I recently picked up a book called “Excel for Chemists” by E. Joseph Billo.  The book is written for simpletons like myself who use MS Excel but, for one reason or another, haven’t invested the time to become “Power Users”. The book has a chapter on the deconvolution of data.  For those who may not know what this is, it is a technique of extracting individual signals from coincident signals that are overlapped and therefore summed in the detected signal. 

Thinking about this concept of apparent signals as actually consisting of summed components got me to consider how the concept shows up in nonscientific aspects of our lives as well.  In particular, the controversial matters of the evolution of life and the definition of marriage come to mind as separate examples of convoluted “signals”.

One of the more strident voices out there on the topic of marriage is Rep. (R-CO) Marilyn Musgrave.  Musgrave is doggedly pursuing a Marriage Amendment for the US Constitution.  She and her party are concerned that the granting of marriage rights to same sex partners somehow threatens the sanctity and stability of marriage. This issue of same sex marriage is a sure-fire initiator of moral outrage and blowtorch sermonizing by the evangelical Visigoths of the airwaves.

I have heard no public discourse taking into account the fact that in the US, marriage is typically sanctioned under two spheres of influence. Parenthetically, it is along the lines of what Stephen Jay Gould has called “non-overlapping magisteria“. 

(Note: try to ignore for a moment the fact that divorce is the biggest threat to marriage and instead focus on what marriage actually is so we can move forward with this argument.)

Here is the deconvolution part. There are really two domains of marriage- 1) Marriage under the state, and 2) Marriage under the church.  In domain 1) , the state has a compelling interest in regulating marriage in part because it will likely be called on to intervene in the dissolution of the marriage agreement.  The interest of the state is in the disposition of minor children, property, debt, and other aspects of settlement. It is called divorce. Marriage is a type of partnership that almost always entangles others in a community, so the state has imposed its presence in the matter.

In domain 2), the realm of the supernatural interface, women and men are married by exchanging vows in the presence of the community and in plain view of the diety. In the end, as the doctrine goes, persons are accountable only to their creator in regard to their marital conduct on earth. Rules of conduct have been rendered liturgical and passed down through this formalism we call religion.  The dominant religion in the US is obviously Christianity and it is widely interpreted that marriage specifies the union of a woman and a man to be united in a bonding under the all-seeing, unblinking eye of the creator. 

The taxonomy that has shaken out over the millenia is that the term “marriage” has been widely accepted to mean the union of male & female. It conveniently aligns with the biological imperative for reproduction.  Centuries of precedent have made a strong case for a fixed definition of “marriage”.

However, in modern times there is growing interest in sanctioned same-sex pairings. Proponents argue that same sex partners should be accorded the same rights that are taken for granted with partners in conventional marriage. The more politically astute have advanced the term”civil union” and have argued that the state should construct a statutory or constitutional safe harbor. 

In the domain of the state, marriage is a type of partnership not unlike business partnerships.  A civil union can be thought of as a type of partnership, but with spousal rights that might be a bit more far reaching than that found in business.

Use of the term “marriage” when applied to same sex pairing will drive some religious citizens barking mad. Conversely, use of the term “civil union” is cynically dismissed as a transparent ruse to demolish the meaning of marriage by application of a sly semantic subterfuge.

By deconvoluting the problem, we’re left with two domains that historically have input on the issue of same-sex marriage- The state and the church. The states authority is backed by the courts and the penal code for enforcement and punishment.  The church can offer excommunication or other forms of dis-affiliation as earthly punishment and threats of punishment by searing hellfire in the afterlife.  

Conclusion.  At the very best, this is an issue that affects only a small fraction of the population of citizens. I have seen nothing that serves as a tangible threat to married citizens.  While I think that reserving the term “marriage” for opposite sex pairings is justified on the basis of precedent, I do think it is reasonable to codify similar rights and priviledges into an analogous partnership between same sex partners. It would be interesting to see if the Equal Protection clause applies. 

Note: This essay is a work in progress. Like a block of marble where the figure is inside waiting to be found by the artist, the rhetorical form of the point I’m trying to make is still partially buried in the marble. It takes me a while to find the form.  -Th’ Gaussling

If you don’t read The Atlantic magazine, you should.  The writing is good and the content seems to be reasonably researched.  James Fallows is especially amusing to read.  A while back he wrote an essay called a “Nation of Ninnies“.  Perhaps my fondness derives from the fact that this essay expresses my own sentiments on risk and how we respond to threats.  Fallows observes that whereas at one time our national character might have been exemplified by the Gary Cooper persona, we now resemble Mr. Bean or Pee Wee Herman. 

When uncertain, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout

There has been another outbreak of good news.  Dr. Senator Bill Frist, M.D., is returning to the healing arts and away from a run in the 2008 presidential campaign.  Somehow the prospect of being up to his elbows in smelly bowel resections or skewering goiters was preferable to running for president.  It’s just my opinion, a shameless personal bias really, but I’d like to see someone from north of the Mason Dixon line live in the White House for a term or two. We could all use a breather.

Finally, the US has banned the sale of iPods to North Korea.  Darned tootin’.  That’ll fix their wagons.  Makin’ nuculer weapons … we’ll show ’em.  According to the AP, this was designed to personally aggravate that tufted Stalinist weasel, Kim Jung Il. OK, I’m for that.

The mind boggles at the recent passing of Alexander Litvinenko in London.  This poor sod was evidently dosed with some radiological hellbroth, possibly at a sushi bar. Crimony. Authorities found the radionuclide Polonium-210 in his urine.  According to the Radiological Health Handbook, US Department of Health, Education, & Welfare, January 1970, Po-210 is an alpha emitter (5.31 MeV) with a half-life of 138.4 days. It decays to Lead-206 which is stable. The specific activity of Po-210 is about 4,500 Curies per gram. 

This bad actor has a half-life long enough to handle, but short enough to be intensely radioactive.  Like the proverbial ice dagger, the evidence rapidly decays to the asymptote of the background.  And, alpha particles are more problematic in their detection, given their low penetration ability.  Not all survey counters will pick up alpha’s, so samples must be taken and prepared for analysis.  And, someone must first have cause to suspect radiological mischief. 

Obviously, this is the work of some fiendish mind. 

The decay table shows the decay events from Radium-226 to Lead-206.  The decay of Polonium-210 is the last decay in the series.  This graphic is from the Radiation Health Handbook.  Unfortunately, the 1970 edition of the Handbook does not give a target organ.  I have no clue as to common chemical forms of polonium compounds.  However, given it’s high specific activity, chemical toxicity may be negligable relative to the radiological insult. 

I show the decay table only because some might find it interesting to see where Po-210 comes from.  Hopefully, the health physics people who investigate this might find other nuclides that could give a hint as to the production source of the Po-210.

This reprehensible action reminds us that civilization is a veneer that is only a millimeter in thickness.  A radiological assault of this sort is especially sneaky in its execution and savage in its effects.

(*Weasel words- I am not a health physics person. My experience is limited to a semester course in radioisotope techniques and safety in grad school given by a radiation biology department.*)

What an amazing thing it is to see, the great ship of state shifts its mighty rudder and the bow turns a few degrees in another direction. With the US House of Representatives under a Democratic majority, the whole calculus of power changes sign. The house that Gingrich built has found unruly new tenants.  Congressional oversight of the executive branch will begin in earnest.  The revolution will be televised.  Subpoena’s will swarm up Pennsylvania Avenue like the swallows of San Juan Capistrano.  

Verily, pity not the wretched and rejected Republicans, for they still own the Executive branch, the Senate, and the supreme court.  And Lo! Malleable though the Senate may be, the smirking majority voting bloc of SCOTUS- Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas- are tenured unto their last breath. 

Thus spake Zarathustra.

(*End Dream Sequence*)

Another far right-wing character bites the dust.  Seems that Colorado Springs preacher-man Ted Haggard, mullah of the New Life Church, commander of the “Spiritual NORAD”, weekly advisor to George Bush II, and PT Barnum of the New Testament, has been leading a double life.  Seems he has a private taste for what he publically condemns.  Holy revelations, Batman. 

This is a tragic comedy.  There is some smug satisfaction in seeing a prominent theocrat get tangled in a web of his own construction. A most humiliating experience it must be, to be caught indulging in the most forbidden pleasures of the flesh.  But the fall of Ted Haggard is only the tragic part. 

The comedy part relates to the mechanics of operating theocracy.  Theocracy is governance by revelation.  Self-appointed persons claiming to have received special instructions by, or have special sensitivity to, a supernatural being are the governors of a theocracy.  There are no checks and balances. There can be only unblinking obedience.  This event forces us to pause and think about the pragmatics of operating a theocratic state. How divine is the leaders inspiration? How can you discern the direction from God vs the directions from people? This mode of governance is fundamentally flawed because people are forced to interpret nuance and testamonials as opposed to objective, measurable, reality.

Ted Haggard is (was) a prominent leader of a nascent conservative theocratic movement in America.  See for yourself. Look it up.

Soon we’ll see the obligatory sobbing plea for forgiveness and the posturing.  In 5 years he’ll be back preaching from Arkansas or Indiana on the DayStar network. His fall from grace will be the basis of a book and a CD set.  Maybe this is part of the cycle that the Hindu’s talk about.

There is a web site that has been keeping track of a movement in America. It is a quiet movement. It’s purpose is to implement a reconstruction of American values to suit their world view.  The website is the Yurica Report.  It is a movement that seeks nothing less than the establishment of a theocratic form of government in America.  It is also called Theocratic Dominionism or Christian Reconstructionism.  But see for yourself.  Google these terms and browse the websites.

For myself, I have been watching Christian fundamentalism since the early 1970’s.  I recall stopping at a booth at the county fair as a high school student and listening to members of the John Birch Society. I thought at the time that they were Looney Toons, or just a Christian libertarian group.  I guessed that they were mostly harmless.   Well, I was wrong.

Frederick Clarkson at PublicEye.org writes-

“Reconstructionist leaders seem to have two consistent characteristics: a background in conservative Presbyterianism, and connections to the John Birch Society (JBS).”

He goes on to say-

“In 1973, R. J. Rushdoony compared the structure of the JBS to the “early church.” He wrote in Institutes: “The key to the John Birch Society’s effectiveness has been a plan of operation which has a strong resemblance to the early church; have meetings, local `lay’ leaders, area supervisors or `bishops.'”

The JBS connection does not stop there. Most leading Reconstructionists have either been JBS members or have close ties to the organization. Reconstructionist literature can be found in JBS-affiliated American Opinion bookstores. “

But what is reconstructionism about? Again, Clarkson puts it succinctly-

“Reconstructionism is a theology that arose out of conservative Presbyterianism (Reformed and Orthodox), which proposes that contemporary application of the laws of Old Testament Israel, or “Biblical Law,” is the basis for reconstructing society toward the Kingdom of God on earth. “

“Reconstructionism argues that the Bible is to be the governing text for all areas of life–such as government, education, law, and the arts, not merely “social” or “moral” issues like pornography, homosexuality, and abortion. Reconstructionists have formulated a “Biblical world view” and “Biblical principles” by which to examine contemporary matters. Reconstructionist theologian David Chilton succinctly describes this view: “The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God’s law.”

I agree. It is easy to dismiss this as a bunch of paranoid ranting. But if you’re paying attention to things, you might also conclude that we have been in the midst of this movement for some time.  How do you think GW Bush got elected in Tejas? His boyish charm or war record?

I don’t want to give it all away. The reader should see for her/himself.  Let my friend, Mr. Google be your guide on this disturbing journey.

(*fade to black*)

To say that there is a lot of antipathy for the Bush regime would be an understatement. I was vaguely aware of similar dissent during the 1960’s, but I was too young to understand it then.  I do recall family elders dismissing Viet Nam war protesters and “hippies” as communists.  In those days, the word “communist” was an epithet that was used with genuine scorn and derision.  Like the pixelated photo of Lincoln, with distance the image begins to form.  Vague similarities between the times are gradually being recognized. Today you hear Bush conservatives spitting the word “liberal”, often with the phrase “cut and run”.  The allusion, of course, is that liberals will spontaneously take “French Leave” when in power, abandoning the Iraqi people and thereby soiling the memories of soldiers who have fallen in Iraq.  So the theory goes.

There is some interesting content at VDARE.com concerning Gulf War II (GWII).  The author is Paul Craig Roberts.  He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration.  Mr. Roberts apparently had some sort of epiphany as a political insider and has come out against how the Bush cabal has prosecuted GWII.  Anyway, he makes some interesting points-

“To date more than 100,000 US troops who are veterans of these wars have been granted disability compensation. Although the US cannot put on the ground in Iraq more than 150,000 troops at one time, 1.5 million troops have served so far and 567,000 have been discharged of which 100,000 are receiving disability payments.

Paul Sullivan, director of programs for Veterans for America, says that the current rate of injuries will produce 400,000 American veterans suffering 30% to 100% disability. Apparently, one of the severe forms of disability is post-traumatic stress, which does not count as a physical wound.”

As a news junkie, I’m at least average in attentiveness to such things and I’ve heard precious little about US casualties. If the above is true, then it needs to be announced morfrom every hill top.

Or, consider this unsavory comparison-

Americans are too inattentive and distracted to be aware of the grave danger that the neoconservative Bush regime presents to American liberty and to world stability. The neoconservative drive to achieve hegemony over the American people and the entire world is similar to Hitler’s drive for hegemony. Hitler used racial superiority to justify Germany’s right to ride roughshod over other peoples and the right of the Nazi elite to rule over the German people. Neoconservatives use “American exceptionalism” and “the war on terror.” There is no practical difference. Hitler cared no more about the peoples he mowed down in his drive for supremacy than the neoconservatives care about 655,000 dead Iraqis, 100,000 disabled American soldiers and 2,747 dead ones.

When Bush, the Decider, claims unconstitutional powers and uses “signing statements” to negate US law whenever he feels the rule of law is in the way of his leadership, he is remarkably similar to Hitler, the Fuhrer, who told the Reichstag on February 20, 1938: “A man who feels it his duty at such an hour to assume the leadership of his people is not responsible to the laws of parliamentary usage or to a particular democratic conception, but solely to the mission placed upon him. And anyone who interferes with this mission is an enemy of the people.”

“You are with us or against us.”

Here, Roberts may be going a bit non-linear on us.  Read “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” by William Shirer.  While Bush II is clearly not on the same philosophical or moral plane as Adolph Hitler, nor as cunning for that matter, the fact is that his handlers are using rhetorical tools from an age-old playbook.  That is, whipping up public fear as a means to concentrate power.  Really, the Bush cabal is mythologizing a foe to achieve an unprecedented concentration of power for the executive branch.  The point of the Hitler comparison is that this kind of consolidation of power has precedent. 

Finally, I’ll agree with those who say that Bush II isn’t smart enough to do this on his own. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that this fellow is much more than a frat boy with a golden name.  Bush and his merry men have managed to make a mess of things and it will take generations of other people to smooth it out.  Recall that we still have troops in Japan and Korea and the veterans of those wars are now passing of old age.