The Kennedy Assassination
Today is the 40th anniversary of the death of President John F. Kennedy on 1963 November 22. Where was I when the shooting happened? I was a 17 year old high school senior. It was Friday and I went through my usual sequence of classes including Advanced Placement Calculus at a school in upstate New York. At the end of that Friday, classes were rearranged to accommodate an assembly to honor and cheer the school's athletic heroes. One by one they came with cheers for everybody: the track and field team, the basketball team, and the football team. At about 14:10 EST, suddenly we were all called to either give the Pledge of Allegiance or sing "America, Tis of Thee". After that the assembly ended and we went to our homerooms. I thought it was rather strange. It was too early. Otherwise it was normal. The homeroom teacher went through some administrative things, and then dismissed us. We all went out to the bus, walking on the pavement outside. Then I heard what had happened. Students were talking to each other about what had happened to President Kennedy. I got onto my bus and sat near the front. The bus driver said that there was a bullet in his brain. I did not know what that meant, except that it seemed serious. She was listening on the radio. The people in the back were talking about Senator Goldwater; apparently about his chances for getting elected after this.
The bus drove by a nearby Catholic school and I saw the flag there at half mast. I wanted to know if it was true. It stopped on my street and I walked out with a neighbor girl. She said that was an awful thing to do to him. I got into the house, which was empty. My parents were both working. I turned on the TV and saw it. There was a picture of President Kennedy on the screen, and below it, it read "1917-1963". So it was true. I wanted to know how my parents would react. My brother kept making my life miserable with music from a rock station, but now the station was playing church organ music, saying that after this event it would not want to play its usual popular music. When she got home, she said ti was awful what happened to him but it was what one would expect from appealing to the crowds like that. There was a Senior Night dance scheduled for that night. I could not get a date but was intending to go single. I called someone and found out it was cancelled.
Most of the time I was home that weekend and Monday, watching the TV for new developments. I turned on the radio on Sunday and got the announcement that Oswald had been shot. The headline the next day read "Pro-Castro Gunman Held in Assassination of Kennedy", and two days later, "Millions watch: Revenge Bullet Kills Oswald".
It did not seem to affect my life that much, but it did help set up the Johnson-Goldwater presidential election of 1964. In that election, Johnson won every state except a strip of five states in the Deep South and Arizona. But suppose Kennedy had lived? From what I have heard, some of the sexual experiences of him may have come to light, along with his association with the Mafia. This may have led to his impeachment and possible removal from office or resignation. If it did not lead to that, there is a possibility that another Democrat, maybe Johnson, would have challenged him for the nomination. If this challenge had been successful, the Democrats would have lost three Lichtman keys: challenge to nomination, incumbency, and scandal. They had already lost four. The loss of seven keys would have meant a Goldwater victory, and the history of our nation would have been substantially different.
The Kennedy Assassination, along with the Moon Landing, Planeattack, the start of the two Iraq wars, and the Cuban Missile Crisis were events that I, and most other people, will always remember.
A Journey through Blogrealm
Blogtrek
Blogtrek
2003/11/22
2003/11/19
Gay Marriage and Massachusetts
I heard on the news this week that the banning of marriage between individuals of the same sex in Massachusetts has been declared unconstitutional. People opposed to gay marriage say that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Maybe it is. Biologically, it works best with a man and a woman, since they can produce the children to constitute a family, and the purpose of marriage in my opinion, is not companionship; it is not financial, and it is not even sex. The purpose of a marriage is to raise a family. This implies that the partners need not keep sexually exclusive to their spouses, provided the couple agrees to a policy of this kind. That's right, I think a sexually free marriage can work. It would be the ideal marriage for gay people. A gay man can marry a lesbian and agree that their sex life would be separate from their marriage except for a few times necessary to create the family. A lesbian marriage would have to have sex with others (or use expensive in vitro fertilization) to create a family, and there is always the possibility that their male partners would want at least partial custody of the children. A gay male couple can't even create a child on their own but have to seek adoption.
However, the court is right in saying that banning gay marriage denies the benefits of marriage to a gay person solely because of his or her sexual preference. Some sort of union needs to be recognized such that the couple does have the benefits of marriage. Further, I would not like an amendment added to the Constitution stating that a marriage is between a man and a woman. To me that is the government entering into something that should be personal among the partners in a relationship.
I heard on the news this week that the banning of marriage between individuals of the same sex in Massachusetts has been declared unconstitutional. People opposed to gay marriage say that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Maybe it is. Biologically, it works best with a man and a woman, since they can produce the children to constitute a family, and the purpose of marriage in my opinion, is not companionship; it is not financial, and it is not even sex. The purpose of a marriage is to raise a family. This implies that the partners need not keep sexually exclusive to their spouses, provided the couple agrees to a policy of this kind. That's right, I think a sexually free marriage can work. It would be the ideal marriage for gay people. A gay man can marry a lesbian and agree that their sex life would be separate from their marriage except for a few times necessary to create the family. A lesbian marriage would have to have sex with others (or use expensive in vitro fertilization) to create a family, and there is always the possibility that their male partners would want at least partial custody of the children. A gay male couple can't even create a child on their own but have to seek adoption.
However, the court is right in saying that banning gay marriage denies the benefits of marriage to a gay person solely because of his or her sexual preference. Some sort of union needs to be recognized such that the couple does have the benefits of marriage. Further, I would not like an amendment added to the Constitution stating that a marriage is between a man and a woman. To me that is the government entering into something that should be personal among the partners in a relationship.
2003/11/18
Close Encounters on the Highway
Lately I have been noticing more and more strange arrangements of lights on cars on the highway. For most of my life, cars had two headlights on their front, plus maybe orange parking lights, and two taillights. In the 1970's, I watched the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind, in which extraterrestrials make a roundabout arrival to our planet. In one scene in the movie, someone driving on the road gets a tailgater, a car following too closely. There is nothing much you can do about this. You can keep your distance from the car following but you can't make the other guy behind you keep his distance. So the guy stops at a stop sign and motions for him to go around. The lights behind the vehicle then move to the right as the car goes around our hero's car. The same thing happens again; he gets another tailgater. Once again he stops at a stop sign and motions for him to go around. Instead, the lights go up! This is no ordinary car. It's an extraterrestrial visitor. Other car-like vehicles also appear, and some of these look weird with unusual patterns of lights.
And so do some of the cars I see on the highway today. The most common weird pattern seems to be four white headlights on front. That is not the usual pattern. There should be only two headlights. I suppose the extra two headlights, near the ground, are to cut through the fog, but they also make the vehicle look like something out of the movie. So I call them "close encounters". I have included this word on my nonword page. I also find them annoying, as close encounters are almost always too bright for my eyes. So I flick my brights at them to signal to them to turn off their close encounters lights. They may think their brights are on, but that is the only way I can signal them. So if you see someone flicking their brights at you, check to see if you have your brights on, but also check to see if you have close encounters lights on, and turn them off, for I don't want to think that you are from some galaxy far, far away.
Lately I have been noticing more and more strange arrangements of lights on cars on the highway. For most of my life, cars had two headlights on their front, plus maybe orange parking lights, and two taillights. In the 1970's, I watched the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind, in which extraterrestrials make a roundabout arrival to our planet. In one scene in the movie, someone driving on the road gets a tailgater, a car following too closely. There is nothing much you can do about this. You can keep your distance from the car following but you can't make the other guy behind you keep his distance. So the guy stops at a stop sign and motions for him to go around. The lights behind the vehicle then move to the right as the car goes around our hero's car. The same thing happens again; he gets another tailgater. Once again he stops at a stop sign and motions for him to go around. Instead, the lights go up! This is no ordinary car. It's an extraterrestrial visitor. Other car-like vehicles also appear, and some of these look weird with unusual patterns of lights.
And so do some of the cars I see on the highway today. The most common weird pattern seems to be four white headlights on front. That is not the usual pattern. There should be only two headlights. I suppose the extra two headlights, near the ground, are to cut through the fog, but they also make the vehicle look like something out of the movie. So I call them "close encounters". I have included this word on my nonword page. I also find them annoying, as close encounters are almost always too bright for my eyes. So I flick my brights at them to signal to them to turn off their close encounters lights. They may think their brights are on, but that is the only way I can signal them. So if you see someone flicking their brights at you, check to see if you have your brights on, but also check to see if you have close encounters lights on, and turn them off, for I don't want to think that you are from some galaxy far, far away.
An extended system of units
Scientists have for a long time dealt with large numbers, in the millions, billions and so forth. It was unwieldy to say 3.6 billion electron volts or a trillionth of a meter, so scientists long ago invented the International System of Units. By this system, one could express higher numbers. For example, a hertz is a cycle per second, used to measure electromagnetic frequencies. So then a thousand hertz is a kilohertz, or KHz for short. A million is a megahertz, and a billion is a gigahertz, where "giga-" means gigantic. A trillion is "tera-" from terato- meaning monster. Similarly, a nanosecond is a billionth of a second, and a picometer is a trillionth of a meter. This proved to be inadequate, so two more units, femto- (a quadrillionth) and atto- (a quintillionth-) were added (I am using the American interpretation of "billion" and so forth). Shortly after that came their reciprocals, peta- meaning a quadrillion, and exa-, meaning a quintillion. Even this became inadequate, as some scientists started to use the units milliattovolts. This is not legitimate as one is not supposed to use more than one of these suffixes at a time. So more units were added: zetta- for a sextillion, and yotta- for a septillion, or 10^24. Similarly came zepto- meaning sextillionth, and yocto- meaning septillionth.
Even this is inadequate. For example the Sun puts out 380 yottawatts, so that Sirius, being 23 times brighter than the Sun, puts out 8,740 yottawatts. This is not legitimate, as it uses numbers above a thousand. When such a number is encountered you need to divide by a thousand and use the next higher unit. But there isn't any in this case. That is why I devised a system of units to go well beyond these, in fact, all the way to a vigintillion, 10^63. After yotta- comes xona-, so that Sirius puts out 8.74 xonawatts. Then weka-, vunda-, and so forth. I followed the pattern of backward sequence of letters of the alphabet followed by a rendition of the Latin for the number. Similarly I came up with xonto-, meaning an octillionth, and so forth.
I posted them on my unit system site and said that these were my suggestions for units. It was not official, of course, and I hear no attempt to make them official. A committee of scientists, not just one eager blogger, needs to extend the system. If they took my units as a model, undoubtedly there would be some changes. For example, my vunda-, meaning 10^33 and connoting eleven, means 38 in Bantu or Swahili, so this could be confusing. Robert Munafo quotes my system, but says that he thinks the unit beyond yotta- is more likely to be novetta- instead of xona- as novett or something like that is Italian for nine. So remember if you use these extended prefixes that they are not official.
Nevertheless, I am glad to see that these names are starting to take hold. I did a Google™ search for "xona weka" and got 78 references! The main one seems to be Plexos, and apparently people are picking it up from either my site or Plexos'. Maybe they will form part of an official system soon so we can measure the Earth in grams (6 xonagrams). So go ahead and use them, but be sure to acknowledge that I developed these names first.
Scientists have for a long time dealt with large numbers, in the millions, billions and so forth. It was unwieldy to say 3.6 billion electron volts or a trillionth of a meter, so scientists long ago invented the International System of Units. By this system, one could express higher numbers. For example, a hertz is a cycle per second, used to measure electromagnetic frequencies. So then a thousand hertz is a kilohertz, or KHz for short. A million is a megahertz, and a billion is a gigahertz, where "giga-" means gigantic. A trillion is "tera-" from terato- meaning monster. Similarly, a nanosecond is a billionth of a second, and a picometer is a trillionth of a meter. This proved to be inadequate, so two more units, femto- (a quadrillionth) and atto- (a quintillionth-) were added (I am using the American interpretation of "billion" and so forth). Shortly after that came their reciprocals, peta- meaning a quadrillion, and exa-, meaning a quintillion. Even this became inadequate, as some scientists started to use the units milliattovolts. This is not legitimate as one is not supposed to use more than one of these suffixes at a time. So more units were added: zetta- for a sextillion, and yotta- for a septillion, or 10^24. Similarly came zepto- meaning sextillionth, and yocto- meaning septillionth.
Even this is inadequate. For example the Sun puts out 380 yottawatts, so that Sirius, being 23 times brighter than the Sun, puts out 8,740 yottawatts. This is not legitimate, as it uses numbers above a thousand. When such a number is encountered you need to divide by a thousand and use the next higher unit. But there isn't any in this case. That is why I devised a system of units to go well beyond these, in fact, all the way to a vigintillion, 10^63. After yotta- comes xona-, so that Sirius puts out 8.74 xonawatts. Then weka-, vunda-, and so forth. I followed the pattern of backward sequence of letters of the alphabet followed by a rendition of the Latin for the number. Similarly I came up with xonto-, meaning an octillionth, and so forth.
I posted them on my unit system site and said that these were my suggestions for units. It was not official, of course, and I hear no attempt to make them official. A committee of scientists, not just one eager blogger, needs to extend the system. If they took my units as a model, undoubtedly there would be some changes. For example, my vunda-, meaning 10^33 and connoting eleven, means 38 in Bantu or Swahili, so this could be confusing. Robert Munafo quotes my system, but says that he thinks the unit beyond yotta- is more likely to be novetta- instead of xona- as novett or something like that is Italian for nine. So remember if you use these extended prefixes that they are not official.
Nevertheless, I am glad to see that these names are starting to take hold. I did a Google™ search for "xona weka" and got 78 references! The main one seems to be Plexos, and apparently people are picking it up from either my site or Plexos'. Maybe they will form part of an official system soon so we can measure the Earth in grams (6 xonagrams). So go ahead and use them, but be sure to acknowledge that I developed these names first.
2003/11/14
Board Can't Have Sectarian Prayers
Today was a big day today! Two important decisions that will improve the worth of livin gin this country happened. The more important of them was the decision by US District Court judge Dennis Dohnal that the refusal of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors to allow Wiccan Cyndi Simpson to give an invocation to the Board earlier this year violated the principle of separation of church and state and was discriminatory as well. Specifically, he said that "prohibition against utilizing prayer to proselytize or advance any particular religion by sanctioning a preference for a particular set of beliefs. She was presumptively excluded because of a stated governmental preference for a different set of religious beliefs and viewpoint, albeit the beliefs of a large segment--if not the majority--of the population".
This means either the Board must eliminate prayer or invocations altogether, or it must allow anyone to give the prayer or invocation. This was the correct decision, in my opinion. The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors is a public institution. It is answerable to the people. It is not a private club (despite what one newly elected Board member says) for the supervisors by themselves. Therefore, invocations to this Board are public acts, and therefore the Constitution prevails.
I now only hope that the Board adheres to this decision and not try to challenge it in the courts.
Today was a big day today! Two important decisions that will improve the worth of livin gin this country happened. The more important of them was the decision by US District Court judge Dennis Dohnal that the refusal of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors to allow Wiccan Cyndi Simpson to give an invocation to the Board earlier this year violated the principle of separation of church and state and was discriminatory as well. Specifically, he said that "prohibition against utilizing prayer to proselytize or advance any particular religion by sanctioning a preference for a particular set of beliefs. She was presumptively excluded because of a stated governmental preference for a different set of religious beliefs and viewpoint, albeit the beliefs of a large segment--if not the majority--of the population".
This means either the Board must eliminate prayer or invocations altogether, or it must allow anyone to give the prayer or invocation. This was the correct decision, in my opinion. The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors is a public institution. It is answerable to the people. It is not a private club (despite what one newly elected Board member says) for the supervisors by themselves. Therefore, invocations to this Board are public acts, and therefore the Constitution prevails.
I now only hope that the Board adheres to this decision and not try to challenge it in the courts.
2003/11/13
Heart of Virginia Council Changes Names
The other good decision of today was the decision of the Robert E. Lee Council of the Boy Scouts of America, which serves central Virginia, to change its name to the Heart of Virginia Council. The council has had the name of Robert E. Lee for over fifty years. Many think of him as a valiant soldier. But first things first. He did choose to abandon allegiance to the nation that forged the path to democracy and freedom for its citizens in favor of one that enslaved a huge percentage of them. He was a brilliant general, so his siding with the Confederates ensured a bloody, violent war and guaranteed that he would be responsible for more American deaths than any other person in our nation's history, even Hitler and Tojo. Further, he is a symbol of racism to a good part of our population. Therefore, his removal from the name of the council was a good decision. General Lee's name belongs in history books and in museums, and certainly not in the name of a widespread organization for boys.
I therefore commend the Council on its decision. Now they need to go further. They need to defy the national Boy Scouts of America organization and declare a policy of non-discrimination against gays, atheists, and agnostics, as the Girl Scouts have.
The other good decision of today was the decision of the Robert E. Lee Council of the Boy Scouts of America, which serves central Virginia, to change its name to the Heart of Virginia Council. The council has had the name of Robert E. Lee for over fifty years. Many think of him as a valiant soldier. But first things first. He did choose to abandon allegiance to the nation that forged the path to democracy and freedom for its citizens in favor of one that enslaved a huge percentage of them. He was a brilliant general, so his siding with the Confederates ensured a bloody, violent war and guaranteed that he would be responsible for more American deaths than any other person in our nation's history, even Hitler and Tojo. Further, he is a symbol of racism to a good part of our population. Therefore, his removal from the name of the council was a good decision. General Lee's name belongs in history books and in museums, and certainly not in the name of a widespread organization for boys.
I therefore commend the Council on its decision. Now they need to go further. They need to defy the national Boy Scouts of America organization and declare a policy of non-discrimination against gays, atheists, and agnostics, as the Girl Scouts have.
Girl Scouts not all that good?
Unfortunately, the Girl Scouts do have their problems. A troop of them in Fairbanks learned how to kill and skin beavers and to prepare their meat for cooking. This is a practice that should have gone out long ago. We no longer need to kill animals to make a living. Beavers have as much right to life as we do. Animal killing and skinning is something we should abandon in favor of farming and other vocations. This may be the only life that people in Fairbanks know, but times are changing there as anywhere else. Fortunately, the national organization does not support this troop's activities.
Unfortunately, the Girl Scouts do have their problems. A troop of them in Fairbanks learned how to kill and skin beavers and to prepare their meat for cooking. This is a practice that should have gone out long ago. We no longer need to kill animals to make a living. Beavers have as much right to life as we do. Animal killing and skinning is something we should abandon in favor of farming and other vocations. This may be the only life that people in Fairbanks know, but times are changing there as anywhere else. Fortunately, the national organization does not support this troop's activities.
2003/11/11
Grocery Stores
One of the first things I had experience with when I was young was grocery stores. My mother would take me to the local Wegmans in Rochester, New York when she went shopping. I was most interested in the cereal. Later on, the big company in town, Kodak, bought the land the Wegmans was on, but it opened elsewhere, including one store that looked really futuristic for its time in 1960, with conveyers that took your groceries to the outside. Since then Wegmans has continued to expand, now offering stores where you can do all your grocery and department store shopping in the same place, somewhat suggesting Wal-Mart but much better.
I eventually moved to Richmond, Virginia. In Richmond, the top store is Ukrop's. Since I have been here, Ukrop's has meant short lines becausae there was always enough help available, good quality but expensive food, and large stores with a restaurant facility. The one thing I find objectionable about Ukrop's is their closing on Sunday. The large Ukrop's stores remind me of Wegmans. I hear that both stores rate highly among grocery stores throughout the nation. They have a lot in common: large stores offering more than groceries, a CEO whose name is the same as the store (Joseph Ukrop at Ukrop's and Robert Wegman at Wegmans), so is a family business, and a regional extent.
As of late Wegmans has been expanding southward, into Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Now for the first time they will open a store in Virginia, early next year near Dulles Airport. Do they plan to expand into the rest of Virginia? I notice that Wegmans is about five times as big as Ukrop's and offers the same excellent environment. It would seem to me that if they want to expand into the rest of Virginia, a good first step would be for Wegmans to buy out Ukrop's. That would put Wegmans stores all over the place near Richmond, and from there they can expand to western Virginia and the Tidewater area. They would not have to construct a lot of new stores. Further, it would mean I can get the good deli and bakery items, the restaurant, and the good service I get now with Ukrop's from Wegmans, and further, it would be open on Sunday. I say go for it, Wegmans.
One of the first things I had experience with when I was young was grocery stores. My mother would take me to the local Wegmans in Rochester, New York when she went shopping. I was most interested in the cereal. Later on, the big company in town, Kodak, bought the land the Wegmans was on, but it opened elsewhere, including one store that looked really futuristic for its time in 1960, with conveyers that took your groceries to the outside. Since then Wegmans has continued to expand, now offering stores where you can do all your grocery and department store shopping in the same place, somewhat suggesting Wal-Mart but much better.
I eventually moved to Richmond, Virginia. In Richmond, the top store is Ukrop's. Since I have been here, Ukrop's has meant short lines becausae there was always enough help available, good quality but expensive food, and large stores with a restaurant facility. The one thing I find objectionable about Ukrop's is their closing on Sunday. The large Ukrop's stores remind me of Wegmans. I hear that both stores rate highly among grocery stores throughout the nation. They have a lot in common: large stores offering more than groceries, a CEO whose name is the same as the store (Joseph Ukrop at Ukrop's and Robert Wegman at Wegmans), so is a family business, and a regional extent.
As of late Wegmans has been expanding southward, into Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Now for the first time they will open a store in Virginia, early next year near Dulles Airport. Do they plan to expand into the rest of Virginia? I notice that Wegmans is about five times as big as Ukrop's and offers the same excellent environment. It would seem to me that if they want to expand into the rest of Virginia, a good first step would be for Wegmans to buy out Ukrop's. That would put Wegmans stores all over the place near Richmond, and from there they can expand to western Virginia and the Tidewater area. They would not have to construct a lot of new stores. Further, it would mean I can get the good deli and bakery items, the restaurant, and the good service I get now with Ukrop's from Wegmans, and further, it would be open on Sunday. I say go for it, Wegmans.
2003/11/10
Lunar Eclipse
Yesterday I observed one of nature's more interesting phenomena - a lunar eclipse. I was attending a meeting in Baltimore on 2003 November 9, and left a little early to be back to Richmond by 1800 (6 o'clock) to set up my equipment for the eclipse. I got back at 1740 and ate dinner at a nearby McDonald's. Then I went over to the Science Museum, where a public skywatch was taking place. I got out my eight-inch Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope and aligned it with the stars. I then pointed it at the moon. What followed was an interesting night.
The Moon first entered the Earth's shadow at 1833.Gradually the moon lost more and more of its lit surface, and an eerie red took its place. An eclipsed moon shows up red, because it is reflecting all of Earth's lovely red sunsets, sunrises, and suntouches around the world. If you were on the Moon, you would see a total eclipse of the Sun by the Earth. The dark or night side of the Earth would show, and it would be surrounded by a red circle or ring where the sunrises and sunsets are. It would look like a ring of fire in the sky, and that ring would be shining its red on the Moon, making the lunar landscape red. We see this redness from the Earth when we look at a total lunar eclipse.
I took several pictures of the Moon by placing a digital camera right up to the eyepiece until the image shows on the digital display of what the camera sees. I then snap the shutter and this results in a picture. It is a fairly easy technique, and it produces good pictures. One visitor even wanted me to take pictures with her digital camera. I took it and she had a pictorial souvenir of the eclipse.
Later in the evening, the moon came out of the shadow of the eclipse. It was not a long eclipse. The Moon just barely came entirely inside one side of the Earth's umbra, or what might be termed the Great Shadow of Night (we were in it, too). There was one bright side to the disk of the moon, making it look as though it were not fully eclipsed. After the Moon started coming out of the eclipse, people wanted to see other things. It was a beautiful night, with only Richmond light pollution holding us back from seeing all the wonders of the heavens. I pointed the telescope at Mars. It was still a good object to observe, but it is not as easy to pick out markings on the planet now. Someone wanted to see Saturn. This is always a prizewinner at public skywatches, because of its unique appearance. So I told the telescope to point to Saturn. It went completely level, then rotated and pointed at some lights in a walkway near the Museum. It was too low to see. A little later, I saw it but when I tried to point the telescope at it, a light pole was in the way. It moved away from the light pole, and then I got the telescope on Saturn. Then I showed people Saturn with its rings through the telescope. They expressed great wonder at the planet, and some even said it didn't look real. But it was real. It was Saturn in the telescope, with its rings.
Given a clear dark sky, any skywatch held when Saturn and the Moon are both up will be a success.
Yesterday I observed one of nature's more interesting phenomena - a lunar eclipse. I was attending a meeting in Baltimore on 2003 November 9, and left a little early to be back to Richmond by 1800 (6 o'clock) to set up my equipment for the eclipse. I got back at 1740 and ate dinner at a nearby McDonald's. Then I went over to the Science Museum, where a public skywatch was taking place. I got out my eight-inch Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope and aligned it with the stars. I then pointed it at the moon. What followed was an interesting night.
The Moon first entered the Earth's shadow at 1833.Gradually the moon lost more and more of its lit surface, and an eerie red took its place. An eclipsed moon shows up red, because it is reflecting all of Earth's lovely red sunsets, sunrises, and suntouches around the world. If you were on the Moon, you would see a total eclipse of the Sun by the Earth. The dark or night side of the Earth would show, and it would be surrounded by a red circle or ring where the sunrises and sunsets are. It would look like a ring of fire in the sky, and that ring would be shining its red on the Moon, making the lunar landscape red. We see this redness from the Earth when we look at a total lunar eclipse.
I took several pictures of the Moon by placing a digital camera right up to the eyepiece until the image shows on the digital display of what the camera sees. I then snap the shutter and this results in a picture. It is a fairly easy technique, and it produces good pictures. One visitor even wanted me to take pictures with her digital camera. I took it and she had a pictorial souvenir of the eclipse.
Later in the evening, the moon came out of the shadow of the eclipse. It was not a long eclipse. The Moon just barely came entirely inside one side of the Earth's umbra, or what might be termed the Great Shadow of Night (we were in it, too). There was one bright side to the disk of the moon, making it look as though it were not fully eclipsed. After the Moon started coming out of the eclipse, people wanted to see other things. It was a beautiful night, with only Richmond light pollution holding us back from seeing all the wonders of the heavens. I pointed the telescope at Mars. It was still a good object to observe, but it is not as easy to pick out markings on the planet now. Someone wanted to see Saturn. This is always a prizewinner at public skywatches, because of its unique appearance. So I told the telescope to point to Saturn. It went completely level, then rotated and pointed at some lights in a walkway near the Museum. It was too low to see. A little later, I saw it but when I tried to point the telescope at it, a light pole was in the way. It moved away from the light pole, and then I got the telescope on Saturn. Then I showed people Saturn with its rings through the telescope. They expressed great wonder at the planet, and some even said it didn't look real. But it was real. It was Saturn in the telescope, with its rings.
Given a clear dark sky, any skywatch held when Saturn and the Moon are both up will be a success.
2003/11/04
The Election
I came into the voting booth about 2003 November 4 0620 in the morning. The big race that was talked about all over the place was the Bermuda District Supervisor race. So that was the one I was concerned about. I thought there would be other races, but no one ever talked about any of them. No TV show, no newspaper, no signs littering the landscape said anything about any other race. So when I walked into the booth I was surprised to be confronted with about 10 different elections! There were unopposed races for state assemblyman and senator. I was opposed to both unopposed candidates so I took the action that was suggested by someone at the Toastmasters convention I want to last weekend. The winner of the Humorous contest spoke with a title of "Vote for Me", where he said what he would do if he were running for Governor of Virginia. That someone suggested the idea of writing him in. The election PTB (powers that be) will be befuddled by this one person getting votes in several counties and cities. So I did it. I wrote him in on my ballot.
But there were other races. There was county treasurer, school board, county sheriff, and a couple of others. I did not know anything about these people, and some of these were contested. I just skipped them. I had wanted to know about these before the election. The hypermedia centered in this one race in Bermuda and perhaps a few others and completely ignored the others. I think they did the people of Chesterfield County, Virginia a disservice. It used to be that the local newspaper (Richmond Times-Dispatch) would list all these ballots, but I saw absolutely no sign of this in the past Sunday paper. Now maybe they squirreled it away under some ads, but I could not find it. I think from now on the hypermedia should quit harping about contested races and tell us about all the candidates who are running. The first duty of a citizen is to be in the know about who is running the government or who is running for running the government, and the media made it hard for the citizen to fulfill this duty.
I came into the voting booth about 2003 November 4 0620 in the morning. The big race that was talked about all over the place was the Bermuda District Supervisor race. So that was the one I was concerned about. I thought there would be other races, but no one ever talked about any of them. No TV show, no newspaper, no signs littering the landscape said anything about any other race. So when I walked into the booth I was surprised to be confronted with about 10 different elections! There were unopposed races for state assemblyman and senator. I was opposed to both unopposed candidates so I took the action that was suggested by someone at the Toastmasters convention I want to last weekend. The winner of the Humorous contest spoke with a title of "Vote for Me", where he said what he would do if he were running for Governor of Virginia. That someone suggested the idea of writing him in. The election PTB (powers that be) will be befuddled by this one person getting votes in several counties and cities. So I did it. I wrote him in on my ballot.
But there were other races. There was county treasurer, school board, county sheriff, and a couple of others. I did not know anything about these people, and some of these were contested. I just skipped them. I had wanted to know about these before the election. The hypermedia centered in this one race in Bermuda and perhaps a few others and completely ignored the others. I think they did the people of Chesterfield County, Virginia a disservice. It used to be that the local newspaper (Richmond Times-Dispatch) would list all these ballots, but I saw absolutely no sign of this in the past Sunday paper. Now maybe they squirreled it away under some ads, but I could not find it. I think from now on the hypermedia should quit harping about contested races and tell us about all the candidates who are running. The first duty of a citizen is to be in the know about who is running the government or who is running for running the government, and the media made it hard for the citizen to fulfill this duty.
2003/11/03
Longhorn: What I would like to see
The history of computers over the past decade or so has been a history of version after version of Microsoft Windows coming out. There was Chicago (Windows 95), and then Memphis (Windows 98?) and Cairo (Windows 2000) and Windows ME. Then Whistler (Windows XP). Each one came with its own set of conniptions. Some things became better. Others became worse. Many items have shifted from place to place, from the Control Panel to Explorer to the Desktop Menu in a dizzying circle. People can't find things because they have been shifted around so much.
In particular for Windows XP, I find that the Find utility has been dumbed down and is no longer as valuable. I had to download Effective File Search to get an adequate search replacement for Windows Find, which I find sometimes does not find when it should. Windows insists on throwing up these dumb huge icons in its Explorer windows, which means I can't see the items on the list but must shift through visually through a forest of symbols. You have to explicitly set for each Explorer window whether to bigicon the files or to list them in a detailed list. In one version I have seen, deleting a tray icon deleted a desktop icon and vice versa. That I don't like. It means I either have to give up my desktop's usefulness, or I have to give up the taskbar.
So what would I like to see in a new version of Windows? I want to see DOS maintained and all DOS programs runnable. I want a Find and an Explorer similar to previous versions, not to XP. I want the Classic interface to return as the default. Luna means you can't find what you are looking for. I want the default for Explorer to be to include the file extension. That is an important part of the file name. MyData.txt is different from MyData.doc is different from MyData.csv is different from MyData.xls. I don't want all four of them to appear in a list entitled "Mydata". That is mass confusion. Most of all I want it to support all types of programs including standard Java. I don't want .NET and only .NET, which is where Microsoft seems to be headed.
But I don't know if I will get these items. Most likely I will get an operating system that will discombobulate much of what I have, and will cost me more frustration and time than having to put up with the signs of aging of an older interface would.
The history of computers over the past decade or so has been a history of version after version of Microsoft Windows coming out. There was Chicago (Windows 95), and then Memphis (Windows 98?) and Cairo (Windows 2000) and Windows ME. Then Whistler (Windows XP). Each one came with its own set of conniptions. Some things became better. Others became worse. Many items have shifted from place to place, from the Control Panel to Explorer to the Desktop Menu in a dizzying circle. People can't find things because they have been shifted around so much.
In particular for Windows XP, I find that the Find utility has been dumbed down and is no longer as valuable. I had to download Effective File Search to get an adequate search replacement for Windows Find, which I find sometimes does not find when it should. Windows insists on throwing up these dumb huge icons in its Explorer windows, which means I can't see the items on the list but must shift through visually through a forest of symbols. You have to explicitly set for each Explorer window whether to bigicon the files or to list them in a detailed list. In one version I have seen, deleting a tray icon deleted a desktop icon and vice versa. That I don't like. It means I either have to give up my desktop's usefulness, or I have to give up the taskbar.
So what would I like to see in a new version of Windows? I want to see DOS maintained and all DOS programs runnable. I want a Find and an Explorer similar to previous versions, not to XP. I want the Classic interface to return as the default. Luna means you can't find what you are looking for. I want the default for Explorer to be to include the file extension. That is an important part of the file name. MyData.txt is different from MyData.doc is different from MyData.csv is different from MyData.xls. I don't want all four of them to appear in a list entitled "Mydata". That is mass confusion. Most of all I want it to support all types of programs including standard Java. I don't want .NET and only .NET, which is where Microsoft seems to be headed.
But I don't know if I will get these items. Most likely I will get an operating system that will discombobulate much of what I have, and will cost me more frustration and time than having to put up with the signs of aging of an older interface would.
Chesterfield County elections
An important election is that of Bermuda District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, USA, supervisor. This supervisor is one of a board of five supervisors, one for each of the districts in Chesterfield County. There are three candidates: an incumbent independent Jack McHale, a Democrat Ree Hart, and a Republican Dickie King. So which of these am I going to vote for?
National affiliation. That an Independent is the incumbent is a wonder to behold. That is in Jack McHale's favor. He's been at the job for 12 years! I tend to favor Democrats over Republicans but I take each case separately. Nevertheless this would have me favoring Ree Hart over Dickie King.
Developers. This is a serious issue. The developers come in here, plow down our trees, removing our landscape's beauty and destroying the habitat for a number of species, build houses and sell them via realtors to people who clog the highways with children who crowd the schools. The politicians talk about school problems. They talk about highway needs. No. That's not the main point. Both of these problems will be resolved if the developers are kept in check. Which candidate is best for doing that? Well, since I have seen all sorts of development here, that disfavors McHale, the incumbent.
Schools. Jack McHale has voted to decrease property taxes, and this supposedly hurts the schools. Only if the politicians let it. They can decrease property taxes and increase them somewhere else or cut back on other budget items. Further, the main problem is not taxes or schools but developers.
Roads. There are several needs for roads in the county, and traffic jams are on the increase. Limiting development is the best way to deal with road problems.
But the biggest issue for me is the refusal by the board to allow Cyndi Simpson, a Wiccan, to give invocations to the Board of Directors, while allowing Christian and Muslim religious leaders to give invocations. I want to vote for a candidate that will allow her to give invocations. Apparently Jack McHale has not been with the rest of the board on this. When I asked Ree Hart about it, she was wishy-washy about it and said she was Christian. So I am not certain about her. Dickie King appanretly thinks the Board is a private club for whom the invocations serve only it, not the rest of the community. Mr. King, the Board is a public institution. There is no privacy on the board. If you let a Christian give an invocation, you must let Ms. Simpson give one too. As far as I am concerned, Dickie King is out.
That leaves Jack McHale and Ree Hart. I feel that Dickie King's stand on the invocation issue is so extreme that the first priority is to defeat him. That means choosing which of Ree and Jack is most likely to win. From what I hear, Ree is. So I may vote for her. But in truth, this is a difficult decision to make between these two. I am sure either is capable of serving us well.
An important election is that of Bermuda District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, USA, supervisor. This supervisor is one of a board of five supervisors, one for each of the districts in Chesterfield County. There are three candidates: an incumbent independent Jack McHale, a Democrat Ree Hart, and a Republican Dickie King. So which of these am I going to vote for?
National affiliation. That an Independent is the incumbent is a wonder to behold. That is in Jack McHale's favor. He's been at the job for 12 years! I tend to favor Democrats over Republicans but I take each case separately. Nevertheless this would have me favoring Ree Hart over Dickie King.
Developers. This is a serious issue. The developers come in here, plow down our trees, removing our landscape's beauty and destroying the habitat for a number of species, build houses and sell them via realtors to people who clog the highways with children who crowd the schools. The politicians talk about school problems. They talk about highway needs. No. That's not the main point. Both of these problems will be resolved if the developers are kept in check. Which candidate is best for doing that? Well, since I have seen all sorts of development here, that disfavors McHale, the incumbent.
Schools. Jack McHale has voted to decrease property taxes, and this supposedly hurts the schools. Only if the politicians let it. They can decrease property taxes and increase them somewhere else or cut back on other budget items. Further, the main problem is not taxes or schools but developers.
Roads. There are several needs for roads in the county, and traffic jams are on the increase. Limiting development is the best way to deal with road problems.
But the biggest issue for me is the refusal by the board to allow Cyndi Simpson, a Wiccan, to give invocations to the Board of Directors, while allowing Christian and Muslim religious leaders to give invocations. I want to vote for a candidate that will allow her to give invocations. Apparently Jack McHale has not been with the rest of the board on this. When I asked Ree Hart about it, she was wishy-washy about it and said she was Christian. So I am not certain about her. Dickie King appanretly thinks the Board is a private club for whom the invocations serve only it, not the rest of the community. Mr. King, the Board is a public institution. There is no privacy on the board. If you let a Christian give an invocation, you must let Ms. Simpson give one too. As far as I am concerned, Dickie King is out.
That leaves Jack McHale and Ree Hart. I feel that Dickie King's stand on the invocation issue is so extreme that the first priority is to defeat him. That means choosing which of Ree and Jack is most likely to win. From what I hear, Ree is. So I may vote for her. But in truth, this is a difficult decision to make between these two. I am sure either is capable of serving us well.
2003/10/22
Rock Paper Scissors
Yesterday (2003 Oct 21) in Aaron Brown's Morning Papers, Aaron presented the Detroit Free Press with a story about the game Stone Paper Scissors. This I remembver well from childhood. Some other boy taught it to me. You put out your hand in the form of a stone, paper, or scissors, and the rule is that stone smashes scissors cuts paper covers stone. I played it a few times but did not think much of it.
Later on, when I was a teenager reading about game theory, I encountered the game in the classic book The Compleat Strategyst, by JD Williams. In the book JD shows how the "three active strategies" method leads to the optimal strategy of selecting each turn completely at random, with 1/3 odds on each of scissors, paper, and stone.
JD also showed some other games that are from the scissors-paper-stone family. These games are characterized by each of two players selecting an object from a set S (with replacement), at the same time without knowledge of what the other player is doing. If they select the same element, the game is a draw. If they select different elements, there is a relation > such that for each pair of elements from S, s and t, either s > t or t > s; one of them "beats" the other. JD describes another form of scissors-paper-stone by adding glass and water to S, and they describe a 7-element example in the form of two medieval damsels who each choose a knight from a set of knights and have these two knights joust with each other.
What is unusual about the article is that it describes the Rock-Paper-Scissors society, which had a recent meeting in the Detroit area. Another article appeared in a Fort Worth newspaper. (this link may go dead in a few days). I can't see how so many people can form an organization about a game whose solution was solved decades ago. How many ways are there of choosing at random an element out of a 3-element set? What I would want to do is to form a theory about all such games. I did some research on some of these, such as variations of the Stratego game (1 beats 2 beats… beats 9 beats spy beats 1, a part of a board game Stratego that was popular a number of years ago) and simple extensions of Rock-paper-scissors, for example, add a hammer and say that scissors cuts a hammer's head off, paper covers a hammer but a hammer smashes a stone to bits. If you solve the game, you get exactly the same strategy as with scissors-paper-stone: pick one of these three randomly and ignore the hammer.
Despite the devotion of some of these people to a game that has been settled years ago, at least in a game-theoretic sense, it was good to be reminded of an old childhood friend.
Yesterday (2003 Oct 21) in Aaron Brown's Morning Papers, Aaron presented the Detroit Free Press with a story about the game Stone Paper Scissors. This I remembver well from childhood. Some other boy taught it to me. You put out your hand in the form of a stone, paper, or scissors, and the rule is that stone smashes scissors cuts paper covers stone. I played it a few times but did not think much of it.
Later on, when I was a teenager reading about game theory, I encountered the game in the classic book The Compleat Strategyst, by JD Williams. In the book JD shows how the "three active strategies" method leads to the optimal strategy of selecting each turn completely at random, with 1/3 odds on each of scissors, paper, and stone.
JD also showed some other games that are from the scissors-paper-stone family. These games are characterized by each of two players selecting an object from a set S (with replacement), at the same time without knowledge of what the other player is doing. If they select the same element, the game is a draw. If they select different elements, there is a relation > such that for each pair of elements from S, s and t, either s > t or t > s; one of them "beats" the other. JD describes another form of scissors-paper-stone by adding glass and water to S, and they describe a 7-element example in the form of two medieval damsels who each choose a knight from a set of knights and have these two knights joust with each other.
What is unusual about the article is that it describes the Rock-Paper-Scissors society, which had a recent meeting in the Detroit area. Another article appeared in a Fort Worth newspaper. (this link may go dead in a few days). I can't see how so many people can form an organization about a game whose solution was solved decades ago. How many ways are there of choosing at random an element out of a 3-element set? What I would want to do is to form a theory about all such games. I did some research on some of these, such as variations of the Stratego game (1 beats 2 beats… beats 9 beats spy beats 1, a part of a board game Stratego that was popular a number of years ago) and simple extensions of Rock-paper-scissors, for example, add a hammer and say that scissors cuts a hammer's head off, paper covers a hammer but a hammer smashes a stone to bits. If you solve the game, you get exactly the same strategy as with scissors-paper-stone: pick one of these three randomly and ignore the hammer.
Despite the devotion of some of these people to a game that has been settled years ago, at least in a game-theoretic sense, it was good to be reminded of an old childhood friend.
Similarities between 2001 and 2003
Here is one of these conglomerations of coincidences that the laws of probability say must happen on occasion. The years 2001 and 2003 resemble each other a lot. Take for example:
Something catastrophic happened to the World Trade Center in September.
Something catastrophic happened to a pentagon-shaped building in September.
In 2001 the catastrophes involved 3 buildings; in 2003 the catastrophes involved 1 building.
The buildings in both years were near wide rivers, and all but one was near a harbor.
In both years there was a hurricane in the vicinity of the Northeastern US.
As with the coincidences between 1991 and 2003, especially regarding the reelection chances of President Bush, there are some notable differences as well:
The World Trade Center in 2001 was in New York; the one in 2003 was in Baltimore.
The pentagon-shaped building was the Pentagon in 2001, but was the World Trade Center in Baltimore in 2003, the world's tallest pentagon-shaped building.
The hurricane in 2001 was well off shore, while the one in 2003 hit Baltimore and in fact caused the catastrophe.
And the important one: The catastrophe (Planeattack) was caused by humans in 2001, and was caused by Nature (Hurricane Isabel) in 2003.
The World Trade Center in Baltimore was flooded up to 16 feet and forced to close for over a month; it just reopened today. The hurricane in 2001 was Hurricane Erin.
Here is one of these conglomerations of coincidences that the laws of probability say must happen on occasion. The years 2001 and 2003 resemble each other a lot. Take for example:
Something catastrophic happened to the World Trade Center in September.
Something catastrophic happened to a pentagon-shaped building in September.
In 2001 the catastrophes involved 3 buildings; in 2003 the catastrophes involved 1 building.
The buildings in both years were near wide rivers, and all but one was near a harbor.
In both years there was a hurricane in the vicinity of the Northeastern US.
As with the coincidences between 1991 and 2003, especially regarding the reelection chances of President Bush, there are some notable differences as well:
The World Trade Center in 2001 was in New York; the one in 2003 was in Baltimore.
The pentagon-shaped building was the Pentagon in 2001, but was the World Trade Center in Baltimore in 2003, the world's tallest pentagon-shaped building.
The hurricane in 2001 was well off shore, while the one in 2003 hit Baltimore and in fact caused the catastrophe.
And the important one: The catastrophe (Planeattack) was caused by humans in 2001, and was caused by Nature (Hurricane Isabel) in 2003.
The World Trade Center in Baltimore was flooded up to 16 feet and forced to close for over a month; it just reopened today. The hurricane in 2001 was Hurricane Erin.
2003/10/15
Borderline Plays
The post-season baseball play is starting to become interesting. The Chicago Cubs have not won a World Series since 1945, and the Boston Red Sox have not won any since 1922. Further, I was near Chicago, studying for my doctorate in mathematics, in 1969 when the Cubs led most of the way, only to falter to the Mets near the end of the season. So I started looking at the games. To me the most interesting plays are the borderline plays.
These are plays that are close to the borderline to being other plays. An example of what I mean is a batted ball that bounces just along the left foul line and stays fair. This could be a single. Just a little bit, an epsilon (mathematicians use this Greek letter to denote a small quantity) to the left and it's a foul ball. A single and a foul ball have vastly different effects on the game. So this is a borderline play. In this case the border is physical: the foul line. On the other hand, a long fly to center is caught by the center fielder. If it veers in any direction about a foot way from this, the center fielder would still catch it. So this play is "in the middle", and is not a borderline play.
There have been several borderline plays in the pennant playoffs. One Yankee hit a long fly ball that was caught at the fence by one of the outfielders for an out. A little epsilon higher, and this Yankee would have had a home run. In another case, with bases loaded and one out, a grounder was hit to the shortstop, who threw to second baseman, who threw to first. The throw to second resulted in an out, but the throw to first was just a microsecond too late. A run scored, nearly tying the game.
The biggest one happened though on the night of 2003 October 14. The first batter flied out, and the second (Pierre) doubled. Castillo hit a foul ball right on the boundary of the stands. Into the stands, and it's a foul ball, a strike. Within the ballpark, if fielder Alou could catch it, it's an out. Alou just barely made the catch, only to have a fan strike the ball and deflect it away. The result was an eight-run Marlin outburst. Here is the play by play:
Flyout 000 (0) 1
Double Juan Pierre 010 (0) 1
controversial foul ball deflected by fan
Castillo walk 110 (0) 1
Wild pitch advances Pierre 101 (0) 1
Rodriguez singled in run 110 (1) 1
Cabrera grounder errored by Gonzalez 111 (1) 1
Derrek Lee double scores two 011 (3) 1
Lowell walk intentional 111(3) 1
Conine sacrifice fly 011 (4) 2
Hollinsworth intentional walk 111 (4) 2
Double Mordecai scores all the runners 010 (7) 2
Pierre single scores Mordecai 100 (8) 2
Castillo popped out 100 (8)
My notation 010 (1) 2, for example, means no runner on first, a runner on second, no runner on third, one run scored in the inning, and two out. Now what would have happened had Alou caught Castillo's ball?
Flyout 000 (0) 1
Double Juan Pierre 010 (0) 1
Castillo fouls out to Alou 010(0)2
Wild pitch advances Pierre 001 (0) 2
Rodriguez singled in run 100 (1) 2
Cabrera grounder errored by Gonzalez 110 (1) 2
Derrek Lee double scores one 110 (2) 2
Lowell walk intentional 111(2) 2
Conine flyout ends inning 111 (2) 3
Now the Marlins score only two runs, and quite likely the Cubs would have won the game. But is that so? How do we know the Marlins would then be scoreless in the ninth and the Cubs in the eighth? Here the butterfly effect occurs. If there are a lot of borderlines, the system becomes unstable and unpredictable. The stepping on a butterfly in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas. For that matter, would Lowell have been walked if the fan had not interfered? With runners on first and second, two out, there is a play at any plate. What advantage is there in getting one at home, too? If Lowell had been pitched to, then maybe he would have hit and scored runners, and the Marlins would have won anyway.
So if you tiptoe over the borderline, the whole universe goes awry and may not seem what you think. In particular, it is not necessarily true that the fan's interference with the ball lost the Series for the Cubs.
The post-season baseball play is starting to become interesting. The Chicago Cubs have not won a World Series since 1945, and the Boston Red Sox have not won any since 1922. Further, I was near Chicago, studying for my doctorate in mathematics, in 1969 when the Cubs led most of the way, only to falter to the Mets near the end of the season. So I started looking at the games. To me the most interesting plays are the borderline plays.
These are plays that are close to the borderline to being other plays. An example of what I mean is a batted ball that bounces just along the left foul line and stays fair. This could be a single. Just a little bit, an epsilon (mathematicians use this Greek letter to denote a small quantity) to the left and it's a foul ball. A single and a foul ball have vastly different effects on the game. So this is a borderline play. In this case the border is physical: the foul line. On the other hand, a long fly to center is caught by the center fielder. If it veers in any direction about a foot way from this, the center fielder would still catch it. So this play is "in the middle", and is not a borderline play.
There have been several borderline plays in the pennant playoffs. One Yankee hit a long fly ball that was caught at the fence by one of the outfielders for an out. A little epsilon higher, and this Yankee would have had a home run. In another case, with bases loaded and one out, a grounder was hit to the shortstop, who threw to second baseman, who threw to first. The throw to second resulted in an out, but the throw to first was just a microsecond too late. A run scored, nearly tying the game.
The biggest one happened though on the night of 2003 October 14. The first batter flied out, and the second (Pierre) doubled. Castillo hit a foul ball right on the boundary of the stands. Into the stands, and it's a foul ball, a strike. Within the ballpark, if fielder Alou could catch it, it's an out. Alou just barely made the catch, only to have a fan strike the ball and deflect it away. The result was an eight-run Marlin outburst. Here is the play by play:
Flyout 000 (0) 1
Double Juan Pierre 010 (0) 1
controversial foul ball deflected by fan
Castillo walk 110 (0) 1
Wild pitch advances Pierre 101 (0) 1
Rodriguez singled in run 110 (1) 1
Cabrera grounder errored by Gonzalez 111 (1) 1
Derrek Lee double scores two 011 (3) 1
Lowell walk intentional 111(3) 1
Conine sacrifice fly 011 (4) 2
Hollinsworth intentional walk 111 (4) 2
Double Mordecai scores all the runners 010 (7) 2
Pierre single scores Mordecai 100 (8) 2
Castillo popped out 100 (8)
My notation 010 (1) 2, for example, means no runner on first, a runner on second, no runner on third, one run scored in the inning, and two out. Now what would have happened had Alou caught Castillo's ball?
Flyout 000 (0) 1
Double Juan Pierre 010 (0) 1
Castillo fouls out to Alou 010(0)2
Wild pitch advances Pierre 001 (0) 2
Rodriguez singled in run 100 (1) 2
Cabrera grounder errored by Gonzalez 110 (1) 2
Derrek Lee double scores one 110 (2) 2
Lowell walk intentional 111(2) 2
Conine flyout ends inning 111 (2) 3
Now the Marlins score only two runs, and quite likely the Cubs would have won the game. But is that so? How do we know the Marlins would then be scoreless in the ninth and the Cubs in the eighth? Here the butterfly effect occurs. If there are a lot of borderlines, the system becomes unstable and unpredictable. The stepping on a butterfly in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas. For that matter, would Lowell have been walked if the fan had not interfered? With runners on first and second, two out, there is a play at any plate. What advantage is there in getting one at home, too? If Lowell had been pitched to, then maybe he would have hit and scored runners, and the Marlins would have won anyway.
So if you tiptoe over the borderline, the whole universe goes awry and may not seem what you think. In particular, it is not necessarily true that the fan's interference with the ball lost the Series for the Cubs.
The Nine Dwarfs
I recently heard a debate among the nine Democratic challengers to George Bush for the Presidency in 2004. My opinion is that any of these candidates would make a good replacement for Bush for 2005-2008 and therefore my vote will go for any of these if they are nominated. I wanted to see which ones I liked best, though. I prefer a candidate who will get us out of Iraq and who opposed the war in the first place. However, all of these candidates opposed the invasion. That makes it hard to choose. After some deliberation, here is what I came up with, based on this debate only:
Carol Moseley-Brown: Good candidate, who seems to have some caring and personable characteristics, as well as having a solid platform. I give her a B.
Al Sharpton: Like his name. A sharp candidate, asking if Judy Woodruff is costing him time. Needs to have some ability to manange and lead a governmental body. C+.
Gen. Wesley Clark. Opposed the war in Iraq and has stands similar to the other Democrats. I would have liked to have seen him run as a Republican and challenge Bush for the nomination. This could have toppled Lichtman Key 2, improving chances of a Democrat winning the presidency. He may have charisma; if so, his nomination would topple Key 13. However, I felt his performance this night was somewhat lackluster. B
John Kerry. Generally good performance, agreeing with the others. B
Howard Dean. Somewhat disappointing. He definitely does not have charisma; his more liberal views attracted people to his meetups earlier. He got into an argument with Kucinich in which he said that we need to hold our troops in Iraq until they can handle themselves. Not what I would like to hear, but it's sad to say that we may have to do just that. B
Dennis Kucinich. Looks like a scrappy youngster, with two bright ideas. One is to pull all the troops home now from Iraq. OK if the US really needs them here, but we don't want an Islamic republic to be set up there. His other idea is really interesting: a Department of Peace. That would give the US a more congenial view to the world and help dispel some of the hatred that people have for Americans. However, absolutely no military can come into such a department, lest it becomes a 1984ian Ministry of Peace in a future Orwellian administration. A
Dick Gephardt. Performed much better than I expected. At one time he was able to rattle off a complete program for his presidency. He had good answers to most of the questions and to many of the statements of the other candidates. He is older than the other candidates, and I think the extra experience may be having an effect. A
John Edwards. I can see where he gets his charisma. But he seems to have a scrappy boy face, something that I did not like about either Don Beyer or George Allen in Virginia - but I voted against both of these for other reasons. His program is much like the others, and he had a few good answers once in a while. But he does not distinguish from the other candidates. B
Joe Lieberman. Another surprise. Much better than I expected. He reminds me of a history professor in both his appearance and manner. I liked his statement that any of the other 8 would make a good candidate against George Bush. He is somewhat more conservative than the other candidates, and I fear he may go in a Bush-like direction if elected, but in general I regard him highly. B+
In reviewing my reviews, I find that I am attracted to the older candidates - Gephardt and Lieberman. This may reflect my preference for the compromising Silent Generation (1925-1942) over the more strident Boomer generation (1943-1960). My feeling is that there is a crisis in the near future, that these two candidates would better handle it than any of the others.
Which one has the best chance against Bush? Probably Wesley Clark, but only if he is charismatic. The Lichtman Key model tells me that this is the only characteristic that matters in a challenging candidate. So my favorite candidates right now are Clark, Dean, Kucinich, and Gephardt, in about that order.
I recently heard a debate among the nine Democratic challengers to George Bush for the Presidency in 2004. My opinion is that any of these candidates would make a good replacement for Bush for 2005-2008 and therefore my vote will go for any of these if they are nominated. I wanted to see which ones I liked best, though. I prefer a candidate who will get us out of Iraq and who opposed the war in the first place. However, all of these candidates opposed the invasion. That makes it hard to choose. After some deliberation, here is what I came up with, based on this debate only:
Carol Moseley-Brown: Good candidate, who seems to have some caring and personable characteristics, as well as having a solid platform. I give her a B.
Al Sharpton: Like his name. A sharp candidate, asking if Judy Woodruff is costing him time. Needs to have some ability to manange and lead a governmental body. C+.
Gen. Wesley Clark. Opposed the war in Iraq and has stands similar to the other Democrats. I would have liked to have seen him run as a Republican and challenge Bush for the nomination. This could have toppled Lichtman Key 2, improving chances of a Democrat winning the presidency. He may have charisma; if so, his nomination would topple Key 13. However, I felt his performance this night was somewhat lackluster. B
John Kerry. Generally good performance, agreeing with the others. B
Howard Dean. Somewhat disappointing. He definitely does not have charisma; his more liberal views attracted people to his meetups earlier. He got into an argument with Kucinich in which he said that we need to hold our troops in Iraq until they can handle themselves. Not what I would like to hear, but it's sad to say that we may have to do just that. B
Dennis Kucinich. Looks like a scrappy youngster, with two bright ideas. One is to pull all the troops home now from Iraq. OK if the US really needs them here, but we don't want an Islamic republic to be set up there. His other idea is really interesting: a Department of Peace. That would give the US a more congenial view to the world and help dispel some of the hatred that people have for Americans. However, absolutely no military can come into such a department, lest it becomes a 1984ian Ministry of Peace in a future Orwellian administration. A
Dick Gephardt. Performed much better than I expected. At one time he was able to rattle off a complete program for his presidency. He had good answers to most of the questions and to many of the statements of the other candidates. He is older than the other candidates, and I think the extra experience may be having an effect. A
John Edwards. I can see where he gets his charisma. But he seems to have a scrappy boy face, something that I did not like about either Don Beyer or George Allen in Virginia - but I voted against both of these for other reasons. His program is much like the others, and he had a few good answers once in a while. But he does not distinguish from the other candidates. B
Joe Lieberman. Another surprise. Much better than I expected. He reminds me of a history professor in both his appearance and manner. I liked his statement that any of the other 8 would make a good candidate against George Bush. He is somewhat more conservative than the other candidates, and I fear he may go in a Bush-like direction if elected, but in general I regard him highly. B+
In reviewing my reviews, I find that I am attracted to the older candidates - Gephardt and Lieberman. This may reflect my preference for the compromising Silent Generation (1925-1942) over the more strident Boomer generation (1943-1960). My feeling is that there is a crisis in the near future, that these two candidates would better handle it than any of the others.
Which one has the best chance against Bush? Probably Wesley Clark, but only if he is charismatic. The Lichtman Key model tells me that this is the only characteristic that matters in a challenging candidate. So my favorite candidates right now are Clark, Dean, Kucinich, and Gephardt, in about that order.
2003/10/14
Pledge of Allegiance to be Heard
Today the Supreme Court of the United States decided to hear the case of the California doctor who did not want her child to hear the Pledge of Allegiance at her school because it contained the words under God. This case came to light around 2002 June, when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled that the doctor was correct: the Pledge in school is unconstitutional because it says under God.
It is official policy in this country, codified in the First Amendment, that church and state are to be kept separate. One of the reasons is that religious beliefs are not provable and thus are subject to utterance as decrees by the government in which ever way the government feels. For this reason, Islamic states don't work very well. Our country does not have a religion, contrary to what many on the Religious Right think. Besides, espousing a religion constitutes a form of discrimination against those with other religious beliefs. Assuming the existence of God in a public place makes atheists and agnostics into second-class citizens, as though they somehow don't belong. This is not the American way, as was demonstrated when Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of a bus.
So this is one ruling that should be supported by the Court. I did not have hope that the Court will support the 9th Circuit Court, but a piece of good news did come out today. Justice Antonin Scalia took himself out of the decision citing a conflict of interest. This makes a tie possible, and a tie upholds the 9th's decision. So to defeat the 9th requires 5 justices out of 8 - only 4 are needed to support it. So there is some hope that 4 justices will see the light and choose to support the ruling.
As far as the pledge itself? It does very well without "under God"; that was the original pledge. Or consider this version, which corresponds more with my personal philosophy of "Just add one.":
I pledge allegiance to the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the republic for which it stands:
One nation, beyond God, indivisible,
With liberty and justice for all.
Even better is this one by the singing group Relative Viewpoint:
I pledge allegiance to the people of this country
And of all the world
And to the republic which lends a hand.
One planet under peace,
With liberty and Justice for all.
Today the Supreme Court of the United States decided to hear the case of the California doctor who did not want her child to hear the Pledge of Allegiance at her school because it contained the words under God. This case came to light around 2002 June, when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled that the doctor was correct: the Pledge in school is unconstitutional because it says under God.
It is official policy in this country, codified in the First Amendment, that church and state are to be kept separate. One of the reasons is that religious beliefs are not provable and thus are subject to utterance as decrees by the government in which ever way the government feels. For this reason, Islamic states don't work very well. Our country does not have a religion, contrary to what many on the Religious Right think. Besides, espousing a religion constitutes a form of discrimination against those with other religious beliefs. Assuming the existence of God in a public place makes atheists and agnostics into second-class citizens, as though they somehow don't belong. This is not the American way, as was demonstrated when Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of a bus.
So this is one ruling that should be supported by the Court. I did not have hope that the Court will support the 9th Circuit Court, but a piece of good news did come out today. Justice Antonin Scalia took himself out of the decision citing a conflict of interest. This makes a tie possible, and a tie upholds the 9th's decision. So to defeat the 9th requires 5 justices out of 8 - only 4 are needed to support it. So there is some hope that 4 justices will see the light and choose to support the ruling.
As far as the pledge itself? It does very well without "under God"; that was the original pledge. Or consider this version, which corresponds more with my personal philosophy of "Just add one.":
I pledge allegiance to the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the republic for which it stands:
One nation, beyond God, indivisible,
With liberty and justice for all.
Even better is this one by the singing group Relative Viewpoint:
I pledge allegiance to the people of this country
And of all the world
And to the republic which lends a hand.
One planet under peace,
With liberty and Justice for all.
2003/10/08
Enforcing a contradiction
I am fortunate to have a workplace near a small national park. Therefore, I run at lunch hour into the park, something I have been doing since the late 1970s. I notice that recently they have been closing trails due to water damage, ice storms, and the like and I notice that when they do that they often do it inconsistently. That is, they will put up a sign saying that it is prohibited to enter that trail, but it will still be possible to get to the other side of that sign by other ways that have not been signed. My feeling is that I should not cross such a sign or tape from the outside to the inside, but there is nothing wrong with going the other way, from inside the "forbidden" area to outside. Indeed, if I can do this, there is something wrong with the signs. They are not consistent. If they are going to bar certain trails to the public, then they should do so everywhere and consistently, so that the only way to cross a sign from behind is to have crossed a sign from in front, defying its wording.
Isabel uprooted hundreds of trees in the park, so they closed most of the trails. But I notice that there is one way to enter the park without encountering a sign or tape, in such a way that the signs are inconsistent. But I found out that not only did they put the signs up inconsistently this time, but they are also enforcing it by having a ranger at some of the places. Yesterday, I ran into the park through a trail that had no signs on it. Someone in a truck stopped me and said it is open, but look out for the workmen fixing things up. I turned left towards the main road of the park, which was open. Today I ran to the same spot but turned right, towards the part that was taped off. There the officer was, asking me if I parked there, and telling me that I should be heeding the yellow tape. I told him that I saw no such signs or tape when I entered the park. I don't know if he got the message.
For inconsistent signs make me feel uneasy. The reason is that the sign that prohibits tell me that -T, where T is the statement that I may enter the park at that point, and that nothing at all tells me I can enter, which is T. This means they are enforcing T and -T, which is a contradiction. A contradiction implies any statement, so this implies that they can enforce any law or rule, even one that they dream up on the spot. That is Gestapo or 1984 law - a law of men rather than of words. They should put up signs that prohibit entering the area at all possible places, or they should tear them all down. But don't enforce a contradiction.
I am fortunate to have a workplace near a small national park. Therefore, I run at lunch hour into the park, something I have been doing since the late 1970s. I notice that recently they have been closing trails due to water damage, ice storms, and the like and I notice that when they do that they often do it inconsistently. That is, they will put up a sign saying that it is prohibited to enter that trail, but it will still be possible to get to the other side of that sign by other ways that have not been signed. My feeling is that I should not cross such a sign or tape from the outside to the inside, but there is nothing wrong with going the other way, from inside the "forbidden" area to outside. Indeed, if I can do this, there is something wrong with the signs. They are not consistent. If they are going to bar certain trails to the public, then they should do so everywhere and consistently, so that the only way to cross a sign from behind is to have crossed a sign from in front, defying its wording.
Isabel uprooted hundreds of trees in the park, so they closed most of the trails. But I notice that there is one way to enter the park without encountering a sign or tape, in such a way that the signs are inconsistent. But I found out that not only did they put the signs up inconsistently this time, but they are also enforcing it by having a ranger at some of the places. Yesterday, I ran into the park through a trail that had no signs on it. Someone in a truck stopped me and said it is open, but look out for the workmen fixing things up. I turned left towards the main road of the park, which was open. Today I ran to the same spot but turned right, towards the part that was taped off. There the officer was, asking me if I parked there, and telling me that I should be heeding the yellow tape. I told him that I saw no such signs or tape when I entered the park. I don't know if he got the message.
For inconsistent signs make me feel uneasy. The reason is that the sign that prohibits tell me that -T, where T is the statement that I may enter the park at that point, and that nothing at all tells me I can enter, which is T. This means they are enforcing T and -T, which is a contradiction. A contradiction implies any statement, so this implies that they can enforce any law or rule, even one that they dream up on the spot. That is Gestapo or 1984 law - a law of men rather than of words. They should put up signs that prohibit entering the area at all possible places, or they should tear them all down. But don't enforce a contradiction.
Globalization is a bad name
I hear that "globalization" of the world economy, and the enforcement of a free market, hurts poor people and countries, because all the goods go to the rich. There are protestors whenever globalization meetings meet, in Seattle, in Europe and other places. For a while I did not understand this. These people are apparently against freedom. Why should we oppose a free market? Then I read that globalization is not globalization after all. When "globalization" is used without adjectives, it means ALL globalization, or global globalization. However, the anti-globalization literature make it clear that they oppose it because the corporations benefit. If so, then it should be called "corporate globalization". If it is expressed in this manner, then yes I am opposed to it because I believe in freedom for all, not just corporations and their leaders. So don't say "globalization". Say "corporate globalization".
I hear that "globalization" of the world economy, and the enforcement of a free market, hurts poor people and countries, because all the goods go to the rich. There are protestors whenever globalization meetings meet, in Seattle, in Europe and other places. For a while I did not understand this. These people are apparently against freedom. Why should we oppose a free market? Then I read that globalization is not globalization after all. When "globalization" is used without adjectives, it means ALL globalization, or global globalization. However, the anti-globalization literature make it clear that they oppose it because the corporations benefit. If so, then it should be called "corporate globalization". If it is expressed in this manner, then yes I am opposed to it because I believe in freedom for all, not just corporations and their leaders. So don't say "globalization". Say "corporate globalization".
2003/10/05
Transgender Hurricane
I have been looking at the hurricane map to see if any more storms threaten our neck of the woods. Juan formed but then went north to hit Nova Scotia. Kate formed; she headed north, then northeast, then back to the southwest, and now west. She is heading first for Bermuda and then for the Carolinas. But the weather forecasters say this big beautiful too cold for this time of the year air mass over us is going to block Kate and make her go north, about now. So we don't have to worry about her.
Then there's Larry. He formed deep in the Gulf of Mexico near Honduras, and has been sitting there the past few days. Then they said he was going to cross to the south and get out into the Pacific, where it will climb up the coast as a Pacific hurricane. This means supposedly that he gets a new name, since the Pacific has their own system of hurricane names. Hurricanes have changed names before. Fifi changed her name to Orlene after causing thousands of deaths in Honduras. That was back when they named all hurricanes after women. Himmicanes did not come into existence until 1979. But when they did, that brought up the possibility that a hurricane will undergo a sex change. The latest attempt at this was Himmicane Cesar in 1996, which was going to become Chantal or something like that when he crossed Central America. But some other storm became Chantal instead, and so Cesar merely changed his name to Douglas. But now Larry wants to get into the Pacific. If so, the latest tropical storm in the Pacific is Olaf, near Cabo San Lucas. The next name is Patricia. So will Larry become Patricia? Will a tropical storm change gender? Is Larry transgender?
Then I read in the 12 noon hurricane report that if Larry retains tropical storm strength as he crosses Central America, he will retain the name of Larry in the Pacific, but if he dissipates (I suppose become depression or lower), then regains strength as a tropical storm in the Pacific, then it becomes Patricia, provided another storm hasn't appeared first in the Pacific. Besides, the latest predictions call for Larry to dissipate and stay dissipated. That's that with transgender hurricanes; apparently it won't happen.
I have been looking at the hurricane map to see if any more storms threaten our neck of the woods. Juan formed but then went north to hit Nova Scotia. Kate formed; she headed north, then northeast, then back to the southwest, and now west. She is heading first for Bermuda and then for the Carolinas. But the weather forecasters say this big beautiful too cold for this time of the year air mass over us is going to block Kate and make her go north, about now. So we don't have to worry about her.
Then there's Larry. He formed deep in the Gulf of Mexico near Honduras, and has been sitting there the past few days. Then they said he was going to cross to the south and get out into the Pacific, where it will climb up the coast as a Pacific hurricane. This means supposedly that he gets a new name, since the Pacific has their own system of hurricane names. Hurricanes have changed names before. Fifi changed her name to Orlene after causing thousands of deaths in Honduras. That was back when they named all hurricanes after women. Himmicanes did not come into existence until 1979. But when they did, that brought up the possibility that a hurricane will undergo a sex change. The latest attempt at this was Himmicane Cesar in 1996, which was going to become Chantal or something like that when he crossed Central America. But some other storm became Chantal instead, and so Cesar merely changed his name to Douglas. But now Larry wants to get into the Pacific. If so, the latest tropical storm in the Pacific is Olaf, near Cabo San Lucas. The next name is Patricia. So will Larry become Patricia? Will a tropical storm change gender? Is Larry transgender?
Then I read in the 12 noon hurricane report that if Larry retains tropical storm strength as he crosses Central America, he will retain the name of Larry in the Pacific, but if he dissipates (I suppose become depression or lower), then regains strength as a tropical storm in the Pacific, then it becomes Patricia, provided another storm hasn't appeared first in the Pacific. Besides, the latest predictions call for Larry to dissipate and stay dissipated. That's that with transgender hurricanes; apparently it won't happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)