Which Universe Do You Live In?

For a multitude of reasons, I have friends and Facebook and follow people on Twitter who have philosophical views drastically different from my own. What's baffling to me--a person who occasionally can be overwhelmed by too much or too much conflicting data--is how all of these folks live in the same universe. If I believe all the opinions and "facts" put out by conservatives, the world is going to heck in a handcart under Obama. If I believe everything liberals say, they are the source of all that's good and right in the world and conservatives are gravely mistaken about everything. If I believe the folks who lean libertarian, the conservatives and the liberals are both screwed up and need to have their political power taken down several notches (no two libertarians, however, can agree on a method for such a scenario). And so forth. What's interesting is that all of them use "facts" to back up their claims.

One example will suffice: unemployment. Right now, official government figures have the unemployment rate at ~6%, which is well-nigh decent, and a big improvement over the 8-10% we had in 2008. However, if you take a different view of "the numbers," the unemployment rate is actually much higher because the labor participation rate (i.e., the number of people eligible for work who are not employed or not looking for work) had dropped to historic lows because people have simply "given up" trying to find a job. Then there's the contrarian view that a lot more jobs could be created if government regulations were drastically trimmed. And so forth.

Who do you believe?

What's at the root of all these opinions--and gosh knows I can only spend so much time reading political rants before I feel the urge to do something else, like laundry or cleaning the tub--is reality itself. Different groups operate from different assumptions and so interpret the "facts" of the world accordingly.

Do you believe humanity is basically good or, at worst, neutral? Do you believe that individuals are a product of societal forces and the specific circumstances into which they are born (nationality, wealth, race)? Do you believe that the "American Dream" (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) is admirable but unrealistic due to societal forces working to suppress minorities? Do you believe that human beings can be improved, either through individual effort or wise leadership from enlightened "right thinking" people? Do you believe that history is one of never-ending progress with occasional downturns? Do you believe that government's most important role is to ensure the social and economic equality of all? Do you believe that all moral systems are inherently equal because they're all aiming toward some sort of good but have some disagreements as to how morality should be enforced? Do you mistrust religion? Do you distrust big businesses more than big governments? Do you believe government should be the ultimate source of economic problem-solving among people? If you answered yes to the bulk of these questions, you are probably a liberal.

Do you believe humanity is basically "fallen" and that individuals are good or evil from birth? Do you believe that individuals have the ability to overcome their circumstances no matter how dire? Do you believe the "American Dream" should apply to everyone, regardless of birth? Do you believe that human nature is constant (essentially bad) and bad behavior can only be restrained through religious or governmental authority? Do you believe that human progress (freedom, technological development, enlightenment through inquiry and the arts) is a temporary phenomenon and that societies must guard against "barbarism?" Do you believe that some moral systems (e.g., Western) are superior to others due to their outcomes? Do you believe government's most important role is to ensure a nation's economic and political strength? Do you distrust big governments more than big businesses? Do you believe the marketplace should be the ultimate source of economic problem-solving among people? If you answered yes to the bulk of these questions, you are probably a traditional conservative.

Do you believe humanity is essentially neutral and a product of his/her birth and education? Do you believe individuals can overcome their specific obstacles in life if they are given maximum freedom from government and society? Do you believe the "American Dream" should be exported around the world peacefully? Do you believe that human nature, while bad, can be overcome? Do you believe that human progress is possible, but only through individual, non-government efforts? Do you believe that all established moral systems are valid as long a they don't try to harm others? Do you believe government's most important role is to ensure individual freedom and to allow individuals to achieve as much as possible? Do you believe individual choices and trades (the marketplace) should be the ultimate source of economic problem-solving among people? If you answered yes to most of these, you're probably libertarian.

The challenge, as I noted earlier, is that all of these attitudes--and more!--are at play on the internet and in our national dialogue. If you let yourself get overwhelmed by the babble and the back-and-forth, you have a few choices:

• Tune out everybody and just avoid politics as much as possible
• Listen to/read only those people with you you agree
• Absorb it all and try to obtain a balanced perspective on how people think about the world

The benefit of the first option is less stress; the downside is that you become ignorant of matters which might greatly affect how you live and work.

The benefit of the second option is comfort; you can read or listen to commentators with whom you agree and become part of the cheering section; the downside is that you can have your viewpoint skewed to the point of ignoring or being unable to comprehend facts that contradict your isolated worldview.

The benefit of the last option is that  you get a clearer picture of what's being said about the state of the world/nation and how it might be interpreted; the downside is data overflow and a tendency to read more arguments than you might care to see.

I've tried all three options, sometimes within the same week, sometimes within the same day. Sometimes I'll spend a long stretch using one option. Occasionally I even throw in my own two cents. Therein lies the challenge: you can learn about what people say about the world from watching/reading the news/internet/etc., but you also have the option to participate. How do you see the world? Do you believe your voice can make a difference? I guess it all depends on which universe you choose to see.

Generation Huh?

Just finished reading an essay in The Weekly Standard on Millennials, that wild, wacky, much larger generation after mine (GenX). The basic point of the article being that so-called scholarly articles making generalizations about generations are often a bunch of balderdash, poppycock, pick your standard term for bunk.

I guess I'd have to agree. Reporting from the anecdotal field of the real world, here are my own observations of Generation X:

• Most of my peers are or have been married at least once.
• Most of us have jobs.
• Many of us have kids or, if not kids, pets.
• We have a low tolerance for the foolishness imposed on us by Baby Boomer bosses.

Beyond that? Honestly, my observations become nearly useless because our friendships and work acquaintances are self-selecting. I've worked at Disney, which attracts one demographic. I've worked for the Department of Defense, which will bring in a slightly different demographic. I've worked for NASA and the aerospace community, which truly has a niche set of social attributes. In fact, the space community has been so monochromatic that I wrote a master's thesis on marketing approaches to bring in more women and minorities. Regardless, I have been drawn to and worked in environments that have very strong, very recognizable cultures. Disney is all about entertainment, perkiness, neatness, and guest-focused customer service. The military culture is predominantly male, top-down, honor-focused, and has a tendency to break things and kill people on behalf of our national defense. The space community is almost a mix of the two: very upbeat ("visionary"), top-down, and WASP male, with a few more hopeful women than the military and a lot fewer minorities.

I suppose it's instructive, then, to talk about Facebook and my 20th high school reunion, both of which provided me the opportunity to see how "normal people" in my generation have done. (Point of reference: I got a paper award for "Most Unusual Job" at the reunion.) My high school, situated in the Western Suburbs of Chicago, produced a lot of people with what my folks used to call "straight jobs": doctors, lawyers, contractors, nurses, teachers, what have you. As a writer for NASA (and now a freelance writer working for aerospace and non-aerospace clients), I do not quite fit that label.

In other ways, I'm right in line with the tastes of middle-class white males of my age and background: I watch the NFL; I listen to classic rock and pop music from my high school days; I drive a Honda sedan; I get annoyed by the foolishness of both major political parties (the left more than the right) and recently registered as "unaffiliated" in Florida as a mild protest. I'll probably vote libertarian in coming years.

The Generation X (born 1961-1975) peers I interact with most often are scientists, engineers, or technology-focused in some way. They're some of the best and brightest people I've ever met, and they give me hope that this nation can continue to do great things. While all high-achieving, very few of these folks to share common ideas about the future--they range from loud libertarians to confident conservatives to passionate progressives. The political battles we inherited from our parents will continue.

My peers who have become parents also have a wide range of beliefs and attitudes about the world; however, being parents, they have that common traditional streak that wants to see their children grow up well-behaved, mature, and capable of getting a job. Again, it might be a self-selecting reflection on my friends, but none of them has the attitude that their kids can't or shouldn't try to do better or that they should expect a check from the government to live.

Undoubtedly I'm not seeing the whole picture of "my generation." I heard a lot when I was in college for my B.A. and afterward about how expectations were being lowered for us because many of us graduated in the middle of the Gulf War recession. I heard similar things about the Millennials in 2002 when I got my M.A. and we were going through the second Gulf War recession. (Note to self--no more schooling: I keep graduating just after war-induced recessions.) The "low expectations" line is media BS. We work, we pay our bills, we'd like to have more money. How is that any different from the Baby Boomers? Who are the exemplars of Generation X--Elon Musk, President Obama, Robert Downey, Jr., Jeff Bezos, Darlene Cavalier? Or are they Marilyn Manson, Timothy McVeigh, Len Bias, and Pink? (Okay, you have your lists, I have mine.) History will be the judge of our deeds.

In the end, about all you can say about a "generation" is that we had a similar set of world events happen around us and we all found ways (some better than others) of surviving them. The only advantage we have over previous generations is that we get to see a bit more of the future than they do. What we do with the knowledge and experience is, of course, up to us.

Book Review: Rules for Radicals

I picked up this book because it's supposed to have strongly influenced our current President and a potential future candidate (Hillary Clinton). Writing as a GenXer with little to no interest in '60s activists, I had no previous experience with the author, his activities, or his writings, so this review will focus entirely on the text of Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. If you're interested in politics--left, right, or other--I believe you'll find this brief read (196 pages) worthwhile.


I'm not 100% certain what I expected from this book, but the way folks on conservative talk radio use Rules for Radicals or "Alinsky" as shorthand for this or that political vice of the President, one would assume that this was the political version of The Anarchist Cookbook--all fire and brimstone and down with The Man. This would be incorrect.

Background
Let's start with the subtitle: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals [italics mine]. This book was written in 1971, after much of the wildness of the 1960s had already happened--and in many ways this book is a reaction against the chaotic and at times violent activities of that decade. Alinsky saw dramatic, screaming activism as counterproductive to effecting actual, lasting change. As an activist and professor, Alinsky is at turns lecturing and speaking from experience. He's taking the tone of an elder statesman saying, "Look, kids: you can yell and scream all you want, but if you actually want to change the world, you need to play a different game." His primary lesson is, surprisingly (to me), to work with people and the system as you find it.

To introduce his topic, Alinsky starts by explaining his purpose for writing the book: to teach serious activists how to make lasting political changes without alienating a large section of the population, which he believed was the general reaction to much of what the hippies did. He is out to win hearts and minds, and he believes that that can only happen by working with people as they are and the political system as it is. He is trying to explain how to obtain greater political access for the Have Nots in a world comprising three main groups:

• The Haves
• The Have-Nots
• The Have a Little, Want Mores

Alinsky also provides definitions of specific concepts, such as power, self-interest, compromise, ego, and conflict. He lays out these terms in realistic, non-threatening, and terms so the willing reader/activist understands how they operate within the U.S. system of government. His analysis is not so different from what you hear about America today: unnecessary war, government overreach, corruption, and minorities being kept under thumb by an oligarchical majority.

Community Organizers and Ego
One thing that caught my attention in this section was this description of a "community organizer," which is a favorite epithet of my friends on the right to describe the President:

"The ego of the organizer is stronger and more monumental than the ego of the leader. The leader is driven by the desire for power, while the organizer is driven by the desire to create. The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach--to create, to be a 'great creator,' to play God."

However, he bookends this statement with the following two warnings:

"Nothing antagonizes people and alienates them from a would-be organizer more than the revealing flashes of arrogance, vanity, impatience, and contempt of a personal egotism."

"An infection of egotism would make it impossible to respect the dignity of individuals, to understand people, or to strive to develop the other elements that make up the ideal organizer."

Taking Action
Gradually, Alinsky moves from a theoretical discussion to more concrete, action-oriented content. He states that the first step in community organization is disorganizing the status quo. This is followed by organizing something new to replace it. One observation he had, which a conflict-averse person might have a problem with, is that there is no such thing as a "non-controversial" issue. If there is an issue, there will be conflict, and that must be managed through politics. If there is an issue but only one opinion on it, that amounts to tyranny.

Another Alinsky point: no one can negotiate without the power to compel negotiation. A protest against an entire nationwide corporation, for example, would be impractical for a local group; however, a protest at a single branch could have more impact.

So what does Alinsky mean by "take action" or protest? Perhaps one of the most important "rules" Alinsky writes about community organizing is that organizers must take people as they are--and that not all of them are going to join a group just because of the rightness of the cause, but for personal, self-interested reasons that are only partially connected to the overall "cause." Another favorite Alinsky ploy is to get one segment of the "Haves" to fight with another segment, resulting
in a win for the Have-Nots simply because the second segment of "Haves" did not want the aggravation of facing a protest themselves.

In the end, Alinsky's tactics are devious and at times cynical, but they were often effective because he understood the American political system. A recent example of effective activism in the Alinsky vein was the combination of pressures put on the L.A. Clippers following the racist comments of its owner. In that case, NBA players wore their jerseys inside-out and several teams threatened to boycott Clippers playoff games. The combination of bad publicity, threatened boycotts, and sponsorship losses (as well as the NBA-level ban) hit Donald Sterling where it hurt--his assets--and got him to sell his team. While more a case of Haves vs. Haves, the massive pressure put on Sterling was a loud message that his behavior would not be tolerated. Still, it was a campaign of which Alinsky would have approved. In the end, winning political battles come down to using the available, appropriate means to get your way. It might not always be pretty, but American politics very much wears the stamp of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

Book Review: Equal

The genre known as dystopia--negative utopia--consists of a story where some awful part of human behavior has taken hold as the ruling philosophy of society, or when some good part of our natures has been taken to some awful extreme. Such is the case of Equal, a book brought to my attention by its author, W. J. Costello.



 

The high concept of this novel is one where a future America has become much poorer, grubbier, and unhappier because society is now ruled by the notion of radical equality. In this dystopian future, people are regulated in their careers--five years per career, with everyone doing the same tasks in the same age range, up through age 50. Those individuals with gifts aesthetic, physical, or mental are kept in place by ear-mounted machines called Equalizers, which operate on the brain or the body to keep people from exceeding their peers.

In the midst of this dynamic, we have a sheriff who is put in charge of chasing a "runner," someone who's trying to escape from the society. Instead of catching this runner, a woman, he falls in love with her and thus has to do some thinking and make some choices about the society he lives in. The sheriff (I'm sorry, I can't recall the title now) has a nemesis, a fellow sheriff who's an utter sadist who somehow hasn't been apprehended himself.

There are a lot of elements here that could be the basis for a cracking good yarn: you've got the love interest, you've got a chase, you've got a dystopian society that gives the author an opportunity to comment on society today and where certain behaviors could lead. But, but, but. I had a difficult time with this book. I commend the author for completing a full, novel-length story and for making a more action-oriented version of Ayn Rand's Anthem. However, this work would have benefitted from some judicious editing on multiple levels, especially in the narrative style.



Leaving new-author mistakes aside, my biggest challenge I had with the world the author posits was the discrepancy between the level of technology the people use on a daily basis--blacksmiths and fireplaces and swords--and the level of sophistication needed to produce the "Equalizer," which can do anything from dumbing down the intelligent to making the attractive less appealing. Someone has to ensure that those tools work and keep working, which implies a high level of education that the society's organization would prevent.

If the author decided to write a sequel (full disclosure: W. J. Costello sent me a free electronic copy of the book), I would recommend that more attention be given to filling in some of the blanks on how such a society is formed, what the landscape and technologies look like, and how people interact. There are undoubtedly excesses to be founded in our current society, just as there are in the author's dystopia. The trick, as always, is conveying the true impacts of those excesses on societies and individual souls.

Today's Hypothetical

Let's say you're an avid lover of trees. You hate to see them cut down unnecessarily, you've got a paperless office, and you spend your days advocating for protecting forests and getting other people to do the same. You are, proudly, reverently, a "tree hugger." Great! Good for you.

Now let's say the government mandates that every non-profit organization in your category [501(c)(3)] must print out their tax forms on new (not recycled) paper from old-growth forests and that they must pay Would you fight it? Would you find this regulation intrusive? for said forms out of their own pockets. What are your likely reactions? Would you find this mandate offensive, even immoral? Just throwin' it out there.

Book Review: After America: Get Ready for Armageddon

I've done my level best to avoid watching the Republican presidential debates, mostly because it's more than one year until the election, and because I don't believe my life as an American should be so politicized that I need to pay attention to an election more than a year away. But I do still read the news, and I do listen to the radio. And yes, I listen to talk radio. That includes Rush Limbaugh and his occaional stand-ins when he takes a day off. One of them--perhaps the smartest and most entertaining of the lot--is Mark Steyn. Steyn has written a couple of books now, and I've read America Alone and now, After America. While Steyn has a distinctive edge to him, he is undoubtedly a keen observer of the American scene, and his opinions are not mere boosterism or hype (as opposed to, say, Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck).

So what does Mr. Steyn have to say, in his snarky and urbane sort of way? After 349 pages of often-painful reading, there's no way around it: he believes this nation is in terrible trouble. This book reads rather like a conservative's jeremiad for the United States. A jeremiad, for those of you unfamiliar with the term, is taken after the prophet Jeremiah, whose book in the Bible is a long recitation of the sins of the nation of Israel and what evils will befall them unless they mend their sinful ways. Well, Israel did not reform, and all that Jeremiah foretold came to pass, which was a bit of a painful "I told you so." Which might explain why jeremiads are not particularly popular.

And this was a hard read. Steyn goes after everything from political correctness to government overspending to our nation's cultural rot, and then projects forward to the implications of our current actions. The implications are not pretty, nor will some folks who hold with our current culture or set of behavior accept them, but they are reasonable. I was about 35 pages into this book, and Steyn had me convinced that we were screwed, and I thought, "My God, what more could he find to say?" The answer was: quite a lot.

He makes comparisons between present-day America and ancient Athens, Rome, Jerusalem, and more recent Imperial Britain, showing how a failure in one place/time/nation could be repeated here. One thing he does do, however, is remind his readers of the virtues that were to be found in each of those civilizations. For instance, the more socially sensitive of our time might deride the British Empire as some sort of heartless, racist enterprise, but overlook the efforts it made to spread Western notions of law, justice, and equality under the law around the world, or how it was the primary force behind eliminating slavery and piracy around the world. Steyn also notes how America, at its height of influence in 1950, held most of the financial and military cards in the world, and yet held no interest in acquiring territory or becoming some sort of dominating hegemon--we were trying to strengthen our allies so they could stand up for themselves.

That said, for the most part, Steyn's book is terribly depressing to read. I doubt I will do so again, unless it is to focus on its epilogue, "The Hope of Audacity" (a deliberate flip of President Obama's book title, The Audacity of Hope), which offers the only chunks of optimism in an otherwise pessimistic book. I suppose, as with Jeremiah, Steyn's point is to scare his readers into realizing the seriousness of their situation and to act on the fear of what might be in order to stop it. Perhaps Steyn succeeds too well. The picture of the future he paints is not a pretty one, and seems all but inevitable if you accept his premises. If we're facing existential problems in this nation, what, then, can one person do? I'm not certain that a call to reinvigorate America's founding principles is sufficient to overcome all the problems Steyn lays before us. However, the alternative is to do nothing, and I think the Tea Party and (yes, I'll say it) the "Occupy" movements are signs that America is not willing to give up it essential nature without a fight.

You might read Steyn's book and get depressed. You might read it and get righteously angry. You might read it and think that the man is a damned fool. However, I am convinced that if you do read it, you will come away from it wanting to take action. And if enough individuals read it and do take action, however chaotic or contradictory, I think that would satisfy the author.

Potpourri CLVIII


Tomorrow's my first day off (from the day job) since last Sunday. I know, I know, be happy you have a job...but jeez, since when is a proposal enough of an "emergency" to miss Da Bears in a championship game against the Packers? Sigh...just whining, don't mind me. There's still lots of interesting stuff going on out there in Cyberland, so I might as well share what bits of junk--er, important and interesting information, that is--I've found in my electronic travels. Enjoy if or as you see fit.

Starting from the top of the pile (most recent), and unfortunately it's a bummer: another warning from Norm Augustine that America is falling behind and in trouble in science and technology. I suppose we need a fire lit under us occasionally to get us moving; still, it'd be nice if Norm would offer more suggestions and fewer warnings, ya know?

From the Down Under Defense Expert (DUDE), a little humorous lesson on "things not to do."

My buddy Dar sat for a good interview on the origins of Science Cheerleader. Dar picked on her posture, I was ready to pick on the interviewer: for gosh sakes, if you're interested in your subject, put some effort into showing it! And if you're not interested in your subject, work doubly hard--or change your line of work. Or something. The interview is good from a content standpoint, as I learned a little bit more of the background to this epic I've signed up to do paperwork for, but sheesh, that interviewer could stand to learn a few things.

From Father Dan: a video about...Lala the Penguin? Yep. Also, an elderly married couple who've still "got it."

Here's something else that made me smile, though inexplicably: Sad Star Trek.

From Lin:

• A toy for...um, whoever feels like riding a unicycle but doesn't want to put in the work?
• An article on how more students are attending college, but fewer are seeing a benefit from it. The author suggests a couple of reasons for the hows and whys, most of which will probably annoy educators. But really: I had to go to grad school to get the credentials to convince employers that an English major could work in technical fields like defense or aerospace. A B.A. in English degree and a dozen years in the hospitality biz weren't going to do it: I had to prove myself by spending a serious sum. I did learn useful things, but I was essentially still the same person. Was the degree really NEEDED to work where I am now? Silly question now, as here I am. But I can't help wonder if there were other choices I could have made that might not have cost as much.

A blog by someone who didn't last very long as a food critic. A pity, really, but the writing is hilarioius.

Some of the usual back-and-forth continues in Chicago, as airlines that stand to benefit (in the long run) from an expansion at O'Hare International Airport are suing the city because they're trying to start funding and building NOW, when the economy sucks and no one's got any money. Bottom line? My guess: all the expenses, from construction to legal fees, will end up being paid in large part by those of us foolish or unlucky enough to have to travel through ORD.

I've probably posted this before, but it's still cool: a TED talk translated into a cartoon; this one is on where ideas come from.

From Martin, this is reportedly a good site on space exploration. Gotta confess, I haven't found time to visit it yet. There was a time when I did stuff for fun, not because it was my job or some sort of compulsion.

A rabbi on Sarah Palin and “blood libel.”

From Dar, a suggested method of clearing the system. Hm. Sounds like a science project...not something I'm going to try while I'm in the middle of running a conference.

From BoingBoing.net, Engadget, and other places:

• The life of a “missileer” in the ICBM trenches.
• Don’t count out the F-15 Eagle quite yet.
• Alternate universe movie posters? Why not? 
• A blog on how the states of California and Texas might deal with a coyote problem.
• What does it take to make a planet habitable? This site from JPL offers some interesting food for thought.
• Been awhile since I read Fred on Everything, but he has some thought-provoking prose here on how Americans spend.

This T-shirt crystallizes my thoughts on 2010 rather well:

From my NASA PAO feed: a story that the Fermi Space Telescope has detected antimatter over thunderstorms on Earth. And you wonder why you should be careful around lightning? SHAZAAAAM!!

On the NASA front, there are more layoffs coming, but you have to dig about three paragraphs into this story to learn that...and really, who has time to do that anymore?

So this TSA agent got convicted of planting some sort of malware into the administration's computer system. No telling what the malware DID or WILL DO, however...

My grandparents were Depression-era people, and they still advised me to buy stocks because they believed in the long-term growth of the United States. Younger folks’ pessimism is foolish, short-term and long-term because “buy low, sell high” has been an investment rule since stocks were first sold. And, again thinking long-term, you don't get a prosperous society by depending on the government to "create" prosperity. You get long-term prosperity when the government gets out of the way well enough that private individuals and companies can start enterprises that make a profit and create jobs. Do they teach that anymore?

Avoiding writer’s block by stopping while you’re ahead.Something fun for a change to end this segment: Disney short subject on musical instruments. This is actually really cool.


A skull made out of McDonald’s fries. Why?

Confessions of a Walt Disney World cast member (not me, I hasten to add: I wouldn't be stupid enough to say this sort of stuff on the internet).

A friend found a shirt that conveys my mixed duties at Science Cheerleader: half gofer (gopher), half ninja.


Peace and happy thoughts, y'all.

Potpourri CLVII

Good evening to clean house--my domicile, the inbox, etc.--so let's proceed.

From Jim: a little sarcasm on Amazon.com.

From Father Dan: the beer commercial as art.

From Lin, a story that will raise a lot of noise if it comes to pass: House Republicans are looking to eliminate the law that makes any child born here automatically a citizen, thereby giving its parents a legitimate claim to American social services and the like even if they came here illegally. This will probably be denounced by saying, "Republicans have a vested interest in keeping certain people out of the country!" Okay, that's one argument. But what's the vested interest of those who say it's okay for people to enter the country illegally? My ancestors didn't.

Here are some items I found in my internet "travels":
--A ponderable double standard: Julian Assange planned to sue the Guardian for (wait for it)…leaking information.
--A topic that gets batted around my office occasionally: "open-source" space mission design. My argument against this remains that even if you could design a launch vehicle or spacecraft online collaboratively using "the wisdom (or stupidity) of crowds," you still need a large, centralized factory to build the friggin' things. Boeing is learning the hard truth of trying to subcontract out a lot of piece-parts worldwide on its 787 Dreamliner, which is that if you depend on someone overseas, politics and economics make it inevitable that some other nation could hold your production process hostage. Anyhow, good luck to the open-source guys. They also might run into ITAR issues and the like if someone creates a widget related to guidance or propulsion.
--Table manners, Indiana Jones style.
--Anger management, Star Trek style.
--How to become a millionaire in three years. (Caveat, reader: no promises on this.)
--Why iPad is not a "Kindle killer."
--A steampunk Mr. Potato Head? Why not?
--And while we're at it, how about some steampunk Star Trek photographs?
--The U.S. Navy has a new gun in testing, and you really don't want to get hit by this one.
--This takes awhile, but I found some of it pretty good: actor/comedian Stephen Fry on things he wished he'd learned when he was 18.
--During the last blizzard to hit New York City, there were some allegations of purposeful work slowdowns by unions on things like trash removal.
--Here's a nutty aesthetic: making pictures of Muppets with human eyes. Gotta ask: why?
--From SciCheer video maker Randy Olson, a thought-provoking blog on how environmentalism and, indeed, most of science has "gone Hollywood." I would submit that NASA is one of the few organizations that has not gone Hollywood. If it had, we'd have a lot more money and media excitement...aside from the occasional scandals.
--Here's a new way to track the popularity of ideas across time: the memeogram.
--A couple of videos on the original concept and actual making of my favorite theme park, Epcot: here and here.
--A little light reading on the CIA and hypnotism.
--Robot solves Rubik’s Cube in ~15 seconds

--Shaquille O’Neal conducts the Boston Pops. Again, why?
--What makes music sad? It's not as simple as you think.
--Paul Kennedy says the U.S. is losing its dominance, but that’s normal, expected, and okay.
--Now this is useful: how an Etch-A-Sketch works.
--The Isle of Tune. Just check it out. Really.
--An extended essay on the state of the State of California by Victor Davis Hanson. Not for the faint of heart.

China is cutting the amount of “rare earth elements” it exports to the U.S. needed for high-tech products. In a more rational economy, we would be stockpiling these types of materials. This also would be an excellent opportunity for American entrepreneurs to develop techniques that do not require said elements. Regardless of wishful thinking about the assumed benefits of one world economy or the (claimed) gentling effects of trade on rival nation-states, we must remember Lord Palmerston’s dictum that nations “have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”


A pilot was suspended, harassed, and disarmed for pointing out flaws in TSA’s security.


A Greek Antikythera device, as built out of Legos. No, really.
Obviously it's been quite awhile since I cleared out my archives. Nevertheless, this depiction of a "digital Christmas" amused me.

From the Down Under Defense Expert (DUDE):

• A new site helping users get a grip on the micro- and macroscopic views of the universe. (Hint: this won't help.)
• A new word-of-the-day site.

Speaking of the DUDE, he's made a good case for me to fly down to his hemisphere for holiday rather than blow a ton of money in some pricey place stateside. If his wife and he are willing to put up with me for a week and cart me around everywhere, I just might end up paying for not much more than an airplane ticket and miscellaneous expenses. Worth considering. There are some pretty places Down Yonder.
 
This is why I say that I have a photogenic memory: I remember things told to me by cute people.

I was going to write all sorts of profound things in response to this article, but I'm getting lazy in my old age. It does offer an interesting perspective on what happens to a culture when it cannot tell the difference between illusion and reality, though. The reading I leave to you.
 

From Melissa: another news story on how Aspartame is going to kill me eventually. Fine. But I really, really like Diet Dr. Pepper, and I haven't found a beverage that is comparable in the taste/low-calorie/non-allergenic zone yet.

From Michelle: a little late for the season, but why not a gingerbread Serenity?

From Gwen: "What Control has become, or what I like to call Big Brother."

And I suppose that will do for now. Archives and loose items now cleared back to mid-December. My apologies for allowing the potpourri to get stale.

Potpourri CLVI

Doing a little electronic housekeeping today. Let's just reach our hands into the bucket and see what sort of scary stuff comes out of it, shall we?

First, a little mayhem and humor courtesy of Allstate (via The Deastroyer).

I like these. I shouldn’t, but I do: Killhouettes.


This past week aviation buffs celebrated the 107th year of powered flight by the Wright Brothers. Others, more impressed with mass transportation, celebrated the 75th anniversary of the Douglas DC-3.


Bored? Have some skill with electronics? You, too, can program your Christmas lights to indicate when you have incoming messages.
 
Know a geek you'd like to overspend on this Christmas? Consider one of these gifts.
 
For reasons that elude me, Liberty University decided to put together a choral version of Antoine Dodson's "Hide the wife, hide the kids" rant. Maybe they'll take on the Double Rainbow guy next?
 
Ever felt the urge to drop an asteroid on the planet and see the results? Well, now's your chance. Purdue University has a site made just for you.
 
More YouTube goodness from Father Dan:

• Silent Monks "sing" the Hallelujah Chorus.
• A six-minute video about unbelievable courage and persistence in battle: "Tango Mike Mike." Absolutely worth watching.

From Charlie: a guy who watched Ocean's 11 and learned all the wrong lessons.
 
Awhile ago I tried to explain why it's impossible to calculate the odds of one's employment continuing at NASA. An email I received this morning sort of crystallizes the matter nicely:

Congress has passed a continuing resolution through 12/21 and the President is expected to sign today. We have been advised by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer at NASA Headquarters that all ongoing NASA operations should continue at least through 12/21/10. Additional information will be provided as subsequent funding actions are enacted.

Basically NASA, like the rest of the federal government, is subject to the political debates and whims of elected officials in Washington...which, at present, consists of the lame-duck Democrat-controlled Congress trying to push through as much stuff as they can before the next, Republican-controlled session can take place. New laws are apparently more important than passing the budget, so the budget gets passed in days-at-a-time increments. If the lame-duck Congress can't come to any sort of agreement on what to do with the rest of Fiscal Year 2011 after December 21, the government will "shut down," meaning nonessential personnel like me will be kept at home on furlough until a more complete budget IS passed. Wacky times.

And since it's that season, here's an Irish version of the Twelve Days of Christmas.

Here's something interesting...a demographic map of darn near every city in America.

I mentioned the Make A Wish Foundation a few days ago. If you've got some serious spare change, you can buy a Stormtrooper helmet autographed by various Star Wars cast members, with the money going to M.A.W.F. No, really.

In my continuing series of gastronomical challenges, I'm including this link from Yohon on the "worst foods in America."

Jerry Pournelle has had some very thought-provoking essays lately on the recent debates re: renewing the Bush-era tax cuts. He manages to get beyond the rhetoric and consider what sort of society we really want...and what we want the economy to do. Any decision has consequences. Let the tax cuts expire and you make a bad economy that much worse by taking money that belongs to productive citizens and giving it to government. Soak the rich (however you define them), and eventually those folks will either run out of money or take what resources they have and LEAVE the country. Pournelle has other thoughts that, again, are worth thinking about.

I saw these in my internet "travels":

• A Victorian book on how to write fiction, and the then-perceived problems thereof.
• The U.S. Navy has a new gun--and you really don't want to get hit by this one.
• Cold weather isn’t good for electric cars, either.
• Holiday greetings from Jabba the Hutt.
• Googling America…look up a state on Google, and here’s what comes up. Funny!
• C-3PO and R2-D2 swimsuits. Um. Wow?
• While BoingBoing.net finds this letter "thin-skinned," after awhile, you've got to say enough is enough and get the prankster's attention. "Not just no, but heck no!" obviously didn't do it.

From Tracy:

• National Geographic released images of the top most unusual animals discovered in 2010. Some are goofy-lookin', others gross, one or two fascinating. The discovery of these creatures begs the question: how do we "know" how many species exist or have really gone extinct on our planet if new beasties keep creeping up (so to speak)?
• An NPR story about Neil Armstrong and why we should go to the Moon.

From Lin: a two-part article on the role of males in a post-industrial society. I'll read the whole thing eventually, I promise.

 

Tea Parties, Cont'd.

My buddy Hu had some comments re: my mild defense of the Tea Party movement. Essentially, he couldn't believe that I would say anything mildly positive about a movement pitching nothing more than a "hissy fit," and he felt that they lacked ideas. I responded as follows:

Here are some ideas:

--stop spending so much of my money
--stop raising taxes
--stop regulating, bailing out, or outright taking over businesses to the point where they won't hire anybody

Notice I said all of that without throwing a hissy fit or making personal insults. Those are the basics of the tea party. The fact that they are angry (many months of unemployment might do that to me, too, but still) is a big reason why I'm not joining any damned movement.

To which Hu responded:
 

Who could argue any of those points?

...but change just a few words and those concepts get incindiary, and elitist.

-- only spend money on what I want
-- make me lose weight, but not in a way that I can notice

Firing back...

Well, I'd rather they just spent less, period, but that's just me. Again, no hissy fitting required. And it's very difficult to act politely toward a president who displays ostentatious luxury in a time of high unemployment and speaks disdainfully of large numbers of his fellow citizens. As with the Tea Party, so too with the president: it's how they say it.

So there ya go: my little discussion on the Tea Party. I'm not that gung ho to convert anybody. I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from in the current political mix. Does this mean I'll vote for a Tea Party nominee in my district? If they're the Republican option, yeah. If my local GOP candidate is an "establishment" type, I'll vote for them. As Haley Barbour puts it, "When the Republican voters of a state choose a party nominee in an open process like a primary, we Republican leaders must support the nominee."

We shall see what we shall see. The point is to stop the current government-centric, high-tax, increased-regulation policies currently enacted. I shall calmly and rationally exercise my voting franchise without throwing a hissy fit or wearing a tri-corner hat. Such things are still possible in America, despite what you might have heard.

Demonizing the Tea Party Movement

You know, rather than mocking, insulting, or making false accusations against the participants of the Tea Party movement, its opponents in the punditocracy might consider a couple of things, such as:

• Addressing the complaints these voters have about excessive government taxation, intrusion, and regulation of the economy.
• Thinking about how this movement manages to stay motivated and energized despite the lack of any single political figure in their camp...indeed, despite the fact that several political figures are trying (unsuccessfully) to co-opt the movement or sabotage it.

Just sayin'.

Potpourri CLIII

Diving in...

I will do a more detailed analysis of these two articles at some point, but it is interesting to contrast the views of Kim Stanley Robinson, who believes that scientists should assert themselves as some sort of scientific leftist elite while Anthony Gottlieb believes that scientists need to be more humble about forcing their conclusions on people.

From Hu, the latest proposed outrage from the airline industry: even less leg room.

The only thing more arrogant than asserting that human beings alone are capable of "destroying the planet" might be human beings asserting that we can fix the planet. Makes for interesting science fiction, but we're a ways off at this point from doing either.

Here's an editorial from The Space Review on the Space Shuttle's imminent demise and the programmatic mistakes made along the way.

Feeling snarky? Sarcastic? Pessimistic about the state of humanity or the world in general? This site might be for you.

From Twila: an editorial on bringing back the manned space program. Caveat visor: I haven't read this one yet.

This amuses me greatly: a terrorist made the mistake of asking one of his captives to help him set up his smart phone. This is a truly Ayn Randian moment--or at least a teachable moment, to use the current political lexicon. The assumption on the part of the terrorist is that the civilized person will comply with his wish to keep the machinery of civilization working at the point of a gun. This stuff needs to stop.

Melissa forwarded me this site of videos about the Periodic Table of the Elements after I explained that I was learning about them via another class-on-CD from The Teaching Company, "The Joy of Science." You know: because I don't have anything else to dod with my free time.

From the MSN Lifestyle section, a little helpful primer for women on rejecting men who ask them out.

I was feeling pretty good about my salami and provolone sandwich I was eating the other day, then I ran across this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1310805/TV-chef-Martin-Blunos-creates-cheese-sandwich-costs-incredible-110.html

From Lin:

• An editorial pointing out that private property rights in the U.S. are deteriorating. How badly? Well, when China and Ghana(?) are ahead of us on that score, you've got to wonder.
• An editorial on the fact that the U.S. is now getting cozier with Vietnam, a place where we once had quite a nasty war. This isn't terribly surprising. I see it as part of an ongoing effort to surround China with U.S.-friendly nations on the Asian mainland: Vietnam, Thailand, India, and some of the Central Asian republics. The Spanish Hapsburgs tried to rein in France in the 16th-18th centuries in a similar fashion, much as we tried to hem in Germany after World Wars I and II and the Soviet Union during the Cold War and Iran today. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...at least for the moment. Or so the thinking goes. This is how we ended up giving arms to Saddam Hussein, then turning on him when he started messing with our interests in Saudi Arabia. Lin quoted Lord Palmerston aptly on this: "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests."

I have more, but that will do for now. I simply must get caught up on my sleep at some point.

Potpourri CLII

Let's get to it, shall we? I've got a lot of junk clogging up the arteries of my inbox.

This one came to me via Lin and Father Dan. Food for thought as we continue to debate the Ground Zero Mosque.

From Greg: It's a little old (2008 or so), but this story purports to cover Spain's efforts to give apes and similar non-human hominids "human rights." Assuming the story is true (and one wonders about anything one sees on the internet these days), I think it's a bit of a legalistic stretch regardless. Can laws be made to protect animals or punish crimes against animals more severely? No doubt a convincing case can be made. However, granting animals the same "rights" as humans presumes the capacity of said animals to accept, appreciate, and act upon such rights. Can animals enter into legally binding contracts, for instance? Would they know how to sue if that contract was violated? Can animals be held liable for crimes if they commit them? Oh, they're not liable? Why is that? Are we going to give them special status without any strings attached? Rights also have responsibilities attached to them. Or don't we believe that anymore?

Also from Greg: deep-fried beer. Really.

A few items I found while surfing:

• Role models for boys down to “superheroes and slackers.”
• The art and science of whiskey making.

Karen in Bay Hill sent me an interesting bit of political thought. I've deleted the extra rambling around it so that you can focus on the heart of the matter:

This law (or amendment) makes eminent sense to me. Which means that someone with a J.D. will probably tell me why such a law would be a BAD idea and shouldn't even be considered. I read somewhere awhile back that 90% of the Politburo of the People's Republic of China has an education in science or engineering, vs. the U.S. Congress, where I'm pretty certain that a large chunk of them have degrees in law (actually, it's 179 members of the House and 57 senators). Food for thought.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .."

What's the biggest threat to our national defenses? Al-Qaeda? North Korea? China? Nope. Guess again.

This is now old news, and the perpetrator has since been moved on to his eternal fate, but here are the demands of the man who held employees at Discovery Communications hostage last week. As with the equal-rights-for-apes story, this begs a serious question: are some of these folks really serious about elevating respect for the Earth and other living creatures in it, or is their real purpose to denigrate the value of human beings--and if so, to what end? If you downgrade the value of human beings individually or collectively, who stands to gain from that stance? My guess: anyone who wants to reduce the freedoms of said human beings in the name of "the planet" or some other equally general notion. It's a shame, really. Some of my favorite people are human beings.

From Lin:

• What now passes for "scandal" if you're a conservative. Wow. Some reporters need to get a life.
• A Charles Krauthammer editorial on governing liberalism and its reactions to (or against) the people it means to rule. One of the most difficult things about interacting on the internet is the knee-jerk reactions of some folks if you politely state that you are for one position or against another. The assumption is not that you disagree and therefore have a worthy point of view but that you are OBVIOUSLY evil, corrupt, stupid, bigoted, etc. I find this method of attack (which seeks to humble, humiliate, or beat back, not argument, which would seek to convince) offensive. As I've said before, disagreeing with the President does not automatically make you a racist. If liberals want to win more of the electorate's hearts and minds, they might stop assuming or baldly stating that this is so.
• A TED video on the cultural roots and effects of choice. Caveat visor: I haven't watched this yet.

From Martin:

• A "manly" reading list. Great. More stuff for my Amazon wish list. On the plus side, I have at least read some of these already...oh, well. I've got another 40 years or so. Certainly the time will come up, right?
• An argument against the X-20 spaceplane.

From Gwen: a Star Wars shower curtain.

From Twila: a discussion of the effects of NASA stimulus spending.

Speaking of the stimulus, government spending on such things has now exceeded the seven years of the Iraq War, which certain friends of mine assured me would destroy or bankrupt the country.

Some amateur rocketeers in Denmark want to launch a human being into space on their rocket. Um, eek?

This interested me: how faculty authors can implement an open access policy (to reading their papers) at their institutions.
From D2: another TED talk on civilizational ethics.
 
From Father Dan: the world's top 50 resorts.
 
Okay, that'll do for now. Have a good, short, week.

Myers-Briggs, Culture Wars, and the Avant-Garde

In the process of reading The Introvert Advantage, a few facts converged in my mind:

• Extroverts outnumber introverts 3 to 1 in the general populace.
• The science, space, and engineering communities that I support (as a semi-extroverted introvert, I'll note) are dominated by introverts.
• My extroverted friend Darlene the Science Cheerleader has been fighting against stereotypes and for broader public participation in science- and technology-related debates.
• Awhile back, I wrote an article about the arrival of professionals (i.e., extroverted marketing types) into the space advocacy business.

It has since occurred to me that the "two cultures" identified by C. P. Snow in the early 1960s were misidentified. The war might not be between cultures but between temperaments: between the introverts and the extroverts.

Consider a few side effects of being introverted:

• Natural quietude and deep (internalized) thinking.
• A tendency to focus deeply on topics of personal interest, often in compensation for social awkwardness.
• A tendency to believe, often rightly, that others don't understand you or your interests.

The result of these introverted tendencies is a long-running snobbery by introverted and technically minded individuals against generally socially minded extroverts. This snobbery is not limited to the science or engineering worlds, however; introverted artists often exhibit pessimistic or depressive outlooks and tend to look down on optimistic extroverts (e.g. cheerleaders).

What, then, is the "culture war" or "temperament war" about? I think it has to do with influence, power, and money. There are many, many more extroverts than introverts, yet introverts often monopolize the cultures of high technology and the arts, which generate much of the wealth in this country. The majority wants a piece of the action.

That is why "geek" is now more chic.

That is why fantasy, science fiction, and comic book-based movies are now the big money makers in Hollywood.

That is why the shape of space exploration is shifting toward a more participatory activity.

That might be why we have our first nerd President.


"Geek" might be chic, but the extroverts are taking over, and they now want their say on issues which, up to now, were controlled by introverts because they were the only ones with enough interest to pay attention to them.

So what will be the end result of this invasion of the introverts' domain by extroverts? Speaking as a moderately extroverted introvert, if I had to guess I'd say that as "geek space" becomes more mainstream, the introverts will move on to other, even more esoteric interests, ideas, art forms, and technologies.

Introverts might not say much, but they do keep the avant-garde moving steadily onward, continually pushing the boundaries of the human experience. So the "war" won't be won or lost. Instead, the introverts will simply move the battle lines somewhere they can get a little peace and quiet. As with anything avant-garde, by the time the avant-garde has become mainstream, the frontier has already moved on, simply because introverts hate crowds.

Potpourri CXLIX

The odds of my getting through the blog file backlog aren't good this evening, but I'll do what I can. The format of this blog has been evolving over the past four years or so, and it will continue to do so. To wit: I’m going to try not to bombard my readers (all 20, God bless you!) with scads of links. Instead, I’ll try to focus on just a few—the ones that really catch my eye—and provide a little more commentary. Maybe it’ll work, maybe it won’t. If you want a lot of links, I’ll just refer you to the pages at the right, where I find most of this craziness anyway. However, since I still have an inbox to clean out, the limited-link rule isn't going into effect quite yet.

Science, Technology, and Space

Might as well start with some good news from the space biz for a change: my friend Rick Tumlinson gave a really great, level-headed, forward-looking speech at the NewSpace conference this past week. It's worth a listen on both sides of the government/industry "debate" (I put the words in quotes because it's been more like a screaming match).

From another libertarian space friend, Tom Olson: a couple of ideas here and here on how to get carbon out of the atmosphere--"carrots instead of sticks," as he puts it--that would not require an economy-destroying idea like "Cap and Trade."

From the University of Central Florida: a simulation that is supposed to help teach pre-teenage girls to resist social pressure to engage in sex and other behaviors. Hm. I guess "Just say no" doesn't sell anymore?

What if the Earth really did stand still?

New Airbus concept aircraft. Cool!



The inventor of the “black box” has died.


SpaceShipTwo could do glide tests this autumn.

The flight over the three-hour “tarmac rule” continues. The consultants are right on this one: airlines are canceling more flights. And since many of these three-hour waits are due to weather, the airlines manage to avoid both the FAA fine and having to reimburse passengers for hotels or other expenses because weather-related delays are considered beyond their control. Something that is under control, as Mike Boyd keeps pointing out, is upgrading the government-controlled Air Traffic Control system to 21st century technology. Don’t hold your breath waiting on that to happen quickly.

Need an upgrade to your yacht? Have you considered a Maltese Falcon-class ship?

Culture

From Father Dan:

• Three of Time Magazine's Top 50 American Roadside Attractions are located in Alabama. "Y'all come," as we might say around here.
• Want to know where the speed traps are in your area? Check this out. Disclaimer: I am not encouraging speeding here. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

From Cousin Katherine: a new cultural dictionary, which is definitely more polite and less profane than the Urban Dictionary. This one is interesting because it doesn't just define terms but explains what cultural trend they are reflecting.

Interested in being a science writer? Check out this link.



I won a t-shirt today from Science for Citizens (W00t!). If you're interested in DIY science experiments, give that site a look. And speaking of t-shirts, I thought Darlene the Science Cheerleader might like this new t-shirt.

Ever heard of a Turboencabulator? Some technobabble humor, courtesy of Karen and Doc.

Hard to top this: The Best Image of Chewbacca Riding a Giant Squirrel and Fighting Nazis That You Will See Today. No foolin'. And along the same lines: Cow choreography.

Is there a relationship between Social Darwinism and classical liberalism?

From Lin: A new authorized biography of SF giant Robert A. Heinlein is due out soon. This should be fun.

From Anthony: how to open a bottle of wine with just a shoe. Not sure I'd want to admit to this one, though...

Famous authors reading works aloud.

Oh, the Old Spice towel guy isn't done quite yet. He can leave your voice mail, if you're so inclined.

Robert Silverberg, one of my favorite SF writers, has written an essay suggesting that the days of the full-time science fiction novelist might be numbered.

U.S. Politics


From Lin: Okay, so remember all the brouhaha about American banks not being "transparent" in their dealings with the public about this or that financial instrument? You know--that whole cause of the now-two-year-old-recession? Anyhow, it's a bit odd that the Securities and Exchange Commissions (SEC), the government agency responsible for overseeing these suitably bailed-out or publicly chastened banks, is exempt from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Wonder who will complain first?

This essay has been on my reading list for awhile, and it was worth the wait. It is an American Spectator discussion on America's "ruling class," which is a different thing from the "political class."

How d'ya like that? I managed to clear the inbox and still have time to shut down and slow down the brain before sleep. Will wonders never cease? Anyhow, I hope you've enjoyed these quick-hit excursions through the internet. In the future, seriously, I'll try to restrict my "Oh, look at this!" list to a choice few. After all, if you just wanted links, you could probably go to one of the sites I'm already surfing. The point here is to cough up some thoughts of my own, right? Or so the theory goes.

Peace and happy thoughts, all.

Elitism and Populism

There seem to be two primary flavors of political rhetoric in the U.S. right now: elitism and populism.

Elitism is the language of the upper class, of those who claim to be our betters: I know more than you because I went to the right schools, and therefore I can and will pass laws to make sure you behave the proper way because you are not smart enough to govern yourself. I'm not a big fan of elitism because I don't like being talked down to--even by people I agree with. Tone matters.

Populism is the language of the disenfranchised or some insider pretending to be disenfranchised from a position of power. The language of the populist is the language of the rabble rouser: Who are these people in charge who think they're better than us?! I'd rather trust some random stranger than a snob who went to a fancy school! These people in charge have no connection to "normal people." And so forth. Rather than seek to elevate the common man or woman to seek higher aspirations in education or ambition, the populist would just as soon see any elite person or institution brought down and "taken down a notch." The populist is often comfortable bringing the dialogue down to the lowest common denominator. In an effort to reach out to "the people," they are willing to appeal to easily accessible fears and hates that get the masses aroused and the blood boiling.

There are other types of leadership and rhetoric, voices of reason, sanity, and balance, but those sorts of things are not much in demand anymore. A pity.

Potpourri CXLII

Now that my head's clearer, I can start collecting random links of interest for sheer curiosity's sake. Off we go...

First, a visit into the Realm of the Annoying: the physics of the vuvuzela. Oh, and speaking of vuvuzelas (vuvuzelae? vuvuzelii?), here's a video of the world's largest specimen.

Next, while nothing is certain in the current environment, I see that NASA has released a BAA (Broad Agency Announcement) seeking companies to perform studies for heavy-lift vehicles (HLVs). Given that we've already built and flown a HLV--that'd be Saturn V--I can't help but wonder what's to be studied.

A little bipartisan zinging...for my friends on the left and the right.

Random thing...dogs dressed up as lobsters. No, really. Those dogs are going to eat their owners' eyes when they die alone.

Found by Doc: the difference between math and engineering.

What would you use self-folding origami for? How about robotic rovers?

From Kate Down Under: Australia has its first female prime minister.

Star Wars and high fashion? Hmmmm.


The Adventurers Club from Disney's Pleasure Island has been recreated virtually.

Found a brochure for this site while cleaning out my cubicle: http://www.newforks.net/

From Anika: Some headlines are so out there that there's no suitable lead-in. This might be one of them.

How can visiting Batavia, Illinois' FermiLab change kids' perspectives on what it's like to be a scientist? Check this out.

More food for thought in the ongoing discussion over how writing-based organizations can make money on the internet...The Times of London--hardly a low-quality publication--added a "pay wall" popup window for people wanting to read their content, and their readership on the site dropped 50 percent. Doc's comments on this article were instructive:

Paywalls are a disastrous idea, period. It’s a little bit of an edge case for something like a newspaper, but here’s the short version of the (currently) only viable business model for something like a paper

1. Online paper hires writers, pays them for content created.

2. Online paper sells advertising space to cover costs and turn profit.

3. Online paper publishes created content at no cost to the reader, subsidized by the advertising in question.

Attempts to do it other ways (pay walls, membership fees, etc.) have pretty much catastrohpically failed for every paper that’s tried it. I think the WSJ is the only notable exception to this rule.

A bionic cat? Yes.

For those who are interested, here's a site that collects some of Jerry Pournelle's thoughts on politics.
A random heapin' helpin' of recent sites that interested me:

• An animated story about a writer who couldn't read.
• A card game about game design.
• Did Twitter cost General McChrystal his command?
• World's slowest Porsche.
• A collaborative ukelele jam courtesy of YouTube. I can't make this up, folks.
• DIY fusion.
• A gated resort will be opening at Walt Disney World. Wonder what that'll cost.
• For Anthony in Hong Kong: China's high-tech underclass.
• Replacing the "red phone" to the Kremlin with Twitter? Yep.
• Bollywood is making a spoof about Osama bin Laden. About time someone did.
• Because there are parts of the world Sir Richard Branson still has yet to own, he has moved into the gaming business.
• Like, whatever! '80s teen idols Debbie Gibson and Tiffany are going to appear in a SyFy Network show.
• There's been a lot of talk on the Drudge Report about Congress giving the President the power to shut down the internet. Here's a link suggesting that that's not quite doable.
• Lightsaber USB sticks. Now, now, kids...no need to fight over them.
• Wil Wheaton, forever to be known as Wesley Crusher on Star Trek: The Next Generation, will be guest starring in an episode of Leverage.
• On yet another science fictional note, here's what happens when Dr. Who meets up with The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

I really shouldn't be allowed loose on the internet...oh, well. We now return you to your regularly scheduled foolishness.