Saturday, September 08, 2012

Rot's Goldstein explains Alinsky

15 comments:

Arelcao Akleos said...

"Today’s Republicans....... have accepted the progressive framework. Their argument is not that the welfare state, deficit spending, federalized education, sharia-democracy promotion, and the rest are bad policies. Their argument is not that Washington needs to be dramatically downsized. It is that progressive governance is fine but needs to be better executed.

Ain’t that something to rally around!"

The Wages of Going Establishment are going to be terribly bitter.

Tecumseh said...

A fair premise, AA. But consider this: the GOP has done that every single presidential election cycle since 1980, which was the only time in the modern era (besides 1964, and well, 1984, but that was a shoo-in) that the GOP hotly contested the progressive establishment on ideological grounds. And probably a bit less so this year than in 2008, which was a nadir in that respect with the Mac choice (Palin was just a blip in that year's trend).

Mr roT said...

Tecs now pining for Palin years after torpedoing her with his insightful commentaries on her voice production quality and choices in heels.

Mr roT said...

My real Goldstein. Pay up, misers!

Arelcao Akleos said...

"But consider this: the GOP has done that every single presidential election cycle since 1980"

Perhaps you meant 1988. Reagan was not of the Establishment. His forging ties with it to overthrow Carter, in 1980. was rational politics, but he did not compromise with the House of Bush on his agenda. His second term, as he personally faded and Bush and Baker took over much of the running of the direction of government, things faded. But it was not until Bush Sr. that the Establishment believed itself back in the saddle.
Of course this rapidly led to policy disaster, and massive electoral defeats, and rebellion from the "peasants" [the "Contract" types with Gingrich, and the "Tea Party" types of today].
Were you trying to reassure me, Tecumseh?

Arelcao Akleos said...

Herr Rott: "My real Goldstein. Pay up, misers!" Referring to Herbert's execrable text.

As the sagacious and once lovely Valentina Rychka has nailed it:
"Goldstein's Classical Mechanics is one of the worst books I have ever read on the subject. It is disturbing that it could have been published on the first place since it is full of very serious omissions and mistakes.

The classical mechanics is based on two basic experimental facts, which lie at its foundations: The Newton-Laplace principle of determinacy and Galileo's principle of relativity. These fundamental principles are never stated in the book. More over the authors are confused about such elementary notions as phase space and configuration space probably due to the fact that phase space could be identified with a tangent bundle or cotangent bundle of the configuration space depending weather we use Lagrangian or Hamiltonian formalism.

After the reading of this book novice reader might be under the false impression that the most of mechanical systems are integrable since all examples and problems stated in this book are of that type. There is no place in this book for Arnold-Liouville's theorem on integrability.

Even such elementary topics like the chapter on Rigid Body are full of serious mistakes as mixing of the body and space coordinates. The authors prefer lengthy "intuitive" explanations to the few simple lemmas from the operator theory.

A short excursion to non-holonomic mechanics is disastrous and should be considered as totally wrong. The same goes for the chapters on canonical transformations, Hamilton-Jacobi theory and action-angle variables.

This list goes on and on.

The book in its present form is beyond repair and should not be used. "

Tecumseh said...

AA: Of course, to me "since 1980" means "after 1980", which, as I indicated, was the sole exception, besides 1964, and sort of 1984, but that doesn't really count, because Reagan didn't have to make an ideological argument anymore by then, but "only" run on his sterling record.

Mr Rot: What does Newtonian mechanics have to do with Andy McCarthy, your personal Emmanuel Goldstein?

Mr roT said...

Andy McCarthy argues like Big Brother, here embodied by AA's heartthrob Valentina Churilova-Rychka. I'm with Goldstein all the way.

Tecumseh said...

From Russia with the love [sic]. Jeepers, go back to Russia!

Mr roT said...

Andy McCarthy argues like Big Brother, here embodied by AA's heartthrob Valentina Churilova-Rychka. AA's beauty says that,``The authors prefer lengthy "intuitive" explanations to the few simple lemmas from the operator theory."

I'm with Goldstein. Who needs abstract nonsense in physics? Eilenberg?

What the fuck is the "operator theory," in the context of classical mechanics, Valentina? Ahhh, I see what to do: Do all mechanics in terms of the manifestly Galilean-invariant Schrödinger equation and use the correspondence principle to get back to designing your turbojet.

Sounds like a great plan if you're a dumb woman with zero intuition for physics, worse fashion sense and looks.

Mr roT said...

She was once young and lovely to her bones, Herr Rotter.

Sure. Mediocre, extremist, opinionated, Russian, wrong woman physicists are usually Paulina-Porizkova-level babes.

As for Operators vs Physical Intuition, what would Wien do?

Schrödinger, out of patriotism. But we know how that went, last time 'round.

Mr roT said...

Tecumseh said...
From Russia with the love [sic]. Jeepers, go back to Russia!


Give her a break, Tecs! She avoided writing,"From the Russia with the love."

Arelcao Akleos said...


Hell hath no Fury like a Rotter's Goldstein scorned.

Arelcao Akleos said...

His book sucked. Heck, Landau was much much better.

Mr roT said...

His book sucked. Heck, Landau was much much better.
Horseshit, you russophile phlistine! In fucking 150 pages one can't expose dick, much less Lifschitz or CM.