Content, or lack thereof, goes here

Last night (25 November, 2008) saw me lose some amount of respect for Alex Trebek. One clue in the Double Jeopardy round amounted to asking for another name of “low-grade marble”. One person guessed “granite”. Obviously wrong. No one else guessed. The answer, Alex announced, was “limestone”, and then indicated that “granite, of course, is high-grade marble”. I’ve always known Alex to check his facts, get all the pronunciations of foreign names right, and be able to explain wrong answers. This time, he just couldn’t have been more wrong.

This November, California offers its residents twelve delectible ballot measures for their approval or rejection or apathy. Here they are, what the Dems say, what the Repubs say, and what I say.

1A: High speed trains. D: Yes, R: No.
A definite boon to California’s infrastructure. As someone who travels between San Francisco and Los Angeles a lot, I have to say it’s about time. Expensive, yes, but I’m happy that my taxes would go toward such a project. Me: Yes.

2: Farm animal confinement. D: Yes, R: No.
Requires farms to provide enough space for their animals to move relatively freely. Dissenters say current law already does this and thus it is unnecessary cost to the farmers and taxpayers. This is simply not the case. Me: Yes.

3: Children’s hospitals. D: Yes, R: No.
Provides lots of money to expand adolescent care in hospitals. Nay-sayers say this is advocated by the hospital lobby and would line the pockets of people who don’t need it. Invocation of children is for emotional effect. Me: Undecided.

4: Parental notification in abortion. D: No, R: Yes.
Requires parental notification and 48 hour waiting period before a minor can have an abortion. This one seems to come up every November. Me: No.

5: Nonviolent drug offenses. D: Yes, R: No.
Decreases sentences and increases rehabilitation. Prisons are overcrowded and expensive. This is not only the socially responsible thing to do, but saves a lot of money in the long run. Me: Yes.

6: Law enforcement funding. D: No, R: Yes.
I can’t understand their angle. Is it about gang violence? Overcrowded prisons? Trying children as adults? Whatever it is, it’s expensive and I’m not convinced it’s necessary. Me: Undecided.

7: Renewable energy. D: No, R: No.
One of only two measures the Dems and Repubs agree on. It’s opposed by just about everyone except the guy who wrote it. It’s by all accounts not the right way to go about promoting renewable energy. We need funding for research, not ridiculous requirements. Me: No.

8: Gay marriage. D: No, R: Yes.
Would outlaw gay marriage. Gay marriage was ruled constitutional by the California courts, but dismayed social conservatives thought it should be decided by the voters, not activist judges. Me: No.

9: Victims’ rights. D: No, R: Yes.
Unnecessary duplication of current laws. It would do little to improve the criminal justice system, and possibly even hurt it. By my estimate, this measure represents the biggest disparity in the rate of capitalization in the Voter Information Guide. This is money that can be put to much better use somewhere else. Me: No.

10: Renewable energy, again. D: no opinion, R: No.
While investment in renewable energy is important, this is also not the way to do it. This would give tons of money to already rich giant energy companies. If you’re a fan of T. Boone Pickens, vote yes. Me: No.

11: Redistricting. D: No, R: no opinion.
Of course the Republicans cannot officially have an opinion about a measure whose only result would be to benefit Republican politicians in a state where they are the political underdogs. This is a completely partisan issue, and I have to vote with my party. Anyone remember the governor’s hair-brained redistricting plan? Me: No.

12: Money for veterans. D: Yes, R: Yes.
The other measure in which the parties agree. California has had a home loans for veterans program in some form since 1922. This measure would ensure low interest rate loans for California veterans provided by the state. Me: Yes.

Happy voting!

These pictures are taken with a small digital camera looking through modest binoculars. Using the binoculars with the eye, sharp detail on the surface of the moon can be made out and the moons of Jupiter are easily seen when at large elongation. I have tried to capture these with the digital camera.

The setup consists of a Canon PowerShot SD1000 Digital Elph (7.1 Mpx, 3x optical zoom) and Nikon Action EX 7×50 binoculars, each on their own tripod. The camera is placed about an inch from the eyepiece of one of the binocs, zoomed all the way in and set to marco mode. I use the self-timer to ensure steadyness on long exposures.

Some issues I’m having: To shoot the moon, I need a much shorter exposure than what it gives me automatically and to shoot Jupiter’s moons I need the longest exposure possible. I’m pretty sure I can manually set the exposure on the camera but I’m too lazy to look in the manual. I’m also having trouble getting the whole moon in focus at once but I think I can remedy this by keeping the camera’s focus locked and manually focusing with the binoculars, or manually focusing the camera if that can be done. (Again, too the manual is too far away from where I’m sitting.)

The pictures are taken roughly on 0:30 UT 11 October 2008 at 42.4°N 72.5°W.

In case you did not watch the debate tonight (and honestly I tuned most of it out), I am honor-bound to tell you about what turned out to be the most entertaining part of it. Senator John McCain, self-proclaimed earmark maverick, accused Barack Obama of being completely immersed in the pork-barrel culture of Washington. Specifically, he noted a $3 million earmark for an “overhead projector” for a planetarium.

I do not know specifically what he was referring to, but I can make a few educated guesses. The planetarium in question was probably the Adler Planetarium in Chicago (a designated historical landmark), and the “overhead projector” was probably their new fulldome digital video system.

Someone who knows more about planetarium science than I should correct any mistakes in what I say, because this is all based on old and unreliable knowledge. But here goes anyway. Planetariums use one of two projection systems, a Zeiss type system or a digital projection (fulldome) system. Zeiss projectors have been around with their same basic design since 1924 and are used almost ubiquitously. Digital projectors started coming on the scene only within the last decade. While Zeiss projectors can show an extremely detailed and accurate view of the night sky, they are limited by their basic design and can also be a pain to use. Digital projectors, which I guess technically are overhead projectors, are infinitely more versatile but are exceedingly expensive. The Adler Planetarium is one of only a handful of planetariums use a digital system. (They actually have one of each.)

$3 million for an overhead projector that can show incredible detail of the night sky from any perspective or time, show clear and sharp digital video, and serve as a sophisticated educational and scientific tool seems like a good investment of taxpayer money to me. In paying my taxes, I’m happy to support this kind of project. Too bad John McCain thinks differently.

By the way, I know it’s “planetaria”. Don’t waste comment space.

O.J. Simpson, the one-time Heisman-winning, Hall of Fame footballer, was found guilty of a plethora of charges related to an armed burglary and kidnapping in Las Vegas, and could spend the rest of his life in prison. This comes 14 years after allegedly killing his wife and a friend of hers. A jury found him not guilty for those crimes (although a civil court found him guilty), and he was acquitted. Thirteen years after that trial, he is finally convicted set to be put behind bars for a very long time.

The New York Times article describing the case made the point that no one cared this time around.

“Instead of millions of Americans obsessively stewing over the daily details in the case against him, a city block set aside for media tents was largely empty for the four-week trial. Mr. Simpson’s comings and goings were barely noticed.”

“Public interest in the trial was minimal. Seats in the Las Vegas courtroom set aside for the public were vacant most of the time.”

I lived in Los Angeles during the time of the murder trial, and it was all the media would talk about for weeks. The article mentions the possibility that the LA jury got it right, but the overwhelming opinion at the time was that he was guilty. Even the Los Angeles Times, which had been at the center of the media frenzy in 1995, notes the lackluster interest this time around.

Even though more than a decade late, and on different charges, the feeling among many, including myself, is that justice is finally served.

I, as I’m sure many people are, am very pleased that young children are being encouraged to participate in the political process. For 3rd graders, extra credit is a great way to do that. But for the rest of us it is not. Engagement in the political process should not be seen as something extra, but as something obligatory. We should not be enticed to be involved or congratulated when we are. Political involvement should be seen and felt as necessary and obvious, not extraordinary and rare.

I’m all in favor of buying in bulk. And I’ve seen this one for many years but it’s never struck me until now. Family-size shampoo bottles. Calling a product whose sole use is in the shower “family-size” is disturbingly suggestive.

Before my morning reading the New York Times was rudely interrupted by a fire alarm in the dining hall (and it’s been raining outside, go figure), I read two articles that highlight the ever-political nature of space exploration.

The first describes China’s launching three astronauts (or “taikonauts“) for a three-day mission, primarily to perform the first Chinese space walk. Concerns are raised in the article that China’s fledgling space program could surpass NASA by landing people on the Moon by 2020. First of all, we’ve already been there. The first US space walk was in 1965 (the first successful one shortly thereafter) and the first Moon landing was in 1969. Beating us to the moon in 2020, when it would be China’s first time and NASA’s fourth, would be sort of like China barely preventing itself from being lapped four times. But 1969 was a long time ago, a time when most people in the current space program were watching the Moon landings in grade school or behind TV dinners on black and white televisions. It’s a new race now.

As with the Olympics, I would presume China hopes this venture will increase their national prestige. I have one fear though; a fear I think is justified and with precedent. China, as was the case with Russia, I believe would be far less cautious than NASA when it comes to their pilots’ safety. In the Cold War era space race, the USSR sent up failed spacecraft after failed spacecraft, often accidentally killing scientists and engineers working on the mission. China has demonstrated what they are willing to do, the human sacrifice they are willing to endure, in the name of national glory. We heard this story many times with regard to Olympic athletes, and I think it’s fair to say we can expect no less from their space program. It took a tragic accident for NASA to emphasize safety more than anything else, a lesson Russia seems not to have learned. I can only hope China follows in our footsteps, not theirs.

The second article discusses the tenuous legislative agreements that have allowed NASA astronauts to fly on Russian Soyuz spacecraft to the International Space Station. The details of the matter aside, politics completely dominate the conversation about a project designed to foster cooperation in space exploration.

These kinds of stories make me think about the necessarily interwoven nature of space exploration and politics. Has human space exploration ever been about the science? Or was it always politics? 50/50? 30/70? 10/90? As a scientist, for me it all comes down to the relative worth of the science. With regard to landing people on the Moon and Mars, the question for me is whether the scientific benefit of having humans (as opposed to robotic landers and rovers) outweighs the risks and the costs. Perhaps space exploration in the United States is moving into a new political realm with private corporations and individuals getting in on the game. If politics and government agencies (especially the military) not nearly as involved, it’s possible human space exploration could turn more towards science and away from politics. Wouldn’t that be nice?

I highly recommend that you read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/education/08students.html

I will summaraize some of the key points. There is historically and currently some controversy over students voting in the state of their university instead of their home state. Some students have been scared away by government statements saying that registering to vote in the state of their university can disqualify them for scholarships, tax dependency, shared vehicle registration and insurance, etc., all of which are blatant lies.

Students, who vote overwhelmingly as Democrats, have been targeted as a key demographic by the Obama campaign and grassroots voter registration organizations, and for good reason. But state governments of Virginia and South Carolina, key states for Republicans in any election, have (illegally) tried to subdue student voter registration.

Most people in this country don’t vote at all, so exploiting a largely untapped demographic could potentially influence an election. It seems to me anyone in the business of voting and elections should be thrilled that people, especially young people, want to register to vote, and should do anything they can to help out. But revelations about Virginia and South Carolina indicate otherwise.

I’ve definitely thought about this issue myself. I’m registered to vote in California, as opposed to Massachusetts, even though I spend the vast majority of my time in Massachusetts in school. In the past 12 months, I’ve spent less than 2 of them in California. Since my vote for President won’t make much of a difference in either state, I decided to remain a California voter because California is constantly at the leading edge of many controversial issues (even compared to Massachusetts), and in these cases my vote counts for more.

I strongly encourage everyone reading this to register to vote if they are not already, and when doing so think about where your vote might count more. Honestly, a vote for President in Massachusetts probably won’t make a difference whether Democratic or Republican, so consider registering in your home state. Most states make registration and absentee or vote-by-mail voting extremely easy; either they can be done in the course of a few minutes online or you just have to print out a simple form and mail it back to your state. Do it now though, as it takes time to process and get an absentee ballot sent to you. A few minutes of your time today will influence the next four years of your life, so take the few minutes today.