Date posted: September 14, 2006 - Thursday
Title: More random thoughts on this and that
Current mood: cynical
Inflation and deflation in the solar system …
A group of scientists met back in August; a bunch of astronomers. They were trying to settle a heated debate that had been raging for years about the solar system.
And with entirely too much time on their hands and revisionism in their hearts, they decided the solar system was way too undeveloped and need a little urbanization. Not enough planets.
They're rationale was the definition of what constituted a planet was too vague, too imprecise. It had been called into question several years earlier when someone left Pluto out of the list of planets in the solar system. So they crafted a new definition on August 16th. And their definition would add three new bodies to the solar system giving it twelve planets instead of the nine we were all taught in school; or the eight planets some astronomers insisted was correct because Pluto was too small. And there would be a dozen more objects just waiting in the wings to see if the fit the new definition of what constitutes a planet. So, maybe, twenty four planets in the solar system.
Viola, instant inflation of the solar system.
It made all the papers, colored drawing, new names and all. Bill Mahr, the political satirist, joked it was a Republican idea because it gave them three more thing to name after Ronald Regan.
Then came a vote of 424 astronomers at a last day of the convention on August 24th (constituting less than five percent of the world's astronomers) and the whole new definition was scrapped and a newer one was approved.
Viola again, instant deflation of the solar system; Pluto is no longer a planet.
Immediately there were predictions the whole of the community of astronomers would overturn the newest definition of what was a planet and Pluto would make a triumphant return.
I never liked it years ago when scientists got to fooling around with the definitions and names in the area of dinosaurs. Those familiar names I grew up with were changed or dropped. Now this bunch of scientists is messing with the planets.
It seems to me these guys are just grandstanding. Astronomers probably don't get much press and so this was a great opportunity to blow their horns and get their names in the paper. But it still seems a silly debate and a giant waste of time. If they want to spend their time a little better let them put their eyes to their telescopes and try and locate all those huge asteroids that are floating around out there and could eventually bump into earth and kill us all.
The Unfriendly skies …
How do you know when airport security has gone too far in it's zealous efforts to protect us from terrorists (or ourselves).
How about this. JK Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, had to argue with airport security about taking the draft manuscript of the next Harry Potter book on the plane with her as carry-on luggage. A manuscript????
I know the written work can be powerful, but I seriously doubt it's effectiveness as a terrorist weapon or it's ability to crash a plane.
And the other night singer Keb Mo said airport security confiscated his lip balm. It was a tube of lip balm he got in New Zealand. Lip Balm?????
Seriously, folks, what was he going to do, threaten to mess up the stewardess's lipstick with a second coat of lip balm? Hijack the plane by smearing it all over the pilot???
Get a grip, airport security
Institutionalized and memorialized racism
I have never been a fan of most reality TV shows. I will admit a certain weakness when it comes to "The Apprentice", but most of them seem like a huge waste of television time and money.
The idea of sticking a bunch of people in some primitive spot and making them live like Robinson Caruso just leaves me cold. Then they see who can make things out of coconuts or grass or something to determine who is weakest and can be sent packing.
OK, stupid and a harmless enough diversion if you want to watch, but now the producers of this monstrosity have gone over the edge.
There was an announcement in August the latest version of this primitive attempt at tribalism will feature teams divided along racial and ethnic lines.
The host of this travesty said the intent was to "add another layer to the social experiment."
I think calling one of these shows a "social experiment" gives it a status far above what it really deserves. It is junk TV pure and simple. Cheap to produce and it fills air time. Finding some social significance in this blather is less likely than finding pearls in a pile of horse dung. And people who look for that social significance and pontificate upon it have far too much time on their hands that could be better spent in some other pursuit.
Perhaps it does show us that television will stoop to any depths to gain a ratings advantage. And it also tells us that a medium that debuted many years ago with such promise for education and enlightenment has fallen far short of the mark.
What's in a name?
There is an understood power to the name of a celebrity. Millions of dollars are spent to view movies because a "name" actor or actress is performing in the film. Sports figures trade on their name for a living far after their competitive days have ended.
So the fact someone other than the person holding the name wants to derive value from it is not so surprising. The fact it has become, or may become, a legal issue is strange and perhaps interesting.
O. J. Simpson used his name, and still uses it, to produce an income.
But O. J. has an outstanding legal obligation, based on a court judgment, to pay restitution to the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. He may have been acquitted in the criminal trial, but a civil action said he was responsible for the deaths and awarded damages to the families.
O. J. has pleaded poverty. His NFL retirement is untouchable as is his Florida home. But he still makes a living signing autographs for pay at conventions and personal appearances. It's not like he is lecturing on economic theory, nuclear physics or even social trends. O. J. makes his money just because he is O. J.
So the family of Ronald Goldman, which is owed approximately $20 million as their part of the civil judgment, wants to gain control of publicity rights to O. J.'s name, image and likeness.
What a novel approach.
If he won't pay his debts, why not garnish the thing that is making O. J. money today; his name.
The matter is scheduled for court on October 17.
Political and 'moral' correctness run amok – or – when conservatism goes too far
The town of Black Jack, Missouri has carried the conservative political agenda way too far.
A self-professed town of "character and stability," has a city ordinance which prohibits more than three people who are not related by blood, marriage or adoption from living together in the same house. The ordinance, according to the city attorney, is based on case law which allows a city to preserve "neighborhood character."
So when this unmarried couple moved into the city with two children from their relationship and a third child from the woman's previous relationship, it ran afoul of the ordinance. The city refused to grant them an occupancy permit and threatened them with a fine of $500 a day until they moved.
To me, preserving "neighborhood character" means you don't let someone build a purple-painted dome house in a neighborhood of colonial mansions. It has nothing to do with the assumed moral character of the people living in the neighborhood. And who has the right to make the determination of what constitutes "character".
