with its backbone of sugars, is much too complex. In any case, the necessity of information for survival dates from the beginning.

It goes without saying that this is what separates the animate from inanimate. There is no example that I know of where the inanimate is driven by information from another source. The crystallization of minerals into their complexity simply follows the second law of thermodynamics with the atoms settling into their respective potential wells in energy space. (This does mimic the organization of kinetic space in cellular metabolism but that is directed by DNA. More on this later.) In any case, the inanimate does not evolve.

Of course DNA and RNA are now the basis of all life, including pseudo life such as viruses. One has to wonder at how and why these molecules came to hold the position they do. In addition to being a very slick means of both reproducing and directing cellular events, the latter by taking information stored in the genetic code to direct the formation of proteins, these molecules are also easy to mutate. Without mutation, there would be no evolution. But mutation changes the information. Most mutations destroy information in that they direct the synthesis of dysfunctional or afunctional proteins. But some mutations, the saints among men, are actually “superior” or “new” proteins (and the use of the words “superior” and “new” here is very loose). They contain new information! (and “new” here is very tight). That is, the configuration of DNA base pairs is different, and this is new information. Of course, there is nothing new under the sun and some information has had to be “destroyed.” This raises the question if information can ever be destroyed. Once information has been present, even if the physical repository (here DNA) is it possible to destroy it forever? If the DNA for unicorns was once present (just like the DNA for DoDo birds and 99% of the other species that have ever existed including dinosaurs) does that mean that it never disappears, even if the information is not in real space? A mathematician must answer this question.

One should not dismiss lowly organisms such as bacteria from having sophisticated information handling (and needs). In addition to bacterial DNA (several have had their total sequence determined) there is bacterial phages, or viruses (virii?) that infect bacteria. In addition to being useful in the new science of gene therapy (getting DNA into human cells) they also carry information between bacteria in the process of infecting and destroying the bacteria (its every bug for themselves in the nether world.) This can be particularly nasty for humans because when a bacteria mutates its DNA to become resistant to an antibiotic, that new information can be relayed to all the other bacteria in the world in very short order by the intervention of bacteriophages. In this way, staphylococcus aureus has become resistant to almost all conventional antibiotics causing serious amounts of trouble treating infections with this common bug (the scourge of MRSA, of methicillin staph aureus).

Even inside the bacteria the information becomes more or less localized. However, it is not until prokaryotes evolve to eukaryotes, and we have a nucleus in the cell that we have true localization. At that point, we need messenger molecules to take the information out of the nucleus (messenger RNA) to the site of protein synthesis (ribosomes). Almost like a cellular internet.

In any case, while one is tempted to relegate “information” to higher organisms and even restrict it to humans, the reality is that all of life is based on information. However, as the Growlery points out, there is a hierarchy of information placement, though he restricts it to the human world:

… a tribal system of oral history and a Googlised internet are both points on the same continuum, albeit separated by an arc of accelerating complexity curve.

As organisms get more complex, information, information storage, and information access becomes more complex. At some point, information begins to be stored outside the organism. Now, to be sure, one can never separate an organism completely from its environment, everybody needs a Petri dish. We would have no viruses to taunt us if there had never been bacteria to harbor their growth. But we wouldn’t be able to eat steak either, since the intestinal flora help in digestion, including absorbing vitamins. What we mean here is that organisms extract information from the environment in order to exist, but I am not exactly sure how to say this. Is there a difference between my Googling “phage” on the Internet and a bacteria sucking up the phage du jour? This needs a lot more thought. What exactly do I mean by “extracting information from the environment” and how does this differ from just receiving sensory input. I know what I mean but I can’t express it. There is a difference.

Fast forward to mammals who walk upright. I have not read “The Singing Neanderthals: The Origins of Music, Language, Mind and Body” by William McNeill yet. I did read the NYRB review. It is an intriguing set of hypotheses but, ultimately, an exercise in metahistory. We cannot know what really went on in the camps of Neanderthals. However, it is a good bet that they did develop verbal communication. Most important here is that communicating by sound may have resulted in the establishment of a repository of information that, while not physically outside the individual, may be described as cultural or collective knowledge. Now, immediately you will put forward the objection that this is no different than the “instinctive” knowledge of bees in a hive or ants in a hill. Certainly those insects function with a certain amount of community information, and, they communicate. Ants with their pheromones and touch, bees with their visual dance.

But, somehow, once the Neanderthal started to collect information as language, I think we entered into a new era. You might disagree with me here. What we do know is that there were many thousands of years of oral tradition between the “Swinger” singers and the oral tradition of Homer. On the scale of true evolution, of course, it was miniscule (see the time line of evolution that was circulating on the Web in the last few years to counter the Biblical time frame.)

It is amazing, though, that Homer and the Neanderthals were both at the same level in terms of information. Of course aesthetically (a rather subjective thing) they are miles apart. It is interesting that the aesthetic appeal is due to complexity since there is no difference, basically in the level of information between apes singing around a fire and Greeks singing around a fire. This, of course, raises the question as to how complex the information can get? What is the upper limit? Is there always an upper limit and have humans reached the upper limit for our current brain?

So, next to take up information after Homer. It seems like the surface hasn’t even been scratched.

Bunnies

Tom Tomorrow's cartoon (which is always poignant) took a swipe at doctors today in the process of pointing out the absurdity of health care in the U.S. It makes me sad to see that someone as aware as he is about political events seems confused about what is going on in medicine. Doctor's have nothing to do with offering insurance, we only slave under it.

Dear Tom,

Doctors are not responsible and do not support the current fiasco that is health insurance. In fact, insurance companies are our bitterest enemy. They consume untold hours of staff time and pay only 50-70% of what they are billed. When is the last time you went to a gas station and paid 50% of what was on the pump?

Dr. C.

P.S. The CEO of United Health Care made $38 million in 2002.

Further Insanity

A U.S. attack plane killed many people with barrages of gunfire in a remote Somali village occupied by Islamists thought to be hiding at least one al Qaeda suspect, a Somali government source said on Tuesday.(emphasis added)

This is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Yes, there might have been an al Qaeda suspect. But there were innoncent people killed.

This makes it murder.

A small agenda

Being a little overwhelmed by the response over at The Growlery to a post I had below. Let me see if I can summarize the action in this flick to date:

1. Observation was made of the finding of random statue fragments (I almost said statutory) and the suggestion that information technology, if it can put together the Martian landscape, should be able to piece together the puzzle of a few dozen fragments. After all, a human can put together a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle pretty quickly and computers can beat the world champions in chess. I had been meaning to read The Growlery’s article on information processing and, indeed, he did reference this type of puzzle solving but then went on to mention some much more interesting things. I will switch from the terminology "knowledge" to "information" though they may be the same thing.

2. These interesting things included the fact that many organisms, including in large part human beings, must carry their information around with them (we all come with 10,000 genes for smell receptors; 10,000 pre programmed odors!!; gene knowledge and learned knowledge; classic platonic conundrum), that robots may be largely free of such restrictions. While the immediate needs of recognition may need to be on board the robot, a large amount of information in a robot may be stored off site. For example, as the Growlery points out, your personal robot might store your culinary preferences on the moon (as long, of course, as there was “instant” access through, I presume, a rapid satellite bluetooth connection.)

3. The first topic that we need to explore, then, is this idea of information localization. There are a number of fascinating aspects of this including Wikepedia, the fact that the Library of Congress could be put on a small number of CD’s, the emerging paradigm in medicine of information handling (are radiologists obsolete?) and, finally, the concept of human knowledge itself being located off site as in “cultural” or “tribal” knowledge. Pertaining to this the Growlery says:

Survival through all those millennia of pretechnological existence made us what we are: a fixed package of onboard facilities with expansion taken care of by social groupings.

Please take note of the social groupings, i.e. tribes. Is there dispersed knowledge a la Carl Jung? Of course humans now have Google which might make tribes, in the sense of Diamond’s progression of socialization (c.f. Guns, Germs and Steel) also obsolete, along with radiologists.

4. Once we come to some general conclusion about the localization of information (is not "knowledge" just "information" in context?) we need to address the actual procurement of knowledge by the human organism. On this, we will have to rely on some concepts of neurophysiology but will also need to extend it to the molecular level. This will involve a discussion of the “threshold” hypothesis of human action. I can’t wait.

5. With the tools developed in 4, then, and only then, can we address the concept of Free Will from a truly physiologic and molecular way. Even a causal survey of current human activity (particularly on a moral level) will show that if we come to the conclusion that humans do not have “Free Will” in any shape or form, then the entire society from top to bottom has to be rethought (including crime, including Saddam, etc., etc., etc.). Mighty big order, but even more interesting than 4.

Barbara Boxer the Ecumenicist

I was really struck by this:

Boxer said legislation on climate change will be her No. 1 priority as committee chairwoman. She plans to conduct hearings early next year with scientists, environmentalists and religious leaders who want to address climate change. She also will ask business leaders to testify about their efforts to limit greenhouse gases.

Religious leaders? What? Are we to include the local Swami? Maybe Pat Roberts and Billy Graham (though his kids are arguing about where he's going to be buried).

What does a religious leader have to say about the environment other than to take up our valuable public time arguing about intelligent design.

Geesh.

Bush and the Constitution

I just saw the video on Firedoglake of Olbermann talking to about the Constitution with a Professor of Constitution Law at GWU. Pretty sad. Pretty freightening. My reply.

The puzzles of Keros

Now here is a puzzle for any mathematician who reads this:

Statues offer clues to Greek isle's past
By NICHOLAS PAPHITIS, Associated Press Writer
Sun Dec 31, 4:19 AM ET

ATHENS, Greece - Unlike its larger, postcard-perfect neighbors in the Aegean Sea, Keros is a tiny rocky dump inhabited by a single goatherd. But the barren islet was of major importance to the mysterious Cycladic people, a sophisticated pre-Greek civilization with no written language that flourished 4,500 years ago and produced strikingly modern-looking artwork.
.................
...Keros is a repository of art from the seafaring culture whose flat-faced marble statues inspired the work of 20th century masters Pablo Picasso and Henry Moore.
..................
When they were unearthed, the white marble shards were jumbled close together like a pile of bleached bones, an elbow here, a leg there, occasionally a head. (emphasis added)

So, here's the challange, is there a program that solves a puzzle like this? That is, one that takes a jumbled mess of fragments and reconstructs entities? I would assume that there are puzzle solving programs just as I am sure that the topologists are all over this like chicken pox (ah, something I do know something about).



Oops, now that wrote all the above I see that Felix Grant has allready talked about the problem in his article on pattern recognition.

And, while I'm at it, let me throw out this quote from Dr. Grant's article:

..... a robot need only perform onboard perception and cognition where speed of response requires it – roughly the equivalent of instinctive functions in a biological organism.

It is my opinion, and I plan to spend a lot more time on this, that all functions of a biological organism are "instinctive." Actually, I would put the word "reflexive" there.

Furthermore, I contend that this includes all of the so called "higher" functions of humans up to and including Free Will. Take that you intelligent designers.

(Oh, and by the way, pattern recognition will be the death knell of radiologists.)

(And, of course, read Dr. Grant's article, it is very interesting in separating out the physical locale of knowledge. More on this and medicine later.)

Why did we vote for George W. Bush?

Could this be a reason?

New Year's Resolutions

I usually don't make New Year's Resolutions because they don't last but a week. I will try harder this year:

1. Don't blog about Iraq every day. Anything I say has been said by much greater minds and in much better prose. Furthermore, anything I say doesn't change the powers that be one iota.

2. Lose weight.

3. Write more poetry (the dry grizzle of rust is causing the words to grind.)

4. Lose weight.

5. Consider supporting John Edwards for Presidency. At least get on his current program at http://johnedwards.com/splash/:

We all must take responsibility and take action now to:

Provide moral leadership in the world

Strengthen our middle class and end poverty

Guarantee universal health care for every American

Lead the fight against global warming

Get America and other countries off our addiction to oil

He may be a malpractice lawyer at heart, but the above sort of summarizes the way I look at things (if you include getting the hell out of Iraq as providing moral leadership).

6. Lose weight

7. Work on mathematics. Work on science.

8. Lose weight.

9. Do more NYT crossword puzzles (keeps the mind spry)

10. Lose weight.

And this is what my friend thinks about it:

The Execution of Saddam Hussein

I do not think that it was right to execute Saddam Hussein.

First, of course, the disclaimer. He was a man who did many evil and despicable things and should have been brought to justice for what he did. However, I agree with many observers, that this should have taken place in the International Criminal Court in the Hague. (Of course, we do not subscribe to this Court for the exact circumstances that surround this execution. That is, while Saddam Hussein was responsible for many tragic deaths, so is George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Cheney. Other than impeaching Bush and Cheney, then bringing criminal charges, which would break apart America, there is little that we can do.)

My main objection to executing Saddam Hussein is a moral issue. What may be the principal reason for the execution is Bush's desire to lend credence to his initial action of invading Iraq. I am sure that, in his mind, having history books saying that the invasion was for the purpose of removing an "evil" dictator will lend some justification to this act. Inevitably, he hopes, Hussein will be linked to the events of 9/11 as he and his administration has tried so hard to do for the last 5 years. All of this in spite of the fact that the United States was a supporter of Saddam at a time when he was doing his foulest deeds! Of this there can be no dispute. (c.f. well known picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in the mid 1980's)

Furthermore, the way in which Saddam was tried was in many respects a farce. During the whole trial up until minutes before his execution, he was in the hands of the occupying army of the United States. In spite of it being said that this was a "fair" trial, it was in many respects a kangaroo court. Whether the future views it as such remains to be seen.

In summary, Saddam Hussein should have be tried before the World Court. If found guility, as he would most certainly be, he should have been imprisoned for life with no possibility of parole. The execution only serves the purpose of emphasizing the current barbarity in Iraq, one that falls heavily at the feet of George W. Bush, his cronies and the American people.

Tell me it ain't so, Joe

I don't know why I even follow the news and opinion any more. Glenn Greenwald, in his as usual good commentary, quotes Joe Lieberman:

On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism.

Glenn goes on to discuss the Israeli underpinnings of Joe's desire for war with Iran. In my opinion, he does not go far enough since, at this point, open ended support of Israel by the U.S. will inevitably lead to Israel's use of a nuclear weapon against Iran as things deteriorate ("we had to nuke 'em to survive the Nazis").

What I really wanted to do, though, is to point out the tremendous fallacy in the Lieberman quote. That is, conflating Iran with al-Qaeda. Iran, along with the better part of Iraq and Lebanon, are Shiite. Al-Qaeda is most definitely Sunni (actually the core of al-Qaeda is of Sunni extremism: Wahhabism or Salafism which originated in Saudi Arabia, a Sunni country and our dearest friend.)

Where does Joe get his information? If Sunni and Shiite were going to cooperate in "terrorism" they would have cooperated in Iraq where they are killing each other in the most barbaric way.

As I said, why even read this crap any more. Just hunker down for Armegeddon.

Friday Crab Blogging

Death Tax for the Poor

There is something wrong here:

ORLANDO, FLA. - Ever since Judy Clifford's parents died, she had planned to move with her husband into their Nashville, Tenn., home, which she knew so well.

"I felt like they were still there," says Ms. Clifford, who is retired. "I could see my mother standing at the sink washing dishes and my daddy watching TV, and I wanted to stay in the house because of that."

Instead, the two-bedroom ranch-style home is for sale for $122,000, the subject of a bitter tug-of-war between the Cliffords and TennCare, Tennessee's healthcare program for the poor and uninsured. TennCare has laid claim to the home to recoup the cost of caring for Clifford's mother, who was on TennCare when she died three years ago.

In the face of soaring Medicaid costs, Tennessee and every other state are required to set up a Medicaid estate-recovery program. Many have been launched only recently, and some - like Tennessee's - are becoming more aggressive. Often, they target the home because it's all that's left after beneficiaries have spent their assets to pay for nursing-home care.

Hmmmm. We have a ex-Congress composed of a Republican majority that frittered away legislative time (less than 100 days a year) passing tax breaks for their buddies including an attempt at a big estate tax break for the wealthiest Americans and then they turn around do this kind of crap.

Time for the majority to stick it to the Scrooges. I'd say a progressive tax to make Trump's head spin.

Happy Holidays

Children are our only hope. If only we would stop harming them.

The Draft

The Boy King wants more troops. The Army is not meeting its recruitment goals.

ergo:

AP: Selective Service to test military draft machinery

Mike Sheehan
Published: Thursday December 21, 2006

The Selective Service—the federal agency that would be integral to any draft effort by the Bush administration—will perform tests on its system equipment, the Associated Press is reporting.

Selective Service "is planning a comprehensive test of the military draft machinery, which hasn't been run since 1998," writes Kasie Hunt. "The agency is not gearing up for a draft," an agency official told Hunt, and "the test itself would not likely occur until 2009." (emphasis added)

Yea, right. And the Pope doesn't poo-poo in the woods.

However, if one is realistic, this may be the only way to end the War in Iraq. Jenna and not-Jenna would be eligible for the Army, just like all the other college age kids. As Bruce Springstein said: "No Retreat, No exemptions."

Hello negotiations with Iran.

Friday Crab Bloggin'

And if you didn't think it was all worthwhile:

The Surge, Now and Then

Bush and St. McCain have latched onto this "surge" idea for the military in Iraq, although this is directly counter to the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Bush said he has asked his new defense chief, Robert Gates, to report back to him with a plan to increase ground forces. The president did not say how many troops might be added, but said he agreed with officials in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill that the current military is being stretched too thin to deal with demands of fighting terrorism. (emphasis added)

But, wait a minute, the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff are also against a surge!

The military chiefs do not favor a troop buildup in Iraq but see supporting and strengthening the Iraqi army as pivotal to stabilization, the Post said, citing sources familiar with the officials' thinking.

Now, I am restricted by Goodwin's rule from making the obvious analogy here. Just think Stalingrad and Moscow. But another one occurs to me.

The time is October, 1854 (I had originally mis wrote "1984"), and the place is Balaclava. The British and the Turks were fighting the Russians in the Crimean War. (Think about that for a moment, the Brits, who later got decimated by the Turks at Gallipoli, were allies against Russia that would soon be linked to England by marriage. History makes for strange bedfellows.)

In a way, this is like Gettysburg. Few people, except Civil War Buffs, remember the details of the battle except that it was ferocious. Everyone should remember Lincoln's address at that battle site commemorating the soldiers there.

So, this is what people remember of the Battle of Balaclava:

Balaclava is a battle honour for all the British regiments that took part. It is usually a pre-condition for a battle honour that the battle is a victory for British arms. Balaclava was a strategic defeat. The Russians captured seven guns and at the end of the battle held the ground they had attacked. Against this the three episodes in the battle; the Charge of the Heavy Brigade, the Thin Red Line and the Charge of the Light Brigade, are such icons of courage and achievement for the British Army, that it is not surprising the military authorities awarded Balaclava as a battle honour to the regiments involved. (emphasis added)

Get that, the British lost the battle. (I guess they sort of "won" the war.) I'm not sure about the charge of the Heavy Brigade, but the charge of the Light Brigade has certainly stood for the intense stupidity of throwing troops at a situation without thinking and having them decimated. All we have to do is read some of Tennyson's Poem:

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

..................

Reel'd from the sabre stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

For Bush, "winning" in Iraq is about Honour. And that Southern American concept is long, long gone.

As a final note, I was unaware that the Battle of Balaclava was where the phrase "The Thin Red Line" originated. You learn something new every day.

What's going to happen?

So, what's going to happen in January? Supposedly, in a Democratic Republic (as opposed to a pure Democracy like Athens circa 500 BCE), the elected representatives of the people make decisions. Overwhelmingly, the people of the United States have expressed their desire to cease and desist our involvement in Iraq and to bring the 140,000 plus troops we have there home. (Some of these troops are National Guard who have been away from their families for a long time makeing "National" and "Guard" a double oxymoron.)

Of course the Boy King will say that he is Commander in Chief. He may even say that he can't be impeached in a time of War. That would be interesting.

Yes, the Boy King insists that He is the "decider" and has indicated that He will reject both the will of the people, as expressed in the hard fought election of November, 2006, and the opinion of the Iraq Study Group, which, after all, could only discover information the the Administration already knew.

This is a setup for a horrendous conflict between Bush, supported by the few cronies He has left (I predict a vast exodus of rats from the sinking ship), and Congress. (Sadly, there is some possibility that the Senate will be retained by the Republicans, at least for 3 months, blunting the intensity of the confrontation. A lot can happen in 3 months.)

No one is anxious for this confrontation. It will cause extreme anxiety both nationally and internationally. But it is clear that the course of the country has to be changed and one can simply hope that the Democratic Congress will not sit idly by if Bush decides to increase the troop level instead of beginning them home.

We were just talking of this

First of all, the Iraqis should be making the decisions about their country, not some grey haired study group in D.C. or the Boy King. In any case there were two conferences in the last few days to address the future of Iraq. One should take this as an admission of defeat by the Bush Administration. One was in Baghdad :

Iraq's al-Maliki presses reconciliation By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's army has "opened its doors" to all former members of Saddam Hussein's army, the prime minister said Saturday at a national reconciliation conference boycotted by one of his main Shiite allies, a major Sunni group and Iraq's exiled opposition.
...................................
The radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, one of al-Maliki's key political backers — refused to attend the meeting, as did a major Sunni group and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite. (emphasis added)

Now why would al-Sadr boycott a conference sponsored by his bestest ally? Well:

......The story is about Muqtada al-Sadr supporting the "Iraqi People’s Support Conference" in Istanbul. This was the Sunni conference held in Istanbul yesterday and the day before. Muqtada al-Sadr has issued a statement supporting it. He said that it "supports our brothers [the Ahl ul-Sunna, the Sunni people - Ali]," and that his entire concern was for the success of meetings such as this of people whose aim is:

"to extricate themselves from the grasp of the occupation and of the Baathists"

He went on to say:

"I will not accept the intervention of any country in the affairs of Iraq, and will continue to reject the occupation."

The point of all this is that we don't understand the least about Iraq. al-Sadr is a Shiite! We all thought that there was such bitter emnity between Shiite and Sunni that never the twain would meet. Now he's supporting a Sunni conference in Istanbul and spurning conference in Baghdad sponsored by the Shiite Prime Minister.

How stupid we have been.

The Real Problem in Iraq

This is from IraqSlogger.com:

A very long assessment of the ISG report was published in al-Mada, written by `Adil `abdel Mahdi, the Iraqi vice president. `Abdel Mahdi tried to take a balanced approach towards the report, claiming that its recommendations have to be examined individually and not accepted or attacked as a package. He wrote copious comments on most of the report’s recommendations, but in a political introduction, he pointed that his main criticism of the report, and of the American behavior in Iraq in general, is the faulty knowledge Americans have on Iraq. He pointed out the report’s own admission that there are few Americans with enough knowledge of Arabic and that information-gathering practices have been less than stellar. `Abdel Mahdi added that he believes that much of the information in the report is based on ‘hearsay’ from suspicious sources, hinting that this may have tainted the report’s conclusions. (emphasis added)

This really smarts. How many of you out there are scientists or work in an information based job? I bet almost all. The most important thing in science and medicine is the integrity of the data.

Over and over again we see the mighty fall because of inaccuracies in the data. The list starts at the prewar intelligence of WMD in Iraq, to the recall of pharmaceuticals (e.g. Vioxx), to Dobson's spouting of inaccurate data on gays.

All public persons should have a practice that is now common in the surgical setting: before the operation proceeds, there is a "time out" so that everyone is on the same wavelength as to what is being done and, for instance, what leg or testicle is being removed.

Why shouldn't politicians have the same "time out" before they speak or, more importantly, invade a country based on faulty data? It might save a lot of headache, not to mention lives.

Friday Crab Bloggin

A Blast from the Past

Syria and Pinochet

In two, as usual, excellent blogs, Glenn Greenwald parses the Washington Post's editorial of December 12 on Pinochet. Mr. Greenwald very rightly takes issue with the laudatory sentiments of that editorial which basically states that, when all is said and done, it doesn't matter how many people a dictator slaughters, what really matters is building a free market society. (Implicit in the latter is that this free market allows American investors access to the resources of the dictator's country.) It contrasts Castro's Cuba (which, in spite of America's 60 year boycott, still has a better health system than the U.S.) with Pinochet's regimen (with its torture, death squads, and repression) coming out on top.

I will admit, that I was pretty appalled by the editorial and was appreciative of Mr. Greenwald's commentary which put it in perspective.

Now we have the Post reporting on Senator Nelson's (D-Fla) trip to Syria to try and open negotiations with that government to extricate us from the horror that is Iraq. I am sure we will have the condemming editorial within minutes. I particularly like this quote from the White House via Tony Snow:

In a statement in President Bush's name, the White House said yesterday that Syrians deserved a government grounded in "the consent of the people, not brute force." Bush said Damascus should stop trying to undermine Lebanon's government.

The White House also called for the immediate release of Syrian political prisoners, specifically naming Michel Kilo, Anwar al-Bunni, Aref Dalila, Mahmoud Issa and Kamal Labwani. Bush expressed concern that some ailing political prisoners are being denied health care and that others are being held in cells with violent criminals. (emphasis added)

Yes, yes, yes. We are in favor of "consent of the people" and "release of political prisioners." But, for God's sake, let's not have consistency.

Syria, as a Shiite State, holds the key to Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon, neither of which will submit to brute force. If we haven't learned that in the last four years, we aren't ever going to learn it. You can still negotiate with a government (e.g. China) even if you, ha, ha, despise them. (China, of course, lets us implant Walmarts, stealth capitalism.)

By the way, now that we are remembering the past with Pinochet, lets also remember Christmas Bombing:

But as the music of bells and carols yield to the drums of a mounting military cadence, America about to go to war, another Christmas memory intrudes. This year marks the 30th (34th, this was written in 2002, DrC) anniversary of the Christmas bombing of North Vietnam. For people of a certain age, the thought of that unprecedented air assault, lasting from Dec. 18- 30, intermittently disturbs the tranquility of the otherwise holy season. How staggered we were at reports of the bombs falling day and night on cities across North Vietnam. Hanoi and Haiphong were especially hard hit.

American pilots flew nearly 4,000 sorties, including more than 700 by high-flying B-52s. Those ''area bombers,'' incapable of precision, had never been used against cities before. That they were used now was a sure sign that this was terror bombing pure and simple. (emphasis added)

You see, everyone is someone's terrorist.

And, if you don't think nuking Iran this Christmas isn't on the table at the White House, you don't know your President.

What I have always wanted to see...

Dick Cheney being frog marched out of the White House.

Of course, its the wrong person doing the marching.

The Legacy

I am convinced that, in spite his dearth of human intelligence, wit and compassion, George W. Bush has it together enough to be worried about his legacy. Unfortunately, he does not care how many people die as long as history records his presidency as successful.

So, what is his legacy? How could the future possibly view him as a successful president?

1. The destruction of Iraq as a stable society. It is difficult, if not impossible to imagine the people in Iraq living in proximity after the brutality of sectarian violence that we see every day (like today in Baghdad with car bombs killing 57 and injuring 150+). Yet, some day there will be stability because that is the way that human life goes. History teaches us that the worst of enemies can often become the best of friends. It is almost impossible to imagine that Russia and Germany could have gotten along after the horrors of World War I and II, yet they do. However, Bush will not be credited with a stable Iraq 20 years down the road (is Nixon, or Johnson, credited with a stable, and friendly, Vietnam?)

All Bush wants to do now is get to the end of his presidency without Iraq going under on his watch. The cornered animal will bite off its paw to get free of the trap. Consider that George W. Bush has the ability to push the button on nuclear war. Consider that he is now obsessed with Iran and doesn't want to leave office with Iran having nuclear weapons. What next?

Conclusion: In spite of our understandable obsession with Iraq, whatever happens there will not be a significant part of Bush's legacy. Nuking Iran would be.

2. Standing by while the environment is destroyed making the planet unlivable for the majority of our children.

Disappearing ice is already causing problems for the Polar Bear and it is likely to be driven to the brink of extinction unless it can find ways of adapting.

But, you know, when it hits people on the head that the East and West Coasts of America will be under water, they will do something. Will may also forget that this Administration sat idly by while New York got ready for drowning? See the discussion of Katrina below.

Conclusion: While the environment will be the issue in 20-30 years, few will give a damn about Bush's lack of contribution to solving the problem. We will have much more important things to do like staying alive.

3. 9/11. As this episode in our history recedes from our consciousness, it becomes bereft of emotion. This may be largely due to the constant reminder by Bush in his speeches. "9/11.... 9/11.... 9/11." Human beings have a way of blocking bad things and only remembering neutral or good things. Thus, I think in 10 years 9/11 will be almost forgotten, except by those who immediately suffered. And, of course, by all the NYC emergency personnel who are now experiencing long term effects from their rescue efforts. Some peoples, e.g. the Jews and the Holocaust, have a long memory. Americans don't. We forget the earthquakes, the Chicago fires, the hurricanes, etc. For crying out loud, look at Katrina (below). In summary, I think 9/11 as a part of Bush's legacy is overrated.

Conclusion: Not what Bush thinks it will be.

4. The Imperial Presidency. I am sure Bush doesn't want to be known as the President that destroyed the American Constitution. However, he has already gone a long way towards doing that. But, as an astute 89 year old friend of mine who has been in national politics for a significant portion of her life keeps reminding me, America is a resilient entity. It is only when the voters become irresponsible, and lazy, that we get in trouble (c.f. the 2004 elections.) Hopefully, the pendulum is swinging and the horror of the last six years will be reversed in the next two. I am optimistic.

Again, like Iraq, in spite of our obsession with Bush's dismantling of the Constitution, it is possible that this may be rectified by the 2008 election. Unfortunately, as Glenn Greenwald always points out, Bush has broken the law and, if we are a nation of laws, that issue has to be settled. Breaking the FISA is a felony and the punishment is imprisonment. Bush in jail?

Conclusion: In terms of his legacy, could go either way. Hard to see how it could benefit him unless he does a 180 degree turnaround in the next two years.

5. Katrina. This is much different than 9/11. The damage has not been cleaned up. Hundreds of thousands of people are still displaced. The economy of the area continues in shambles. Every single response by team Bush was inadequate. I think, particularly if the Democratic Congress makes some moves towards New Orleans and its levees, this could be a long term black eye for Bush. The difference from 9/11 is that the damage is still there.

Conclusion: Could be one of the big negatives of his legacy.

The Rule of Law Phoenix

I always sort of liked Kofi Annan. He, like many others, has had to fight the underlying racism of the West. His last speech today at the Harry S. Truman library included this quote:

In the speech, Annan warns that "no nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over all others. We all share responsibility for each other's security, and only by working to make each other secure can we hope to achieve lasting security for ourselves." He describes it as important that "The US has given the world an example of a democracy in which everyone, including the most powerful, is subject to legal restraint. (emphasis added)

All to slowly we are heading toward a confrontation of the Law (as embodied in our Constitution) and the Imperial Presidency.

Maybe, just maybe, the Rule of Law will arise from the ashes of the last six years.

I just hope the new Democratic Congress can get it right. But, democracy is always messy, so we won't expect miracles.