A comet and the International Space Station
It is not publicized much except in astronomical circles but there are two fairly bright comets out there, NEAT and LINEAR. They are named after satellites. It does not mean that they are nice clean easy-to-understand bodies. I went out to try to find comet NEAT tonight at about 2004 May 13 2132. I could not find it at first (a Sky and Tel map suggests it is at the intersection of parallel lines drawn through the Gemini twins and Procyon), but then I caught onto something else: a moving yellow star in the west. I thought plane at first, but the light was steady, yellow, and moving steady with no noise or huge increase in brightness. So I thought this was the International Space Station. I followed it across the sky, going through the bowl of the Big Dipper, and then it disappeared in trees to the east of Ursa Major. I looked it up in http://www.heavens-above.com and found this line:
Date Mag Starts Max. Altitude Ends
Time Alt. Az. Time Alt. Az. Time Alt. Az.
13 May -0.6 21:31:23 10 SW 21:34:20 74 NW 21:37:21 10 NE
Sure enough, this was the International Space Station pass. I looked at the diagram at this site,
and it matched what I saw perfectly. So I saw the Station tonight, and what made it interesting was that I was not specially planning on looking for it; I just happened to see it serendipitously when I was looking for something else.
Oh, yes. I looked a little harder and I did find a smidgeon of light which I believe was the comet. Interesting but not as spectacular as Hyakutake or Hale-Bopp.
By the way, be CAREFUL when going to the Heavens Above website. I superaccented the hyphen above. It is important. If you omit it and/or get the extension wrong, you may wind up with a window in your face asking if you would like to change your default web page to such and such, and then it may start doing other evil things. Apparently someone has set up a trap to some spyware. I took care of the problem by killing every browser window on the screen with the Task Manager. So be careful and make sure that hyphen is in there!
A Journey through Blogrealm
Blogtrek
Blogtrek
2004/05/13
2004/05/12
Disturbing phone call from the Kerry camp?
Today at 2004 May 12 1915 EDT, I received a call from "unavailable" and answered it, so I could get off the phone list of this varmint telemarketer. It turned out to be purportedly from the John Kerry for President campaign. I hope this is not the real Kerry for President campaign doing this, for I find the technique unacceptable. I routinely vote against candidates who throw computer solicitation calls on my telephone. In this case, I can't say that I would vote against Kerry, because I feel that his opponent, Bush, needs to leave office this January, and up to now, I had been supportive of the Kerry campaign. It is quite possible that this is not from the Kerry campaign; after all, it does not end with "I am John Kerry, and I approve of this computer solicitation call". If I had heard that, I would be seriously considering a vote for Ralph Nader instead, and further, urging my Democratic and liberal friends to vote for Nader as well. But no such comment was in the call. I was given the option of 1 for contributing money, 2 for volunteering time, and 3 for neither but willing to vote for Kerry. My response was none of these; I was going to tell them I am now seriously considering voting for Nader. I tried pressing 4, and it said that it was an invalid response. Sorry, call. You are an invalid call, as far as I am concerned. I waited instead and eventually it said goodbye. I then emailed this to the Kerry campaign:
Just now, at 2004 May 12 1915, I received a computer call saying it was from your campaign. It was from an "unavailable" telephone number. It asked if I wanted to contribute, volunteer, or just simply vote for Kerry. I am in favor of Kerry for this election; in fact, I want Bush out of the White House after this year. However, this campaign tactic was unacceptable to me. It is the behavior of a telemarketer; especially disturbing to me was that it came from an unavailable number. I hope that it was not from your campaign, and that it was a telephone spammer purporting to come from your campaign. Please confirm or deny to me that it was not from your campaign. For if it was from your campaign, and I continue to receive such calls, I may very well vote for Nader instead and urge my friends to do so also.
Of course the election campaign is still early, and the Bush camp may also throw computer calls on my telephone, as may Nader. I will keep score on this and report it on this blog. Right now, it is Kerry 1, Bush 0. If Bush leads this score in November, I will certainly vote against him, as I would anyway. If Kerry leads it instead, and Nader hasn't been throwing computer calls on my telephone, I will seriously consider voting for Nader instead. I hope I don't have to do this, but campaigners need to understand that it is not OK for them to put computer calls on my telephone. I just hope it was a spammer instead.
Today at 2004 May 12 1915 EDT, I received a call from "unavailable" and answered it, so I could get off the phone list of this varmint telemarketer. It turned out to be purportedly from the John Kerry for President campaign. I hope this is not the real Kerry for President campaign doing this, for I find the technique unacceptable. I routinely vote against candidates who throw computer solicitation calls on my telephone. In this case, I can't say that I would vote against Kerry, because I feel that his opponent, Bush, needs to leave office this January, and up to now, I had been supportive of the Kerry campaign. It is quite possible that this is not from the Kerry campaign; after all, it does not end with "I am John Kerry, and I approve of this computer solicitation call". If I had heard that, I would be seriously considering a vote for Ralph Nader instead, and further, urging my Democratic and liberal friends to vote for Nader as well. But no such comment was in the call. I was given the option of 1 for contributing money, 2 for volunteering time, and 3 for neither but willing to vote for Kerry. My response was none of these; I was going to tell them I am now seriously considering voting for Nader. I tried pressing 4, and it said that it was an invalid response. Sorry, call. You are an invalid call, as far as I am concerned. I waited instead and eventually it said goodbye. I then emailed this to the Kerry campaign:
Just now, at 2004 May 12 1915, I received a computer call saying it was from your campaign. It was from an "unavailable" telephone number. It asked if I wanted to contribute, volunteer, or just simply vote for Kerry. I am in favor of Kerry for this election; in fact, I want Bush out of the White House after this year. However, this campaign tactic was unacceptable to me. It is the behavior of a telemarketer; especially disturbing to me was that it came from an unavailable number. I hope that it was not from your campaign, and that it was a telephone spammer purporting to come from your campaign. Please confirm or deny to me that it was not from your campaign. For if it was from your campaign, and I continue to receive such calls, I may very well vote for Nader instead and urge my friends to do so also.
Of course the election campaign is still early, and the Bush camp may also throw computer calls on my telephone, as may Nader. I will keep score on this and report it on this blog. Right now, it is Kerry 1, Bush 0. If Bush leads this score in November, I will certainly vote against him, as I would anyway. If Kerry leads it instead, and Nader hasn't been throwing computer calls on my telephone, I will seriously consider voting for Nader instead. I hope I don't have to do this, but campaigners need to understand that it is not OK for them to put computer calls on my telephone. I just hope it was a spammer instead.
2004/05/09
Carly Simon again
On 2003 August 5, I posted a blog about Carly Simon, as the identity of her mystery lover in "You're So Vain" was going to be revealed for $50,000. At that time the speculaion was on Warren Beatty, Mick Jagger, Kris Kristofferson, and Cat Stevens. She has had affairs with all of these. In the song "You're So Vain", Carly says that this man was dressed in an apricot scarf and was looking around to see all the women admire him. Then she describes how he goes gavotting all over the place and how he has affairs with the wife of a close friend. In 30 years, she has never disclosed the identity of this vain man.
The question came about again recently, when a compendium album of her works came out recently, within the week, followed by a CNN story about her. The story said she grew up in difficult circumstances as the youngest child, and described her marriage and divorce to James and later, her struggle with breast cancer. During the program she gave a hint. There is an "e" in his last name. Great help that is. All four possibilities have an "e" in his last name. Then she gave another clue. There is an "a" in his name. This is beginning to sound like Jeopardy now. That does eliminate Kris Kristofferson. and probably Cat Stevens, although I don't know whether she said "last" or not. That leaves Warren Beatty and Mick Jagger. Apparently neither of these two people want to reveal who it is. Maybe he is just a figment of her imagination.
It still is the case that the song is as contradictory as "This sentence is false", saying of itself that it is about this mystery man, but indicating that the man is so vain that he thinks it is about him, indicating that it isn't, causing a contradiction. It is a good background song for mathematics talks, especially those dealing with logic and foundations, because of its antinomy. It is also a good one for astronomy talks, because she sings about an eclipse. So every once in a while I play it.
Back in 2003 I also mentioned that I wrote a song, of which some of the lyrics are at jimvb.home.mindspring.com/music2002.htm . The song refers to meeting a woman between a fire and a storm under a rainbow. I said at that time that it is about someone, and I will tell when Carly Simon tells. That still holds.
On 2003 August 5, I posted a blog about Carly Simon, as the identity of her mystery lover in "You're So Vain" was going to be revealed for $50,000. At that time the speculaion was on Warren Beatty, Mick Jagger, Kris Kristofferson, and Cat Stevens. She has had affairs with all of these. In the song "You're So Vain", Carly says that this man was dressed in an apricot scarf and was looking around to see all the women admire him. Then she describes how he goes gavotting all over the place and how he has affairs with the wife of a close friend. In 30 years, she has never disclosed the identity of this vain man.
The question came about again recently, when a compendium album of her works came out recently, within the week, followed by a CNN story about her. The story said she grew up in difficult circumstances as the youngest child, and described her marriage and divorce to James and later, her struggle with breast cancer. During the program she gave a hint. There is an "e" in his last name. Great help that is. All four possibilities have an "e" in his last name. Then she gave another clue. There is an "a" in his name. This is beginning to sound like Jeopardy now. That does eliminate Kris Kristofferson. and probably Cat Stevens, although I don't know whether she said "last" or not. That leaves Warren Beatty and Mick Jagger. Apparently neither of these two people want to reveal who it is. Maybe he is just a figment of her imagination.
It still is the case that the song is as contradictory as "This sentence is false", saying of itself that it is about this mystery man, but indicating that the man is so vain that he thinks it is about him, indicating that it isn't, causing a contradiction. It is a good background song for mathematics talks, especially those dealing with logic and foundations, because of its antinomy. It is also a good one for astronomy talks, because she sings about an eclipse. So every once in a while I play it.
Back in 2003 I also mentioned that I wrote a song, of which some of the lyrics are at jimvb.home.mindspring.com/music2002.htm . The song refers to meeting a woman between a fire and a storm under a rainbow. I said at that time that it is about someone, and I will tell when Carly Simon tells. That still holds.
Has the Scandal Key fallen?
Who will win the Presidential Election this fall? Allan Lichtman, a history professor at American University, came up with a list of 13 criteria for determining the winner of a presidential election. His method works for all elections from 1860-2000, although it does predict the popular vote winner, as Gore in 2000, instead of the electoral vote winner, and it does not work for elections before 1856. It does not work for 1856, in particular, suggesting that Fremont won that election. The reference above says that for 2004, 8 of the keys are standing for the incumbent candidate (Bush), 4 of the keys have fallen (become false), and one was shaky (the short term economy key).
Up to now that still seems to be the case. Bush clinched Key 2 when he got enough delegates to win 2/3 of the votes for the Republican nomination. He won Key 13 when Tom Edwards, possibly charismatic, gave up his quest for the Presidency. Five keys are still in play: 4, Third Party; 8, social unrest; 9, scandal; 11, foreign or military success, and 5, short-term economy. Bush seemed to have these, although Key 5 is shaky because of high gasoline prices and expectation of rising interest rates, and Key 11 is shaky because of the increasing GI deaths and violence in Iraq. But has the Scandal Key fallen?
I am talking about those pictures from Al Gharib Prison in Baghdad. They have really caused a furor, including calls for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to resign. They are really horrible. We send our troops to free the Iraqis from atrocities committed by the Saddam regime, and then we commit atrocities ourselves. If a man were to abduct a bunch of women and pile them up in stacks, put them in sexual positions, and drag them on the floor on a leash, we would say that he was a sexual predator, we would post him on web sites and we would get all flustered if such a predator were to move into our neighborhood. Yet here are female GIs doing the same to male prisoners at the prison. It seems that we have one standard for Americans and one for Iraqis. The Arab world is in uproar about it, terror attacks have become more likely, and our European allies do not respect us as much. So this is a major scandal. Will it cost Bush the scandal key?
I think it will. Compare the scandal with other scandals. The comparisons are that the Iran-Contra scandal during Reagan's administration was not a Key 9 Scandal, whereas Lewinsky was for Gore (Clinton), and Watergate was for Ford (Nixon). So how does Prison Abuse compare with these? It is worse than Iran-Contra, since abusing people is worse than bilking them out of money or giving a rebel group the money. Furthermore, there is the hypocrisy of saying that we are freeing Iraqis, and then giving them torture just like Saddam did. It is definitely worse than Lewinsky, since that was a consensual sexual dalliance, whereas what happened in the prison was sexual harassment and assault. It is even worse than Watergate, since mistreating people is worse than breaking and entering to bug a headquarters. So this would certainly qualify. But it will only if people think it will. From what I have heard from people, apparently it will. One person says that if the sides were reversed, we would be squawking about the Iraqis and demanding retribution.
It remains to be seen if this scandal will worsen to Key 9 extent, although certainly it will affect our relations with Arab regimes for years to come. But from what I have seen, I think if the key has not fallen, it will shortly. This means that Bush now has lost five keys. I still predict Bush will win but he is hanging right on the borderline; it is far more uncertain now. If Bush loses another key (most likely Key 5, economy, or Key 11, foreign success), Kerry will be our next President. And with rising gasoline prices and a worsening situation in Iraq, this could very well happen. The contest is now much closer now than it has been only a few weeks ago.
Who will win the Presidential Election this fall? Allan Lichtman, a history professor at American University, came up with a list of 13 criteria for determining the winner of a presidential election. His method works for all elections from 1860-2000, although it does predict the popular vote winner, as Gore in 2000, instead of the electoral vote winner, and it does not work for elections before 1856. It does not work for 1856, in particular, suggesting that Fremont won that election. The reference above says that for 2004, 8 of the keys are standing for the incumbent candidate (Bush), 4 of the keys have fallen (become false), and one was shaky (the short term economy key).
Up to now that still seems to be the case. Bush clinched Key 2 when he got enough delegates to win 2/3 of the votes for the Republican nomination. He won Key 13 when Tom Edwards, possibly charismatic, gave up his quest for the Presidency. Five keys are still in play: 4, Third Party; 8, social unrest; 9, scandal; 11, foreign or military success, and 5, short-term economy. Bush seemed to have these, although Key 5 is shaky because of high gasoline prices and expectation of rising interest rates, and Key 11 is shaky because of the increasing GI deaths and violence in Iraq. But has the Scandal Key fallen?
I am talking about those pictures from Al Gharib Prison in Baghdad. They have really caused a furor, including calls for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to resign. They are really horrible. We send our troops to free the Iraqis from atrocities committed by the Saddam regime, and then we commit atrocities ourselves. If a man were to abduct a bunch of women and pile them up in stacks, put them in sexual positions, and drag them on the floor on a leash, we would say that he was a sexual predator, we would post him on web sites and we would get all flustered if such a predator were to move into our neighborhood. Yet here are female GIs doing the same to male prisoners at the prison. It seems that we have one standard for Americans and one for Iraqis. The Arab world is in uproar about it, terror attacks have become more likely, and our European allies do not respect us as much. So this is a major scandal. Will it cost Bush the scandal key?
I think it will. Compare the scandal with other scandals. The comparisons are that the Iran-Contra scandal during Reagan's administration was not a Key 9 Scandal, whereas Lewinsky was for Gore (Clinton), and Watergate was for Ford (Nixon). So how does Prison Abuse compare with these? It is worse than Iran-Contra, since abusing people is worse than bilking them out of money or giving a rebel group the money. Furthermore, there is the hypocrisy of saying that we are freeing Iraqis, and then giving them torture just like Saddam did. It is definitely worse than Lewinsky, since that was a consensual sexual dalliance, whereas what happened in the prison was sexual harassment and assault. It is even worse than Watergate, since mistreating people is worse than breaking and entering to bug a headquarters. So this would certainly qualify. But it will only if people think it will. From what I have heard from people, apparently it will. One person says that if the sides were reversed, we would be squawking about the Iraqis and demanding retribution.
It remains to be seen if this scandal will worsen to Key 9 extent, although certainly it will affect our relations with Arab regimes for years to come. But from what I have seen, I think if the key has not fallen, it will shortly. This means that Bush now has lost five keys. I still predict Bush will win but he is hanging right on the borderline; it is far more uncertain now. If Bush loses another key (most likely Key 5, economy, or Key 11, foreign success), Kerry will be our next President. And with rising gasoline prices and a worsening situation in Iraq, this could very well happen. The contest is now much closer now than it has been only a few weeks ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)