GREATEST SHIRT EVER

It's true. And I have a lot of shirts.

AN INTERSTATE19 CLASSIC

 I originally posted this on a defunct blog I used to post on. No one has ever read it to my knowledge. One of the things I tend to geek out on is astronomy. I felt very strongly about Pluto and the argument as to its classification as a planet. I composed this after the decision to remove that classification. Enjoy!

Originally posted Sept 3, 2006

My Brief Remarks On The Fate Of Pluto

In March of 1985, I got sick. I had a severe case of the chicken pox. I was out of commission for two weeks. Over that period, I watched a lot of television. One program I watched over that period changed my life. It was a broadcast of Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey.” Not long after, CBS aired a five-part mini series based on James Michener’s novel “Space’ and then I was hooked. If it involved anything outside of our atmosphere, I wanted to know about it. I studied the stars, the planets, you name it. In June of 1985 my dad bought me a telescope, and armed with a stargazer’s book I had checked out from the library, and the current World Almanac (which contained astronomical data), I was off and running. We put the telescope together, and as dusk settled, the first point of light we set our sights upon turned out to be Saturn. How glorious it was to see the disk and those beautiful rings with my own eyes. I spent nearly every night that summer out in my grandmother’s front yard with my star book and my almanac waiting for other planets to rise in the east. I was obsessed with Jupiter, which would rise just after midnight. I waited patiently, stalking it, waiting for it to appear above the treetops. Meanwhile, gazing around and studying the surrounding stars and constellations. I learned about mythology and how it related to how the ancients studied the skies. Scorpious with the prominent red giant Antares, and Sagitarius were among my early favorites. To the north, I learned Draco, Andromeda, Cepheus, Perseus, and others. Man, what a wonderful summer that was. Is it any wonder why I consider 1985 to be the best musical year? I was so free and happy that summer, and astronomy was the biggest factor in that happiness.

Years went by and the intensity of my interest leveled off. Halley’s Comet in 1985-86 was probably the last great telescopic obsession I had. From there on it was sporadic. Mars at opposition is spectacular. Comet Schumaker-Levy 9 and its dramatic plunge into Jupiter (which inspired the Cure song “Jupiter Crash”) various comets. Over the years I got to know the stars and planets rather intimately. The only one I was never able to see was Neptune. However, no matter how little time I’ve spent with the telescope over the last 15 years, my interest in astronomy never faded. I still to this day consider myself a member of that enormous army known as amateur astronomers.

Let me put my love for astronomy this way: I spent a good part of 1985 studying the planets and learning the names and locations of stars and constellations. These almost became friends. This is a friendship that will last a lifetime. I can go outside on any given night and see something I recognize. I can greet that something, whether it be a star or a planet, by name. These friends will never leave me. It’s a lifelong relationship. There is something very comforting in that to me. And though they are constantly moving (on a scale humans could never comprehend) they’ve been this way since ancient times, and will be this way for at least my lifetime. It is what it is, and that’s always what it will be.

So imagine my horror upon discovering that the IAU (International Astronomy Union) is considering creating a definition of the word “planet” to for once and for all end the debate as to what is and what is not a planet. Since I’ve been alive there have been 9 planets. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. Once I got into advanced studies of astronomy and learned of the Pluto Debate (is it a planet or not?) I have fallen into the it’s not a planet camp, and it is a large camp, and the subject of much debate over the years. Nobody has ever clearly defined what makes a planet a planet. As the debate has drawn to a close, those in my camp began to feel that it was a matter of time before the IAU came to its senses and set the Solar System back to its true planetary population of eight. But nooooooo!!! The debate raged on, and recently, a rather large faction of astronomers proposed the following guidelines to define “planet”:
1) Object must be round
2) Object must be larger than 480 miles in diameter
3) Object must orbit the sun or another star

What? This means that not only would Pluto’s status as a planet be guaranteed, but so would its moon, Charon, which has a diameter of 737 miles. You’re thinking, “but it’s a moon, right?” Well, Pluto and Charon revolve around each other, with neither dominating the other, so it would be classified as a “double planet”, as well as a “pluton”, which is classified as a planet which takes more than 200 years to orbit the sun. Also, Ceres, which is the largest object in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter and has a diameter of 592 miles, would be a planet. UB313, nicknamed Xena by its discoverer (fortunately only the IAU can name celestial bodies) with a diameter of approximately 1500 miles, and is beyond the orbit of Pluto, would be the 12th planet and the 3rd pluton. Amazing. Astronomers say that within a few years, based on objects discovered in recent years in the far reaches of the solar system, we could have as many as 53 planets in our extended solar family. Ridiculous. This all sounds so politically correct. Don’t discriminate and let everyone be a planet. I’m so worked up over this I’ve come up with a solution of my own.

In order to define the word “planet”, here’s my proposal: The classic planets of the ancients get a free pass. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Obviously the two gas giants discovered since, Uranus and Neptune also qualify. That’s eight total. So here’s the important part of the rule: If another planet in your solar system has a moon that is larger than your planet, then you don’t get to be a planet. Ever. Jupiter’s moon Ganymede and Saturn’s moon Titan are both larger than Mercury, but Mercury was known to the ancients so it gets a pass. Call it a grandfather clause. Everything else in the Solar System, sorry. You’re not planets. Sorry, Pluto. You never should have been given that status in the first place. Ceres? Largest remnant of whatever used to lie, or whatever failed to form between Mars and Jupiter. No, sorry, application denied. Charon? You may be Pluto’s companion, but you’re no planet. You’re not even a moon. I’ve studied the Moon, I know the Moon. The Moon is a friend of mine. Charon, you are no Moon. All these other bodies they’ve discovered out past the orbit of Pluto? Please. Planets? Kuiper Belt objects at best. Perhaps someday a body will be discovered that is another gas giant, or even a rocky body that is Mars sized or larger. That would be the 9th planet, or Planet X.

So how does this all end? The IAU held its vote, and apparently took my advice. All this nonsense about planets being round and orbity is gone and Pluto is no longer a planet. It is now considered a dwarf planet. So there are officially 8 planets. Hallelujah! Common sense has prevailed. Some people are upset and are actually considering legal action to get the ruling overturned. (okay, maybe not, but it wouldn’t surprise me) I heard on the radio the day the vote was announced, some freak from some astrological society say that this was bogus because people who were scorpios would lose their ruling planet or some garbage like that. Let me ask you this, freak: What about before Pluto was discovered? Just go use your pre-1930 charts or something. Or break the bad news that your scorpio friends are now ruled by a dwarf planet. Deal with it. Incidently, I hate people who confuse the words astronomy and astrology, but that’s another topic altogether. Other people who are upset and opposed to this are just nostalgia freaks who like the idea of a planet named Pluto. Several blogs I’ve read decry how history has been rewritten and only God can decide what’s a planet blah blah blah. Hey freaks, no one knew this existed until 1930. Life will go on. It’s not like Pluto has ceased to exist. Even Ceres, the asteroid belt object mentioned above, was once a planet before being demoted and no one cared.

Even the widow of Pluto’s discoverer Clyde Tombaugh, Patricia, said she was “not heartbroken, but shook up” over the news, said that Clyde “was a scientist. He would understand they had a real problem when they start finding several of these things flying around the place.” My favorite quote of hers was about when Mr. Tombaugh made the discovery. “Clyde said, ‘well, it’s there. You can do what you want with it.” This does not diminish the accomplishment of Clyde Tombaugh, whom I now hold in even higher regard than before. It is still a remarkable achievement.

So I feel better about the whole thing, though much like recent American Presidential elections, I feel that this one ain’t over yet. More to come, but for now, 8 is definitely enough!

INTRODUCTION: Part Two

As I begin this adventure into publishing my thoughts on various political and social topics, I want to start off with a bit of disclosure about where I'm coming from. I grew up in a typically normal extended family. My parents divorced when I was four. I lived with my father, though I spent a lot of time with my grandparents on his side. I have scattered memories of my early childhood, but for the most part every one of them is good. Nothing worthy of therapy.

My father was a staunch conservative Republican. (Though not at all stereotypically conservative, as shall be revealed as this blog progresses.) He is largely responsible for shaping my political views, and especially on how I view the media's perception of politics. My father was an avid follower of politics and watched the news religiously. He'd watch the news in the morning before work, and the evening 6 o'clock news when he got home. Some of my earliest memories of watching television were of the nightly news. NBC Nightly News was his choice, with John Chancellor anchoring during this time. Much like the way Vin Scully represents the voice for many peoples' childhoods, (mine included to an extent), John Chancellor represents the voice of my youth as far as news is concerned.

Thanks to my father, I was blessed with an understanding of complex events. The more news I watched, the more inquisitive I became. The first major issue I can remember following was the Iranian Hostage Crisis in November 1979, where 52 Americans were taken hostage in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran for 444 days. I was eight years old. I remember the gas shortages, and specifically having the concept of even-odd gas days explained to me by my father. This was where you could only get gas on days designated by the last numeral on your license plate. The plate on my father's truck ended with an odd numeral, so we could only get gas on odd-numbered days. With energy issues, inflation and various other issues, these were trying times for much of the population. As my eyes were just opening to the world-at-large for the first time, these were not particularly shocking concepts to me. This was just my normal. I started to ask questions and have basic political concepts explained to me around this time. The first one I specifically recall was on a night where my father and I were waiting for our order in a fast food seafood restaurant in Barstow called Captain Hook's. There was a magazine rack, and on it was an issue of Time Magazine dated March 24, 1980.

 

I picked it up and asked my father what it meant, and he responded simply by saying, "it means inflation is winning." Granted, I had no idea what inflation or recession meant. I had no concept of these things. I could only extrapolate that if Jimmy Carter was President, and he was in conflict with inflation and it was winning, then inflation must be bad. And further, if inflation was indeed beating President Carter, then he must not be a very good President. Yes, this was filtered through the biased conservative opinion of my father, but give me credit for making these connections at such a young age. As each evening's news broadcasts counted up the number of days the Iranian hostages had been held, it didn't take much thought to figure that this also was bad. It was 1980. Even to an eight year old, things looked bad.

1980 was also an election year. This election ended up coming down to a decision between re-electing Jimmy Carter or electing Ronald Reagan. My father was clearly a Reagan man, therefore I also threw my support behind him as well. We all know how that turned out. Ronald Reagan would become my political icon. On January 20, 1981 Ronald Reagan was sworn in as the 40th President, and the 52 hostages were released. There was renewed optimism. And though 1981 and the prospect of turning ten brought on other interests, (music in particular) I maintained a keen eye on the political scene. Looking back, some revisionist types look upon the Reagan years as a bad time. I've had people ask me why I admire Reagan so much. The answer is fairly simple: He made people feel good about being American. And what's so wrong with that?

I love to hear people bash Ronald Reagan. When he passed away in 2004, there was an outpouring of grief so tremendous, it still makes me tear up just thinking about it. Unfortunately, by that point I had become so cynical about the media's bias against Republicans and conservatives, I wondered if any of it was sincere. Most pundits were pretty fair in assessing the Reagan legacy. I mean, the man died. Others, not so much. Some focused on some of the more controversial aspects of his life and presidency. His policies, Iran-Contra, even his personal life. Contrast that with the recent passing of Senator Ted Kennedy, a Democrat, where Chappaquiddick was rarely mentioned. I prefer to remember what I loved about Reagan. His charm, his warmth, and especially his wit. The way he handled the Soviets and the Cold War, Libya's "line of death," and especially his remarks following the tragic explosion of the Space Shuttle Columbia in 1986. In my mind, he was the last president who seemed, well, presidential.

I don't know where my disdain for media bias began, but it had to start in the mid-1980s.

My first taste of it is sort of my own personal conspiracy theory. One which has been debunked time and time again, but I cannot seem to let it go. As a teenager, I would read the newspaper and notice that when photos of various political figures would appear, the ones of conservatives seemed to be less flattering poses than those of their liberal counterparts. An ex-girlfriend who was in the newspaper industry just laughed when I suggested this, and even told her co-workers about my theory, which incited more laughter. It was explained to me how the process worked and how they really had no say in what photos were selected, and how it would take hours upon hours each day if such a conspiracy was to be acted out. I'm still not convinced, but so it goes.

Even though stock newspaper photos may not be the damning evidence I've thought it was, I've still spent the last several years really becoming irked with the liberal bias in the media. After watching the near-universal ass kissing of Barack Obama that began during his campaign in 2008, how the press fawned over every little thing he did, while all but ignoring any hint of controversy, I got the biggest kick out of reading an essay tucked inside of a comic book anthology I recently acquired,  Bloom County: The Complete Library Volume One: 1980-1982 by Berkeley Breathed. In it, Dean Mullaney and Bruce Canwell wrote the following:

"In his 1988 book, On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency, author Mark Hertsgaard argued - successfully, we might add - that during Ronald Reagan's two terms as President of the United States, the White House Press Corps 'functioned less as an independent than as a palace court press,' essentially giving the California Republican a ride free from objective scrutiny.

It can also be argued - again, successfully - that the media was more eager to maintain its access to the corridors of power than to investigate the policies emanating from those corridors. By doing so, in turn, they failed the country."

Isn't that weird? Because if you replace references to Reagan with references to President Obama, an argument can be made - successfully, I might add - that it's indeed an accurate statement. I actually laughed out loud when I read this. I thought, how does anyone have the audacity to make such a statement, when the exact same thing is going on during the current administration? The thing is, after looking up some of Mr. Hertsgaard's other works, he appears to be quite the progressive liberal. Aside from the Reagan book, he's also written two books about the environment, including one releasing in 2011. He makes regular contributions to such progressive institutions as the Huffington Post, The Nation (Chris Hayes, yuck!) and Mother Jones, all the while proclaiming to be an "independent author and journalist." What's really crazy is that I just now, five minutes ago, realized that I own one of his books. Haha! It's on the Beatles, and is actually a good read. See? I'm not biased at all!

What's interesting about this is how I believe I'm able to view both sides of an issue, which is something I find most media pundits are completely incapable of doing. Even though I have conservative leanings influenced largely by my father, it was a high school history teacher who taught me balance. I would be speaking about Mr. James Duarte from Barstow High School.

From the first minute I was in his class it was clear that I would be singled out. As a scared freshman, I fell for his annual trick of introducing himself as a different instructor, and I attempted to dart out of his classroom as the rest of the class just laughed. A wonderful first impression. But he was an effective teacher. It wasn't until years later that I realized that there was a certain liberal slant to what he was teaching us. I learned about a number of unconventional issues during the two classes I had with him. For instance, we were taught about the differences between capitalism, socialism and communism in great detail. We were encouraged to read books about various contemporary issues, but in hindsight there was an agenda to it. The two books I recall reading, the two highest scoring books on his list, were "THE FALLACY OF STAR WARS: Based on studies conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists" and a book about the Vietnam War, the name of which escapes me at this moment. My father, a Vietnam veteran, was not at all pleased that I was reading this book. I assured him that it was just for an extra credit assignment. He was concerned I was being brainwashed. This was the beginning of my understanding that there were two sides to every issue. What I learned from Mr. Duarte, perhaps inadvertently, was that in order to develop an educated opinion on any issue, you had to listen to and understand both sides of any single issue before attempting to discuss it. Otherwise you just look like an idiot. Or Keith Olbermann.

So going forward I will be doing just this. Discussing things that are on my mind. And I will attempt to discuss them as I have learned, with both sides of the issue in mind. As I approach 40, I owe much to these two men: My father and my high school history teacher. They have left an indelible mark on me that I'd like to think gives me a unique perspective on the world. Even though it does have a conservative slant. Deal with it.

INTRODUCTION: Part One

Greetings. Here is my blog. On this page I will discuss some of the things that really interest me or really get me worked up. Mainly I'll be discussing politics and music. Sometimes I'll throw in some other obscure item just because I feel like it. Political items will likely be largely drawn from my own perspective. Musical items will be mainly about music that I like. Everything else will just come along as I see fit. If you find the political articles interesting but don't care about the music, then skip the music articles. If you find the music pieces to your liking but don't care about the politics, then skip those. I'm not trying to push any agenda here, I'm just trying to engage in intelligent, thoughtful discussion. If you have anything you'd like to add, feel free. I'll be editing any correspondences that come through just because I can. I just want to weed out any morons. (hint: if you indignantly use any of the following terms, or any variation of - teabagger, faux/fixed/news/noise, lamestream media, etc - I would consider you to be a moron and not worthy enough to engage in intelligent conversation)

My intent was to begin with two musical articles and two political articles, along with a miscellaneous piece. Unfortunately, with the holidays bearing down and spare time in small quantities, I've decided to publish what I've got done. So for the time being, my political musings will remain in my mind or hurled verbally at the television. There will be plenty to come, hopefully.