Blogs / Cosmic Variance

Well, we were all bracing for it, and now it’s happened. From the administration that brought you the breast-covering antics of John Ashcroft and the torture-justifying stylings of Alberto Gonzalez, comes another wacky nominee, replete with a whole new bag of tricks to assault your sense of morality and restrict your freedoms.

Maybe I’m being too negative, but given the appalling track record of the Bush White House in nominating right wing zealots to some of the most powerful posts in the land, my guess is not.

I’ve been keeping my eyes on the Supreme Court shortlist, watching and worrying, all the way up to this evening’s announcement of John Roberts’ nomination. I can’t say that I’m an expert on his legal record, but I am mightily discouraged by what I’ve read so far. Risa has already pointed to some of Roberts’ decisions; restricting women’s rights, and demonstrating his willingness to allow religion to ooze into schools and continue the attack on reason. Majikthise points to another decision, regarding the constitutional rights of children.

I’m both interested and terrified to see what the confirmation process will look like. The interest comes from the anticipation of gaining a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of Roberts’ positions on key issues. The source of the terror should be pretty obvious. After the Democrats’ jellyfish-like stance over the filibuster – assuming the foetal position and begging not to be hit in the face – it seems very unlikely that they’ll ever be able to use it again. Although we might see “spirited debate”, given the dual Republican majorities, it is difficult to imagine this nominee not being confirmed.

From Overheard in New York:

Fat guy: Yeah, this O’Connor thing is really big. Most people don’t know this, but the Supreme Court has the final say over all laws that are passed. I think they approve it before even the President does. Like I said, it’s big.

–Florent, Gansevoort Street

From the NPR coverage: about W’s meeting with John Roberts Jr, who he has just announced as his first nominee to the Supreme Court:

“They’re painting it as a match made in heaven, they just got along really well.”

“He has a good heart.”

“Does this nomination seem like a slam dunk?” “Pretty dunky, I’d say” — Nina Tottenberg

Well, that’s lovely and all, but maybe we should look at his positions on the issues.

Via americablog, a detailed report by the Alliance for Justice. Here are some excerpts:

John G. Roberts, nominated by President Bush to a seat on the United States Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, has a record of hostility to the rights of women and
minorities. He has also taken controversial positions in favor of weakening the
separation of church and state and limiting the role of federal courts in protecting the
environment…

Mr. Roberts supported a hard-line, anti-civil rights policy that opposed affirmative action, would have made it nearly
impossible for minorities to prove a violation of the Voting Rights Act and would have
“resegregated” America’s public schools. He also took strongly anti-choice positions in
two Supreme Court cases…

He was a co-author of the government’s brief in Rust v. Sullivan,10 the case in which the Supreme
Court upheld newly revised Title X regulations that prohibited U.S. family planning
programs receiving federal aid from giving any abortion-related counseling or other
services. The provision barred such clinics not only from providing abortions, but also
from “counseling clients about abortion” or even “referring them to facilities that provide
abortions…

Roberts co-authored two briefs on the government’s behalf arguing for court supervision
to be lifted in school desegregation cases. In a 1990 case, the amicus brief co-authored
by Roberts in his capacity as Deputy Solicitor General sought to weaken the standard and
limit the timeline for court-enforced desegregation decrees in the nation’s schools…

Roberts co-authored two briefs arguing for an expanded role for religion in public
schools. In one case, he co-authored a government amicus curiae brief before the
Supreme Court, in which he argued that public high schools should be allowed to conduct
religious ceremonies as part of a graduation program, a position rejected by the Supreme
Court.

More at People for the American Way, who
details his charming opinions on the constitutionality of Endangered Species Act and the secrecy of Vice President Cheney’s
energy task force. NARAL’s got the full anti-reproductive freedom goods

here, and there’s a pretty detailed bio in the dkosopedia.

It seems he is also suspicious of federal laws in general, and singled out the Violence Against Women Act as a place where the federal government shouldn’t have juristiction.

But apparently he’s very nice, and Georgie likes him, so we might as well just give him a pass. Or you could click here or here.

So let me make a movie suggestion. Go and see “Rize“, the documentary by David Lachapelle. It might not be the sort of film that you normally go to see, or it may, I don’t know. But go along and keep an open mind. You don’t have to be into hip-hop or anything, and try to leave behind any preconceived ideas or expectations about “inner-city” or “urban” kids*.

Just let it wash over you. Then you’ll appreciate the totally bizarre and wonderful idea of a guy deciding to dress up as a hip-hop clown, initially as party entertainment for children. (How universal we are, really. Why shouldn’t a clown be attractive to kids in “the neighbourhoods” just like kids anywhere else?)

That’s just the beginning. It leaves that all behind….see where else it goes. It’s worth while giving it a try, and even if you don’t love it, it will at least get you talking and thinking. Perhaps, as for me, it will remind you that the human spirit can really surprise one in what it can make spring up from seemingly barren ground.

-cvj

*I had to get over my own personal difficulty before going to see it…the spelling in the title….for reasons I’ll explain in the comments if anyone asks.

Jacques’ blog has an interesting post about advising the young people in the field concerning whether they should be worried about the future of what topic they are working on before deciding to continue on it. I think that overall, his advice is excellent. It followed on from an earlier, related discussion and comments which made it seem that there is some stark choice to be made: You either work on something entirely because it is interesting (not worrying whether it is going to yield results reasonably rapidly or whether other people are working on it), or, you worry about whether it can produce results reasonably rapidly and whether others care about those results (not caring whether it is interesting to you the researcher). Funny how these things get framed in this way. Come on. It need not be one or the other. Clearly it’s a little bit of both. We have finite resources of time and money. Of course we also have to keep an eye on things other than just the pure physics goals of any given project. But we must do things in balance. Not all of one, nor all of the other. A bit of both. Compromise.

There. Having sorted that one out…No, you’re too kind. Stop applauding, please. It was no trouble, really…. I’d like to move on. There was another issue, which actually began all of this discussion. Should Strings 2005 have had a panel discussion considering the next Revolution in the field? (For those of you not in the field, I should tell you that string theory had two famous Revolutions in the field, roughly ten years apart, and so being a bit spoiled (and immature), we as a field get a bit scared when another ten years go by and we have not had another one.) Well, I sort of agree with Jacques that such an exercise -a set up with a panel of experts- should not be taken too seriously, but I don’t agree that it is in principle a waste of time. I was not there for the discussion and so don’t know the details. But in principle there is nothing whatsoever wrong with serious reflection and taking stock, but we must remember that the “experts” don’t know the answers either. This sort of taking stock exercise has happened regularly all through the history of the field, so why is it a priori a “wrong-headed” thing to do now?

In fact, one of the reasons I’ve been unhappy with the format of several Strings conferences is that there is no time set aside for reflection or discussion. I would argue that this is in fact more important that presenting increasingly glossy computer slides actually. We can just look at those on the web and not bother showing up to have them flashed before us if we can’t discuss them together. I suspect that this panel discussion was an attempt to rectify the situation and have some real spontaneous discussion. So maybe the thing to do as a member of the audience would have been to help shape the discussion at the time, had the format allowed. But I was not there, so can’t comment in detail if that was feasible (e.g. microphones in the audience, etc).

My own “advice” to the young string theorist. If you want to know what might well be the window to the next revolution, wait until you hear that Steve Shenker is giving a seminar. If in the first five minutes of the talk he says something like “I’m confused”, and begins to survey certain sets of results and try to synthesize them, pay full attention and take notes! I know of at least two times he’s done this and it has paid off big time. In my experience, Joe Polchinski is another person who’s been notably confused by the right things. Keep an eye on those guys’ confusions!

-cvj

Well, I had this link as a link in a previous post. It deserves a post of its own, because I think it points up an important point somewhere under all the jolly fun. (It’s a fun jab at string theory. There are plenty of them these days. I and my colleagues in the field should not hide from them. It is rather flattering that they consider us worth the effort, so I will not shy away from pointing out the funny ones when I see them. The field can (and should be able to) take it.)

My basic point is this: All these male physicists were paired with actor counterparts. Why oh why was there no woman physicist/string-theorist paired with an actress? They just plonked Jessica Alba in there at random. Could they not have even tried to think of any? There are several women in string theory with as much stature as others of those mentioned in the parody. Can’t we think of actress counterparts?

So I think that they missed a trick. It would have been so much funnier, as it would have opened up more possibilities. Come on….a little imagination here. Can we have some entries/ideas coming in maybe? I want physicist/actor pairings, and maybe even plot synopses.

-cvj

P.S. Lurking string theorists (male or female) who want to make harmless suggestions for female string theorist/actress pairings but feel uncomfortable doing so publicly are allowed, just this once mind you, to comment anonymously or using a pseudonym!

Seriously, why did Mr. and Mrs. Smith get such mixed reviews? You have two of the prettiest people in the world, exchanging witty banter and steamy looks (and a substantial number of gunshots) with each other, moving through a visual feast of elegant settings while the surrounding chaos leaves their makeup and fashionable clothing largely undisturbed. What is not to like about this movie?

You will be unsurprised to hear that I have a theory. Like many works of genius, Mr. and Mrs. Smith is misunderstood. The movie makes no pretensions to depth or profundity; it is a genre film, pure and simple. But it skirts the edges of the conventions of its genre — action comedy — in interesting ways.

“Action comedy” is a somewhat novel and unstable classification to begin with. Classic action films may feature a witty line here and there, but they would never be mistaken for comedies. In the post-Raiders of the Lost Ark era, however, the hybrid has become more common, as witnessed in the success of franchises from Lethal Weapon to Men in Black.

But still, there are rules. Within the conventions of an action film, there are two standard ways of creating comedy: to play the action straight but include a substantial dose of humorous situations and dialogue (Lethal Weapon), or to move toward parody or satire (Men in Black). In the former case, it is taken for granted that the adventure scenarios must be traditionally realistic and thrilling; in the latter, allowance is made for a greater degree of slapstick silliness, and realism is happily tossed aside.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith falls into neither of these modes. No serious attempt is made to paint a realistic scenario — two professional assassins who have been married to each other for years without knowing what their spouse did for a living would be difficult to make believable. Mrs. Smith works in gleaming high-tech surroundings, where all of her co-workers would appear to be very attractive and fashionable young women; Mr. Smith, in contrast, works in sleazy surroundings that call to mind private investigators in the Sam Spade mold. We are never told what these organizations are, who their clients might be, nor how they fit into a larger picture. We are supposed to simply recognize the accepted tropes of the genre, and enjoy the fun that the characters themselves are so obviously having.

But the fun is not slapstick or parodic — it is affectionate. Mr. and Mrs. Smith is not a satire, calling our attention to the foibles of the genre or of society; it is a caricature, exaggerating notable features for purposes of amusement. The relevant distinction is between “making fun of” and “having fun with.” The point is neither realism nor social criticism; it extends to having a good time and no further. And the talents deployed towards this end are considerable: Jolie is obviously an extremely talented actress, while Pitt is underappreciated as a brilliant comic actor. The cinematography is colorful and evocative, and the dialogue zips along with very few sluggish patches.

The critics, by and large, don’t get it. David Denby, just to pick an example, complains about the absence of motivation when Jolie “appears at some sort of club in a strapless, shiny, black patent-leather rig, flogs some guy in a back room, and then breaks his neck.” Would more backstory have really enriched that scene? It’s like watching Bugs Bunny and complaining that we aren’t told how rabbits learned to talk.

Admittedly, the film is very much of its time. Although it is not a satire, I imagine that it wouldn’t be as enjoyable for audiences not immersed in a set of expectations about action films, comedies, and movie stars. It’s not The Maltese Falcon, but that’s no reason not to enjoy it on its own terms.

Perhaps next time we will discuss how Johnny Depp looks in lipstick.

• Very glad to see Lindsay Beyerstein, of Majikthise,
  subbing over at Washington Monthly,
  whose readers could really use more posts like this. While you’re over there, check out Kevin’s last post on Plamegate.
• Also, the Daou Report’s got a new one-stop shopping site for Rove-Plame news and comment.
• Supreme Court Fun at 9pm.
  Reuters, via Shakespeare’s sister
  says it’s likely to be Edith Clement Brown. Bad, for sure,
  but not as bad as, for example, this guy

There’s a lot of discussion about the usefulness of String Theory. What is it for? Is it Science? Physics? Philosophy? Mathematics? Performance Art? (Check this out!) Has it lost its way, or are people just attacking it because it is now the biggest and easiest target out there? Well, I don’t know for sure but I have my own position. Maybe I’ll talk about it later. Look at Peter Woit’s blog if you want to get a jump start on the matter.

Right now, I want to offer the thesis that one definitely known use of string theory (and other related endeavours) is to give employment to frustrated (but nonetheless enthusiastic) musicians. I give you Brian Wecht, Brook Williams, Nelia Mann, Ted Erler, Matt Lippert, and Nick Jones singing the Strings 2005 song, via the website of Jacques Distler, where I found the mp3 file. Wow!

Before rushing to unkind judgement, be aware that the standard was set by a very large portion of the String Theory community at Strings 1998 in Santa Barbara, where we all (350 of us or so!) sang and danced to Jeff Harvey’s song “The Maldacena” to the tune of “The Macarena”, as described in this article. The person who “blurts out an adequate rendition of the popular Latin tune on his trumpet” (my italics) is me, and it’s also me in silhouette with the weirdest finger positions. Let me be the first to say that my playing was awful, but everybody (except it seems, the reporter) was very kind.

-cvj

P.S. If anyone who went to Strings 2005 has a picture of the above people singing at Strings 2005, please send it if they’d like it posted here!

So I’m in Durham for a month. Not Durham, North Carolina, not Durham New Hampshire, places I know because they’re both blessed with the presence of string theorists (see e.g. here, and here.). No, I mean Durham, Durham (so good they named it twice), in England. The original Durham, I think. It’s the one with the Castle and Cathedral which date from the 11th Century, and which are across the road from me as I type (take a virtual tour here). It was a walled citadel on a natural peninsula (more…)

So, imagine. There’s a giant hole in the ground a mile deep somewhere in Britain. It appeared in a major populated area. Maybe it is the size of a football field (either type). Let’s say there’s a population of hungry crocodiles at the bottom. Maybe a lion or two. Also hungry. People are falling into this hole, and dying as a result. There’s a big public outcry.

The British Government’s reaction? They commission an inquiry. The panel of inquisitors will be headed by some reasonably distinguished person, usually male. If the hole is considered to be in an important enough area, i.e., the South of England, then the head of the committee will be a Lord or some sort, to show appropriate urgency. The panel will call several expert witnesses over about two years. Everybody will have forgotten about their outrage, and learned to live with the hole. People will still be falling down the hole, mind you, but it will become accepted. Then, after six further months of writing the report, Lord Somesort will publish the Somesort Report. The scab of the old wound will be torn off, and the media and the general public will go nuts all over again. The report will say “Take the animals out and put a cover over the hole”.

The government will not agree with the outcome of the report. Maybe they argue that the hole is not the root cause of people falling, it’s gravity. Maybe they argue there’s not enough money; It’s not the turn of the Millennium, and so there’s no reason to spend money on something you can’t call the “Millennium Hole”, and you can’t divert money to it in the name of the Olympics. So the argument rages on. The Somesort Report is placed on a dusty shelf somewhere and forgotten about.

This is a major part of how politics is done in Britain. We love our inquiries, and our reports, it seems. Why am I telling you this? People are arguing about a report, released yesterday. It was of the other sort, the one that comes from a think tank, so there’s no Lord, and it was not commissioned by the Government. It is the Chatham House Report, and it says: (I quote the Guardian’s paraphrase)

“Britain’s involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to the terrorist attacks in London”

The report goes on to say that the country is:

“riding as a pillion passenger with the United States in the war against terror”

So at this point I should spend several paragraphs weighing the pros and cons, agonizing about the issues. But you’ve read tons of argument about this already. You don’t want to hear me regurgitate it. You can Google any number of discussions by more well informed pundits. I’ll just say the first thing that came out my mind when I heard of the report yesterday: “Duh!”.

The government does not agree. Everybody is arguing. The report says a lot more than that, and you can read about it in the Guardian here and they have a link to the report here.
[update: Steve Bell cartoon about it here.]

(Alternative ending to our “Hole in the Ground” story, no less illustrative. A small, cute furry animal falls into the hole. The country goes wild with outrage. There are mindless attacks (sometimes violent) by animal rights groups on people who have anything to do with holes. Golfers, for example, and their caddies. The hole is immediately covered. We really love our animals, you know.)

-cvj