Natura non facit saltus
Debunking the Paradigm Shifters

Links

Dark Buzz
RSS feed
Singular Values
(unframed)

About these blogs

Schlafly net

Powered by RogBlog

Enter your search terms

Web www.darkbuzz.com www.singularvalues.com Submit search form

 
PBS show on Mandelbrot
I just watched the PBS Nova special on fractals. It treated Benoit Mandelbrot as the creator of the field, and said:

NARRATOR: Designers and artists, the world over, have embraced the visual potential of fractals. But when the Mandelbrot set was first published, mathematicians, for the most part, reacted with scorn.

I think that the scorn was just for Mandelbrot's exaggerated claims and lack of mathematical rigor. He really just popularized the Mandelbrot set as it had already been published by others before he even studied it. posted by Roger Schlafly at 22:09:07

 
Einstein did not discover the photon
I ran into some arguments that Einstein deserves the credit for discovering that light is quantized into particles (now called photons), even tho Planck published it first.

Einstein was trying to understand phenomena like the photoelectric effect, in which light shining on a metal can sometimes induce electricity. In 1900, Planck published the idea that the energy emitted or absorbed by a resonator could only take on discrete values or quanta. The energy for a resonator of frequency f is hf where h is a universal constant, now called Planck's constant. In 1902, Lenard showed that the energy of electrons in the photoelectric effect depended only on the frequency of the incident light. In 1905, Einstein showed that Planck's formula could be used to give a heuristic explanation of Lenard's results.

Here are the arguments that Einstein deserves all the credit.

Planck only said that energy emissions and absorptions were quantized, while Einstein said that light itself was quantized.

Encyclopaedia Britannica says:

Planck did not mean to say that electromagnetic radiation itself is quantized, or as Einstein later put it, “The sale of beer in pint bottles does not imply that beer exists only in indivisible pint portions.”

Light is just electromagnetic radiation that happens to be in the visible range of frequencies. Planck certainly did mean to say that electromagnetic radiation is quantized as it is emitted or absorbed, but may not have expressed an opinion about whether it is quantized while it propagates.

This work of Einstein was the reason he got a Nobel Prize.

By the time he got the prize, Einstein was the most famous physicist in the world. The Nobel committee really wanted badly to give him a prize, but a prize for relativity theory would have been controversial because he did not really invent relativity.

Planck had already gotten a Nobel Prize for proposing that light emissions are quantized, and Lenard got a prize for demonstrating it with the photoelectric effect. So Einstein getting a prize does not show that he is more worthy of credit than Planck or Lenard.

Planck generously credited Einstein, but Einstein did not give much credit to Planck and Lenard.

Planck may have been generous with credit. A lot of older scientists give excess credit to younger scientists. Einstein is peculiar in that he was well known for being very jealous about crediting anyone but himself.

Planck and Lenard did not truly understand what they had done. It took a younger physicist like Einstein to realize the revolutionary implications of his theories.

This argument is silly. Planck was one of the most distinguished physicists of the day. He contributed to special relativity and considered one of the early founders of quantum mechanics. He was a genius.

The only argument that has some merit is that Einstein said that light itself was quantized, not just the emission and absorption of light. His 1905 paper said:

The wave theory of light, which operates with continuous spatial functions, has worked well in the representation of purely optical phenomena and will probably never be replaced by another theory. It should be kept in mind, however, that the optical observations refer to time averages rather than instantaneous values. In spite of the complete experimental confirmation of the theory as applied to diffraction, reflection, refraction, dispersion, etc., it is still conceivable that the theory of light which operates with continuous spatial functions may lead to contradictions with experience when it is applied to the phenomena of emission and transformation of light.

It seems to me that the observations associated with blackbody radiation, fluorescence, the production of cathode rays by ultraviolet light, and other related phenomena connected with the emission or transformation of light are more readily understood if one assumes that the energy of light is discontinuously distributed in space. In accordance with the assumption to be considered here, the energy of a light ray spreading out from a point source is not continuously distributed over an increasing space but consists of a finite number of energy quanta which are localized at points in space, which move without dividing, and which can only be produced and absorbed as complete units.

The debate over whether light is a wave or a particle is one that had gone on for centuries. Isaac Newton said that light was a particle. 19th century physics had conclusively proved that light was a wave, as Maxwell's equations described the quantitative properties of the waves. Now light is understood as a wave and a particle. It propagates as a wave and gets observed as a particle. Ditto for everything else. All particles exhibit wave-like properties and are best described by wave functions. All waves appears to be composed of particles. Waves and particles are just two different ways of looking at the same thing.

So was Einstein correct? His statement that light "can only be produced and absorbed as complete units" is more or less what Planck had already said, and is consistent with our modern view of photons. But Einstein goes further, and says that "the energy of light is discontinuously distributed in space". I am not sure it makes any sense to say whether that is correct or not. Our best theory of light (quantum electrodynamics, or QED) uses wave functions that are continuously distributed in space. Every time we observe some light, we use some device to absorb some light, and it always looks like discrete photons. But whether the photons are discrete when nobody is looking is hard to say. You certainly cannot think of them as ordinary particles, unless you are willing to allow particles to be two places at the same time, and other quantum mechanical oddities. So I think that the difference between Planck's and Einstein's views is a philosophical one of no consequence.

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, Poincare played a part in convincing physicists of the photon theory:

In October 1911 [Einstein] was among the group of prominent physicists who attended the first Solvay conference in Brussels. The discussions there stimulated Henri Poincaré to provide a mathematical proof that Planck’s radiation law necessarily required the introduction of quanta -— a proof that converted James (later Sir James) Jeans and others into supporters of the quantum theory.

Einstein must have been glad that Poincare died the next year.

Here is another article that credits Einstein, not Poincare, for relativity theory:

Marchal, contra Damour, asserts that Poincaré did grasp the relativity of time and space. ... and point out that he was the first to have introduced the mathematical structure of spacetime in July 1905.

Einstein was revolutionary while others were not because he inverted the conventional procedure. ... Poincaré never considered his mathematical structure of spacetime to be seriously important for physics ...

In other words, Poincare had the whole theory of special relativity before Einstein. But Einstein presented the info in a different order and Poincare was not an egotistical megalomaniac, so Einstein deserves the credit. I think that Einstein is vastly overrated. posted by Roger Schlafly at 15:37:31

 
McCain's mistakes
I think that the McCain-Palin campaign has not attacked Barack Obama aggressively enough. I would have directly attacked the reasons that Obama supporters give for his fitness to be US President. They are:

He was editor of the Harvard Law Review and a Chicago lecturer in Constitutional law.

This might have some merit if he had published some scholarly papers, or if he demonstrated some expertise in the subject. The President does get to appoint federal judges, and Obama might have told us about his judicial philosophy, why he voted against Justices Roberts and Alito, and whether he disagrees with any of their opinions. But his campaign statements show no more expertise than Sarah Palin has. More here.

He wrote a widely-praised and best-selling memoir.

There is now overwhelming evidence by Jack Cashill that Obama's memoir was ghostwritten, and probably by 1970s terrorist Bill Ayers.

He was right about the Iraq War by opposing it from the beginning.

No. Bill Clinton was right to call this a big fairy tale. I wrote more here.

He is a black American who transcends race and will unite our nation.

Obama's DNA and upbringing have nothing in common with American blacks. His books and his friends show some very divisive racial attitudes. George W. Bush and John McCain have track records of making deals with the opposite political party, but Obama does not. posted by Roger Schlafly at 20:09:56

 
Court favors homeschooling choice
A Penn court ruled that family court ought not to presume that public school is preferable to homeschooling.

I think that the decision is correct, but of little consequence. Usually family court judges and shrinks apply a prejudice against homeschoolers without making their reasoning explicit.

There is some discussion at the above blog from lawyers who seem to have real trouble understanding how divorced parents could ever rear kids without running to family court judges to resolve assorted disputes. posted by Roger Schlafly at 13:30:49

 
Some judges hate gun rights
A couple of gun-hating judges are complaining that the DC gun case was an activist decision because it created a novel right that had never existed before: the right to keep and bear arms. The NY Times gloats. Somebody should tell those jokers that those words are straight out of the US Constitution, and the majority of gun owners have considered the 2A to be a protection of their individual right to have a gun ever since.

I have more comments on Volokh's blog. posted by Roger Schlafly at 19:32:42

 
Most published research findings are false
Most research is wrong:

The assumption is that, as a result, such journals publish only the best scientific work. But Dr Ioannidis and his colleagues argue that the reputations of the journals are pumped up by an artificial scarcity of the kind that keeps diamonds expensive. And such a scarcity, they suggest, can make it more likely that the leading journals will publish dramatic, but what may ultimately turn out to be incorrect, research.

Dr Ioannidis based his earlier argument about incorrect research partly on a study of 49 papers in leading journals that had been cited by more than 1,000 other scientists. They were, in other words, well-regarded research. But he found that, within only a few years, almost a third of the papers had been refuted by other studies.

The problem is mainly in the soft sciences. posted by Roger Schlafly at 16:07:38

 
Powell endorses Obama
Colin Powell mostly endorsed Barack Obama mostly for reasons of style and symbolism, not policy. Powell’s chief expertise is in military and foreign policy. It would have been better if he had compared the candidates in those areas where he is an expert.

This is just another example of experts pontificating outside their expertise. Economist Paul Krugman just won a Bank of Sweden Prize (sometimes erroneously called a Nobel Prize) for his work on international trade. Most people know him as a Bush-hating NY Times columnist. But all I ever see in his columns are standard Democrat talking points; I have never seen him criticize GW Bush on international trade where Krugman actually knows something.

Over on mathematician Terry Tao's blog, Wal wrote:

Some of the most distinguished mathematicians have taken political positions: Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Alexander Grothendieck to name three twentieth century examples.

I answered:

You are joking, right? Those guys never did anything worthwhile again after polluting their minds with politics. Please don’t encourage Terry to go down that path.

A couple of mathematicians there took offense. posted by Roger Schlafly at 07:12:49

 
Obama does not understand economic incentives
Barack Obama said:

I haven’t looked at all the details of his capital gains proposal. I will tell you that nobody one really has capital gains right now – so if the idea is the cut capital gains taxes, when I don’t know anybody, even the smartest investors who right now are going to be experiencing a lot of capital gains. That probably is not going to be particularly useful in solving the financial crisis. But I will review the plan and I’m sure that Sen. McCain will have more to say about it tomorrow.

Obama has a typical leftist mentality. He doesn't recognize that people create wealth when they have sufficient economic incentives. All he can think about is how to take money away from rich people. posted by Roger Schlafly at 12:32:35

 
People like free services, but don't want to pay
Newsday reports:

HONOLULU (AP) _ Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the country just seven months after it launched.

Gov. Linda Lingle's administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program. A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.

"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program."

Sometimes you hear people call something like this a consequence of the law of unintended consequences. But any idiot could have predicted that people might want to stop paying for something, if they can get away with it. posted by Roger Schlafly at 08:23:47

 
What Shortage of Scientists and Engineers?
John Tierney writes:

If the United States really has a critical shortage of scientists and engineers, why didn’t this year’s graduates get showered with lucrative job offers and signing bonuses? That’s the question that comes to my mind after reading about Barack Obama’s plans to address the “shortage” we keep hearing about from blue-ribbon commissions of scientists and engineers.

He is right. We have plenty of scientists and engineers. People only say we have a shortage when they lobby for importing more cheap labor from overseas. posted by Roger Schlafly at 19:54:39

 
Obama's legal theory
Barack Obama's main field of expertise is the law, and he gave his legal theory in last night's debate:

I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through...I think that it's important for judges to understand that if a woman is out there trying to raise a family, trying to support her family, and is being treated unfairly, then the court has to stand up, if nobody else will.

He disagreed with a Supreme Court case that applied a statute of limitations to say that employers did not have to go back 20 years to try to prove that they paid their employees fairly. Employees have to file a claim within the limits specified by the statute.

He is signalling that he will appoint judges who ignore the law and rule based on ideological allegiance to left-wing causes.

He also flip-flopped on abortion again. In July he said he was in favor of some limits on late-term abortions. Now he says that he is not. posted by Roger Schlafly at 10:25:08

 
Museum exhibit on race

The Science Museum of Minnesota recently developed an exhibit called "Race: Are we so different?" ... The exhibit was funded to the tune of some four million dollars by the National Science Foundation and the Ford Foundation, overseen by Mary Margaret Overbey of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) and a committee consisting of a wide range of experts on race, racism, and related topics.

There is no such thing as race (biologically), race is a social construct used as a political and economic tool, even efforts to use race in a "positive" way such as in medicine or forensics are doomed to failure because of the lack of biological validity of the concept, and so on and so forth. ...

The AAA story couches racism in the context of American colonial history, slavery, etc. etc. It states that racism is a purely Western invention, and distinguishes racism from other forms of hating your fellow human being. The rise of the modern capitalistic system, the nation state, the colonial and post colonial economies and societies, and slavery are the kitchen and racism is the bitter and poisonous buffet, manifest in myriad ways.

It appears to be based on politics more than science. posted by Roger Schlafly at 07:58:22

 
Humans are evolving faster than ever
Evolutionists frequently claim that all life is evolving, except for humans. Anthropologist John Hawks explains why this is wrong, and we are evolving faster than ever. posted by Roger Schlafly at 01:15:39

 
Why Freud Still Isn’t Dead
Science writer John Horgan writes:

Ever since Freud invented psychoanalysis a century ago, critics have viciously attacked it as pseudo-science and pseudo-medicine–“the treatment of the id by the odd,” as one wag put it. But in spite of the current dominance of genetic, neural and pharmacological approaches to the mind and its disorders, psychoanalysis refuses to fade away. A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine—the world’s premier medical journal—reports that psychoanalysis works as well as more modern talking cures, such as cognitive therapy, in treating common disorders such as anxiety and depression.

The evidence is overwhelming that treatments for depression and other common disorders work, when they work, primarily by harnessing the placebo effect, the tendency of patients' expectations to be self-fulfilling. In other words, modern psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and psychoanalysts are really no better than witch doctors at exorcising our demons. That’s why Freud still isn’t dead.

He is correct. The modern treatments at least have the advantage that they are testable. Most Freudian concepts are not even scientifically testable. posted by Roger Schlafly at 13:36:45

 
Court hears domestic violence case
The US Supreme Court is hearing United States v Hayes. It is about someone who lost his gun rights as a result of a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence. The case turns on how a comma is parsed in the Lautenburg Amendment. The US DoJ and ten federal circuits interpret it to more broadly extinguish gun rights, and only a 2-1 majority in one circuit take a narrower interpretation.

The trouble with the govt interpretation is that it is not only grammatically incorrect, but it endangers about five different constitutional rights. It is contrary to 2A gun rights, 5A due process, 6A jury trial, and limits on the Commerce Clause.

The US DoJ is probably expecting a 9-0 decision to bring the one oddball circuit into line with the others. I don't think so. That one circuit is correct. The law is a horrible law, and it ought to be interpreted narrowly. posted by Roger Schlafly at 18:56:52

 
Obama says some dumb things
From the second presidential debate:

Obama: And we can do it, but we're going to have to make an investment. The same way the computer was originally invented by a bunch of government scientists who were trying to figure out, for defense purposes, how to communicate, we've got to understand that this is a national security issue, as well.

He is mixed up. The computer was not invented this way.

Obama: So we've got to deal with that right away. That's why I've called for an investment of $15 billion a year over 10 years. Our goal should be, in 10 year's time, we are free of dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

And we can do it. Now, when JFK said we're going to the Moon in 10 years, nobody was sure how to do it, but we understood that, if the American people make a decision to do something, it gets done. So that would be priority number one.

No, we got to the Moon by throwing a lot of money at the problem. We can energy, such as ethanol, by spending a lot of govt money, but that will not make us free of Mideast oil. posted by Roger Schlafly at 22:18:25

 
Ayers ghosted Obama's "Dreams"
Jack Cashill makes a strong argument that Bill Ayers ghostwrote Barack Obama's autobiography. posted by Roger Schlafly at 22:18:25

 
Prize for HIV discovery
NewScientist reports:

Two virologists who discovered HIV and a third who showed that a virus causes cervical cancer share this year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

Two French researchers, Luc Montagnier and Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, share half the prize for discovering, in 1983, that the virus now known as HIV causes AIDS.

No, not exactly. The official announcement says:

Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier discovered human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). ... Soon after the discovery of the virus, several groups contributed to the definitive demonstration of HIV as the cause of acquired human immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS).

The Frenchmen are not credited with proving that HIV causes AIDS. That was established by later groups, and now AIDS is defined in terms of HIV infection. posted by Roger Schlafly at 10:00:50

 
Obama-Biden have no experience
Harvard psychology prof Steven Pinker writes:

The impression fits with the overall theme that Ms. Palin and Senator John McCain have been trying to advance: that expertise is overrated, homespun sincerity is better than sophistication, conviction is more important than analysis.

Huhh? McCain has already won the votes of those who value expertise. Obama's expertise is in teaching constitutional law, reading a teleprompter, and provoking racial animosity. McCain's political and military expertise is far more valuable.

Palin appeals to those who want change in Washington. To the extent that she draw attention to the issue of presidential expertise, I think that it helps McCain-Palin. I hope she keeps talking about her foreign policy expertise in particular, as it draws attention to Obama-Biden weaknesses. posted by Roger Schlafly at 09:32:32

 
New pro-vaccine book
Paul Offit has a new book on Autism's False Prophets:

Dr. Offit notes two likely causes of the increase in autism diagnoses. One is that the definition of the disorder has broadened over time, so that children with mild symptoms are now being diagnosed when once they would have been regarded as merely quirky. ...

The second cause of the rise in autism diagnoses, according to Dr. Offit, is that in earlier times children with severe symptoms of what we now recognize as autism were more likely to be diagnosed, often incorrectly, as mentally retarded.

He is on the warpath against those who say that vaccines cause autism, and laments that people don't always believe experts like him.

He may be right about autism, but I can tell him why people don't always believe him. He is a paid lobbyist for the vaccine makers. He has collected millions of dollars from them. All the while, he has sat on official govt advisory committees that are responsible for the vaccine mandates.

The official govt advisory committees consist mostly of vaccine researchers who are on the payrolls of the vaccine makers, and they have no one representing consumer interests. The mandates exist to further the interests of the vaccine makers. That is why I don't trust them. posted by Roger Schlafly at 19:25:53

 
Biden misstatements
Jon Roland says that Sarah Palin won the VP debate, when you consider Biden's erroneous or misleading statements:

1. Constitutional provisions on VP not in Art. I.
2. VP has authority to preside over Senate, not just break ties.
3. Equal benefits for same sex couples not in the Constitution. (Equal protection does not extend to benefits of that kind.)
4. Credit crisis the fault of Bush administration. (Began before, continued through Dem domination of Congress.)
5. Economic crisis about the stock market. (No, the credit market.)
6. Crisis the result of "deregulation". (No, the key activities were never regulated, and most have or would occur offshore -- beyond the reach of U.S. jurisdiction.)
7. Credit crisis result of lack of liquidity. (No, result of loss of confidence and bad accounting practices.)
8. Bankruptcy court changing interest rates and principal balances. (Only as alternative, subject to consent, otherwise a violation of Contracts Clause.)
9. Misstatements of McCain votes. (I counted at least 3.)
10. Put 100,000 cops on the street. (Actually less than a quarter of that, and extended federal control into local law enforcement, besides being unconstitutional.)
11. Palin tax in AK was a "windfall profits" tax. (No, it was really an extraction fee.)
12. Called for "safe nuclear" power. (No such thing, as evidenced by refusal of investors to build or operate without tort immunity with liability not accepted by government under respondeat superior.) (Also is disagreement with Obama.)
13. No oil from ANWR for 10 years. (Could get some in 2 years, but never enough to make much difference for prices at the pump.)
14. Elocution: "Bosniacs".
15. Elocution: "Polarized caps".
16. U.S. not greeted as liberators in Iraq. (Actually, most Iraqis did, but a violent minority didn't.)
17. Confused Gaza and West Bank on election of Hamas.
18. U.S. and France did not kick Hezbollah out of Lebanon. (Neither did Israel.)
19. Spending ratio between Iraq and Afghanistan.
20. Overpromised benefits of "rescue" package. (Palin did also.)

It is amusing to see people try to claim that Biden proved that he was smarter than Palin. Biden just proved that he is doofus. Biden has been running for President or VP since 1987, and he really should have his facts a little better.

Here is a less obvious error:

BIDEN: Can I respond? Look, all you have to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie’s Restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time and you ask anybody ... Look, the people in my neighborhood, they get it. They get it.

Katie's Restaurant went out of business 20 years ago. posted by Roger Schlafly at 09:46:13

 
Quantum crypto broken again
NewScientist reports:

Quantum cryptography is supposed to be unbreakable. But a flaw in a common type of equipment used makes it possible to intercept messages without detection.

Quantum cryptography has been used by some banks to protect data, and even to hide election results in Switzerland last year. But it has been discovered that shining bright light into the sensitive equipment needed makes it possible to hijack communications without a trace.

"It turns the equipment into a puppet-box that an eavesdropper can control," says Vadim Makarov from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, who uncovered the vulnerability.

I have commented previously on quantum crypto vulnerabilities in Apr 2007, May 2008, and Nov 2006.

All of these insecurities result from the attempt to use quantum mechanics to achieve security properties. There are lots of secure systems that do not use quantum mechanics. Using quantum mechanics is technically much more difficult and limited in its applicability. The only reason to use quantum cryptography is the claims of provable security. But the claims are just not true. posted by Roger Schlafly at 08:54:36

 
Biden makes a fool of himself again
Here is a video of Biden and Palin answering questions about the Supreme Court.

Could there be a better example of a comparison between (1) an impressive sounding answer that is absolutely full of nonsense (and dangerous nonsense at that) and (2) a pathetic-sounding answer that is absolutely correct?

Anyone else notice that Biden got Roe wrong? He claims that states are allowed "some impact" during the second trimester to regulate women's health, but forgets that Roe's companion case, Doe, ensures that "health" means anything which would convince a doctor that an abortion is in a women's best interests. Functionally, states have almost no control over the second trimester, either. Finally, Biden seems to imply that the government must prevent third-trimester abortions ("weight is on the foetus being carried"), as opposed to the reality, in which state governments are perfectly free to allow abortion right up until birth.

Biden's answer is shockingly bad. He is talking about stuff that he has discussed for decades, and yet he gets it completely wrong.

If the feds have jurisdiction over wife-beating under the interstate commerce clause, then the fedus have jurisdiction over anything. That is what the Supreme Court correctly said. Biden's view would wipe out 220 years of the Constitution creating a federal govt with limited powers. Ordinary criminal matters are under jurisdiction of the states.

Biden is also wrong when he says Roe v Wade is as "close to a consensus that can exist in a society as heterogeneous as ours." Hardly anyone agrees with what Roe v Wade actually says. It appears that Biden does not, and I noted here that Obama does not either.

Palin dodged the request to name other decisions with which she disagreed, but her answer had the virtue of being correct as far as it went. There were a couple of other decisions that she had previous criticized, and some people are assuming that she could not remember their names. My guess is that she did not want to attack a specific decision without checking with the McCain campaign.

It is possible that Palin has never actually read a Supreme Court decision, but Barack Obama has read hundreds of them. The constitutional law is Obama's main area of expertise. What is really strange is that Obama seems to be unable to criticize specific decisions. He voted against Roberts and Alito, and says that his disapproves of Thomas. It seems to me that if he is really an expert on this subject, and he wants to sustain a view that those justices have done a bad job, then he ought to be able to explain the errors in particular opinions that Roberts, Alito, and Thomas have written. He has not.

Update: Brian Kalt has some similar comments. posted by Roger Schlafly at 01:49:23

 
Stop the bailout
If there were really a strong case for the banking bailout, then there would be some hard numbers to back it up. But there isn't:

Where did the $700 billion figure come from, a figure that Paulson insisted on when members of Congress suggested that perhaps they could authorize some of the money right away, and then provide more later?

"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

Data show that current credit is at record levels:

I'm still skeptical we face a credit crunch requiring unprecedented government intrusion into the financial services industry. Today the Fed released the latest data. The weekly updates are current as of September 17 and they are instructive.

Total Loans and Leases of Commercial Banks reached $7.026 trillion, the highest amount in history.

If the bailout props up unsustainable borrowing levels, then we will just have a worse crash later.

There are dozens of reputable economists who oppose the bailout. The bailout is so unpopular that Congress has had to limit its email:

The CAO issued a “Dear Colleague” letter Tuesday morning informing offices that it had placed a limit on the number of e-mails sent via the “Write Your Representative” function of the House website. It said the limit would be imposed during peak e-mail traffic hours.

“This measure has become temporarily necessary to ensure that Congressional websites are not completely disabled by the millions of e-mails flowing into the system,” the letter reads.

In case you are wondering how we got into this mortgage mess, consider this 1999 NY Times article:

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

That's right, the feds had an affirmative action lending program for people who cannot repay their mortgages.

I agree with this comment:

The burden of proof is on the folks advocating the bailout. And they haven't met it.

Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, Pelosi, Obama, McCain - None of them have presented the facts in a way that makes it clear (a) which current symptoms are indicating the potential for a meltdown, (b) what a meltdown would look like exactly, (c) why the government's actions would make a meltdown less likely, and (d) why the unintended negative consequences of government action are unlikely to outweigh the positives.

In addition, they're all talking in terms of certainties, rather than probabilities. Which makes me suspicious of everything they say.

I want someone who advocates a bailout to articulate the potential downside for the American economy...because there's got to be one. All that risk doesn't just disappear as the result of the government becoming a major player in the financial sector. *Maybe* the risk to our economy is mitigated by these massive interventions, and maybe the risk gets transformed (e.g., into a risk of significant dollar devaluation), but I have a hard time believing that all that risk simply disappears.

posted by Roger Schlafly at 08:29:00