LDU Factorization Example

I know this is a very unusual post for blog that is namely about politics. But for the past couple of months I have been wondering how to do this, but haven't been able to find any examples that showed how to do a LDU matrix factorization. So after finally figuring it out I decided to go ahead and post this for others who might looking for an example of it.

Establising Democracy vs. Tyranny

Recently many news stories have been writing about the demonstrations that have been occurring in Egypt. Many are wondering if the government will be overthrown in the near future. I think whenever a situation like this arises many people automatically imagine the result being the one that they would like to see. For instance, most people living in a democracies immediately conjure up images of the of people overthrowing a repressive regime in order to replace it with a democracy. Few consider the repressive regime that took over after the French revolution.

One of the things that I think makes the American war of independence unique from the French revolution is the fact that the American government for the most part was already set up. As a result there was no need to overthrow the government and enter into a period of anarchy. The same can't be said for the French revolution that required a new government to be formed amidst the chaos left in the wake of the former monarchy. The major difference between the revolutions is that the American one had the stability required to allow people think clearly about how they wanted their country to function, whereas the French was dependent on the people that were in charge of the military being willing to turn over power to the people at some point.

There are many reasons why stability is essential to establish and maintain a free country. There needs to be a knowledge that their will be an upcoming election in the near future. There needs to be enough security to ensure that the people won't be attacked when they go to vote. The system also needs to be set up in such a way to ensure that is no retaliation when the people vote in way that is abhorrent to the people in charge. In other words the people know that they have a peaceful means of changing the government, and that they can participate in that process with without fear of some sort of reprisal. The problem is that this almost never happens because of the anarchy that results after a government is overthrown.

Academia Scared of Technology

The title of this article couldn't be further from the truth.

"Social networking under fresh attack as tide of cyber-scepticism sweeps US" Guardian.co.uk

After making such a bold statement they make no effort to reinforce it with evidence. For instance, they don't site any polls that show Americans are worried about technology. They point out trends of people buying or using less of this technology. They just assume that the this particular fragment of academia speak for all Americans which is absurd.

In reality I think this has a lot more to do with the age and general fear of change of these academics than anything else. I'd like to say that it is more of an age thing than anything else, but in reality many middle aged people have embraced this technology. Even older people are are starting to use it. I think this has more to do with a particular segment just having a general fear of technology. Or a desperate attempt to attract readers to their papers, and books.

My favorite portion of this this piece was when they noted an article from Atlantic Magazine with the title "Is Google Making Us Stupid?". One wonders how an author who can make such an absurd statement still has a job. I wonder what other articles he or she has written some guesses are: "Are Airplanes an Impediment to Travel", "Do Ovens Cause Food to Get Cold", "Does the Internet Slow the Transmission of Information". The fact that sites like Google, have been the greatest advancement in enabling ordinary people to access information seems to have escaped the author in a similar way that an elephant squeezes into a crowded elevator unnoticed.

UT's Cult

For a long time I have been too busy to blog, but recently become interested in it again. I happened to be looking over my draft blogs and ran into this one.

Here's their description of the video.

"The Human Overpopulation Crisis

Ten of us studied population issues for
15 weeks and read dozens of papers on
various subjects. We have concluded that
most people are in a state of denial about
overpopulation, unwilling or unable to
confront reality. Humanity has a fatal disease -- its symptoms include runaway greed, our insane economic system, starvation,
peak oil, global warming, selfish corporations
and Cheneybush government. Faith in rapture
and/or technology will not save us from
human nature. If humans are to survive, we
must confront reality and find ways to
control human instincts, including our greed
and our innate urge to procreate." YoutubeVideo

Is it me or does it seem like there is a general fear of science, and religion in this. Don't trust Technology (despite the fact that it grows at an exponential rate). Don't trust God, God forbid we assume there is a higher authority than this professor. Clearly this guy doesn't want competition.

Their information is completely wrong, here are some places where they're off.

1. Man only causes destruction. They conveniently forget that before man intervened in nature there was nothing to stop Forrest fires. Which are a heck of a lot more destructive than logging.
   
2. People are starving because of lack of food. This is not true anyone who has knowledge of the green revolution that occurred over the 70's knows that because of new agriculture techniques just the United States itself produces more than enough food to feed the world. In fact many farmers in the U.S. are paid not to farm in order to keep the demand up. The people who the U.N. mentioned starved to death and were shown starving did so because the regimes in that area were using starvation as a means of keeping political control it's hard to fight when you're dying of starvation. I can't help but wonder why they didn't show pictures of starving Jews as well while they were at it.
3. Says population is unsustainable I like how they make this claim but show no supporting evidence, just scary looking images.
   
4. Global warming is helping contributing to this. Thus far the Global Warming hypothesis is unproven. And on shaky ground when you consider the world hasn't been heating for about ten years. Add to that the recent y blizzards that have been occurring at much higher levels around the world including areas that almost never snows it's really hard to say that there is such a thing as global warming these days.
   

When I first saw this video I thought that the guy talking was the leader of some kind of bizarre cult. But after looking into it I found out it's a professor at U.T..

Congresswomen Giffords Expected to Recover

I just ran into this story on the daily mail about the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. So far this looks to be the only good news to come out of this event.

"A Congresswoman has been shot in the head after a man went on a gun rampage at a grocery store in Arizona, killing six and wounding a further 12.

Gabrielle Giffords was outside Safeway grocery store in Tucson, Arizona, when a gunman identified as Jared Lee Loughner - struck.

Witnesses said he walked calmly up to Mrs Giffords and fired at point blank range. Doctors said the bullet went 'through and through'."

"Incredibly, this afternoon the doctor operating on Mrs Giffords said she had survived the surgery and that he was 'very optimistic' for her recovery.

"'She's in critical condition,' Dr Peter Rhee said. 'The neurosurgeons have finished operating on her and I can tell you that in the current time period I am very optimistic about recovery ... she was following commands.'" Dailymail.co.uk

This says something about the the kind of medical technology we have these days.

Blacks take Heat for Being Conservative

I find it ironic that conservatives are accused of being racist when in fact the assumption that we are racist is itself. It's ironic that black conservatives also get an even worst treatment by Democrats.

"ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - They've been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement—and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation's first black president.

"I've been told I hate myself. I've been called an Uncle Tom. I've been told I'm a spook at the door," said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government." Breitbart.com

I don't see why anyone would consider being called an Uncle Tom a insult. Anyone who has read Uncle Tom's cabin knows that the character Uncle Tom was a man who would rather die than allow a slave owner make him do something he thought was evil.

I hadn't heard of the Frederick Douglass Foundation before but I couldn't think of a better man to name a conservative group after. Frederick Douglass was a slave who escaped, and later became an articulate opponent of slavery. Here is a quote from his book My Bondage and My Freedom which can be downloaded at Gutenberg.org.

"The reader already knows enough of the HI effects of good treatment on a slave, to anticipate what was now the case in my improved condition. It was not long before I began to show signs of disquiet with slavery, and to look around for means to get out of that condition by the shortest route. I was living among freemen; and was, in all respects, equal to them by nature and by attainments. Why should I be a slave ? There was no reason why I should be the thrall of any man.

Besides, I was now getting—as I have said—a dollar and fifty cents per day. I contracted for it, worked for it, earned it, collected it; it was pajd to me, and it was rightfully my own; and yet, upon every returning Saturday night, this money—my own hard earnings, every cent of it—was demanded of me, and taken from me by Master Hugh. He did not earn it; he had no hand in earning it; why, then, should he have it ? I owed him nothing. He had given me no schooling, and I had received from him only my food and raiment; and for these, my services were supposed to pay, from the first. The right to take my earnings, was the right of the robber. He had the power to compel me to give him the fruits of my labor, and this power was his only right in the case. I became more and more dissatisfied with this state of things; and, in so becoming, I only gave proof of the same human nature which every reader of this chapter in my life—slaveholder, or nonslaveholder—is conscious of possessing." Books.google.com

If one doesn't consider which race the president is, or which party a certain race typically votes for, and only consider what each side stands for and what Frederick Douglas just articulated here than it's logical to conclude that if he were alive now he too would consider himself a conservative. One of the reasons I have a lot of respect for him is that during his life he didn't back down from his beliefs even at the risk of bodily injury, or the loss of freedom that he'd struggled his whole life for. It's interesting that modern black conservatives are conservative despite the risk of taking heat from racists as Douglas once did.

Obama Backs Discrmination

You'd think the first black president would be opposed to the idea that someone would be chosen over someone else because their skin happens to be a certain color, not Obama.

"The Obama administration has asked a federal appeals court to uphold a race-conscious admissions system at the University of Texas at Austin, aiming to stymie a lawsuit that conservatives hope will spur the Supreme Court to limit affirmative action at public colleges. The Texas case tests a 2003 Supreme Court decision that upheld a race-conscious admissions system at the University of Michigan Law School. That ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger said the law school had "a compelling interest in attaining a diverse student body." By a 5-4 vote, the court prohibited "outright racial balancing," but said race could be a .." The Wall Street Journal

Granted you can't blame Obama for supporting it, that's the only reason he was able to make it into the White House. Obama's presidency is probably the best example of why affirmative action doesn't work.