Archive for November, 2007

« Previous Entries

Good to know: Planets Earth and Venus are practically twins

Okay, I guess I’m not understanding enough about how scientists, particularly astronomers, think — because I just read a couple of stories where they announced that Earth and Venus are so similar that they could sort of be thought of as twins.

That’s really quite a stretch for me to figure out. Even with all the talk of global warming, Earth’s normal surface temperatures don’t come close to those on Venus. On Venus, “surface temperatures exceed 800 degrees Fahrenheit, hot enough to melt tin and lead,” according to an article I was just reading. The atmosphere on Venus is almost pure carbon dioxide and is about 100 times as dense as on Earth.

As far as I can tell from reading the story (I’m no rocket scientist — but, coincidentally, my son is!), Earth and Venus are similar in size and Venus shows signs of once possibly having Earth-like oceans. Venus also apparently has lightning flashes going on, as well as unexpected temperature swings between the “day” and “night” sides of as much as 70 degrees F.

All pretty interesting stuff. The story I’ve linked to relates to recent papers and meetings by scientists studying data from Venus Express, a satellite we sent to orbit the planet and which has been sending back data now for over a year.

Whether the two planets share a common past and are anything like “twins,” the scary task scientists face is trying to decide whether, how, or when Venus reflects Earth’s future. God help us all if some of the things we’re doing today will lead our descendants of the far distant future to an Earth like present-day Venus!

Ah, well, what do I know? I’m just a guy who reads the papers.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Puzzled by ‘SEO’ or ‘SERPs’? Here’s a useful company with a useful glossary

When I first started my website adventures on the Internet, I noticed the abundance of acronyms — which makes sense, because the whole of computer “geekdom” is peppered with acronyms. I didn’t know a “SERP” from a Dallas SEO, a CSS from a Google Death Penalty (not good!). I’m still working on the abundance of acronyms.

But I recently discovered a useful company, Apogee Search, which offers among other great services an online GLOSSARY explaining just about all the SEO (Search Engine Optimization) acronyms and terminology you might want to know.

Apogee Search started in 2001 and has become one of the 25 largest Search Engine Marketing firms in the world. Which means this: If you want professional help “optimizing” your blog or other website to maximize your traffic and business potential, these guys can help.

The glossary is especially interesting. I’ve actually had one site which suffered a “Google Death Penalty,” I think. (Go ahead and click; you know you want to know what it means) I know at one point the site had pages indexed in Google, then suddenly didn’t. No matter what I did with that site during the next year in which I still owned the domain, it never again showed any pages listed in Google. (I felt a bit sad, almost offended, as though God had bid me goodbye and left my life.) So go to their glossary and look around for yourself. If you’re at all interested in learning about Internet presence and traffic, you’ll learn something there.

Then take your website to the next level with Apogee Search’s many services.

Oh, yeah — a SERP sounds like it might be something cool to eat on a hot summer day. Nope. It’s an acronym for “Search Engine Results Page.” (And I suppose a “Dallas SEO” is search engine optimization that has something to do with Dallas Texas?)

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Ohmygod — Is Britney pregnant again or not? Who knows? Who cares??

I don’t know whether I’ll be able to handle the uncertainty and sleep nights ever again: Conflicting reports from “reliable” entertainment sources say Britney Spears (everybody’s candidate for mother of the year) is pregnant again — or not.

Are you as fed up with such silliness as I am? Maybe it’s an age thing. I’m just too old to care about any so-called celebrity who is younger than my own daughter.

But if she WERE my own daughter, I guarantee you she would be a better mother, and as judgmental as it sounds to me, probably a better person. I don’t know Britney Spears (though we have very similar last names) anymore than you do. So I have no right to presume to judge her. The only thing you and I know about her comes from the “entertainment media,” which is so highly manipulated by celebrities and their various business interests there’s no telling what’s true and what’s false.

Leave the young woman alone, would be my best advice. Hope for her to get some stability and guidance in her life, for her own sake and for the sake of the two children she already has.

Ah, well, what do I know? I’m just a guy who reads the papers.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Not exactly news — presidential wannabes flash their star power

The day after Barack Obama’s campaign announced Oprah Winfrey was campaigning for him, Barbra Streisand surprised no one with a public statement endorsing Hillary Clinton. Well, according to reports, there was a small element of surprise involved because Streisand earlier in the year gave money to the Clinton, Obama, and Edwards campaigns

Thank God, we finally have the big-name, big-money celebrities lining up so we know who we should vote for! That means a lot to me, doesn’t it to you?

Get serious. Celebrities are simply people — people who have good ideas, bad ideas, and who may be well-informed or spectacularly uninformed. The bad news is this: They have the audience and the money to get more attention than you or I, whether their ideas are good or bad.

Don’t accept a candidate because of a celebrity endorsement. Don’t reject a candidate who lacks celebrity endorsements. Accept or reject candidates based on YOUR understanding, not celebrity endorsements. Get busy and do your homework. Lord knows there is plenty of time to examine the candidates and the issues between now and the 2008 presidential Election Day. (But that’s a whole other story for another time!)

Ah, well, what do I know? I’m just a guy who reads the papers.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

The sky is falling! Atheistic film is out to destroy our nation — NOT

People of faith everywhere should start to quake and even quiver, because apparently the atheists are out to destroy America, starting with the evil movie “The Golden Compass,” which will destroy the faith of our children.

At least that’s the fear a well-meaning evangelical Christian recently expressed in our local newspaper. To read this gentleman’s comments is to return to those days of yore when demons were hiding under each bush and bed to grab unwary innocents and plunge them into eternal fire.

In the real world, good readers, it’s just a movie. It’s based on a book which has been around for a decade or more. And according to one recent BBC story, the movie has been criticized by some because it isn’t as anti-religious as it should be!

I’ve been around long enough to know at least two things about the outrage and controversy which surrounds anti-religious or anti-Christian films: 1) the films rarely change ANYONE’S faith or morals for good or bad, and, 2) earnest “believers” who protest or boycott such films generally make them a success at the box office. Back in the 1980s (1990s?) “The Last Temptation of Christ” hit the theaters amid dire warnings from religious folks that it was a blasphemy which would lead a generation away from God. Today, most people can’t even remember who played Jesus in the film. Big deal.

Please don’t base your faith on what a novelist or movie “teaches” you. Base your faith on thoughtful considerations and genuine, personal commitments.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Don’t speed and you probably won’t get a speeding ticket

There’s been a bit of a fuss locally in the “Readers’ Letters” section of our local newspaper over police tactics used to catch speeders. Namely, one very upset woman wrote earlier this month that she was ticketed for speeding based on the use of “eye in the sky” tactics: a Missouri State Patrol aircraft tracked her as speeding. Her big complaint was that no highway signs were posted in the area warning about aircraft being used to monitor speeders.

So, as one reader following up on the original letter so aptly suggested — if you speed you will get a ticket; if you don’t speed, chances are you won’t get a speeding ticket. Which, in most cases is true. The exception would be, perhaps, if police were using faulty monitoring equipment (speed guns, whatever). But that probably would be an exception.

I am reminded of one of the more fun categories on “Jeopardy”: stupid answers. Those are questions which clearly state the answer in the question, i.e., “If you are caught speeding, what kind of ticket will you get?”

Don’t speed and you probably won’t get a speeding ticket. Duh.

Ah, well, what do I know? I’m just a guy who reads the papers.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Supreme Court to look at Second Amendment and D.C. gun law

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments regarding the Washington, D.C., extremely strict gun law. At the same time, the High Court is expected to rule about the exact meaning of the Second Amendment — does it refer to individuals’ gun ownership rights or does it refer only to the broader state interest in maintaining a militia?

Let me be perfectly clear on how I feel about guns, gun laws, etc.: The United States would be a better country if we could somehow confiscate about 90-99 percent of all handguns.

We can’t do that, of course. The logistics would be exponentially worse than the right-wingers’ call to gather up all illegal aliens and ship them back “across the border” (ANY border, I guess).

Since we can’t confiscate most handguns, I suppose the next best thing is to regulate ownership and even handling of handguns, i.e., various security and safety regulations about storing and using handguns. This, too, is nearly impossible. I am aware, of course, that many people see gun ownership as almost a “divine right” of U.S. citizenship. I don’t. Simply put, the Second Amendment clearly links gun ownership with maintaining a militia. How many of us are ready to respond as a militia, grabbing our guns to march off in defense of the village?

Get serious here. Very few good things come of private handgun ownership, outside of careful, safe target shooting and perhaps some hunting. Most often, handguns lie around unused, or are picked up and misused by kids, or by family and friends against each other.

I’m 60 years old and I’ve never owned a handgun. I have lived in some very dangerous settings where I could have faced harm to myself and/or my family — and not once did I have or need a handgun.

I especially love the arguments people use for “conceal/carry” gun laws: If the bad guys know any potential victim they meet may be “packing heat,” it will deter violent crimes, or something like that. Then I notice in most states which allow concealed weapons, most businesses, schools, churches, government buildings, and other public venues BAN carrying firearms. Which leaves us with this reality: People eager to carry concealed firearms to fell “safe” generally end up carrying them in the trunks of their cars, not having anyplace to go where they can carry the guns.

Ah, well, what do I know? I’m just a guy who reads the papers.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Candidate Thompson answers religion questions in predictable fashion

I found this account of Fred Thompson’s answer to questions about religion in government interesting. Interesting, but very predictable.

The encounter took place following Thompson’s appearance at a South Carolina gun show. He wasn’t thinking about religion and politics, but he certainly proved that he was able to stick to the required rhetoric — no one gets elected president in America if he denounces this country’s sort of watered down “civil religion” version of “Judeo-Christianity.”

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say this: American voters would NEVER elect a candidate who openly said something like: “I believe our Constitution calls for a strict separation of church and state and I, personally, am an [agnostic, atheist, Deist, Muslim, Buddhist, any other openly non-Christian, non-Jewish, non-theistic religion].”

I, personally, am a “mainline Christian,” with strong evangelical leanings, for what it’s worth. I believe that the phrase “separation of church and state,” though found no where in the Constitution, expresses the essence of what our Constitution requires.

But more importantly, the average American voter, I strongly suspect in very unscientific fashion, THINKS he is a Christian of one sort or another. And many of them consider themselves openly “fundamentalist” or “evangelical” — meaning that they espouse a completely literal understanding of the Bible and want to believe our presidents do, too.

Ah, well, what do I know? I’m just a guy who reads the papers.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Long presidential race seems more like living in ‘fantasy land’ than ever before

Okay, I am now at an age where I can say something like this: Presidential races in America are 99% B.S. — and the current so-called “race’ may be more B.S. than any I remember.

The first presidential race I can dimly remember was for the 1952 election. I was a small child at the time (first grade? second grade, maybe?), and as a good boy from a solid Republican family, I joined my peers in shouting “I Like Ike.” (To be honest, as a nearly life-long Democrat, I might STILL say “I Like Ike” if he were alive and running today, just because I think he was a remarkable individual.)

The first presidential election which had any personal impact on me was the 1960 race. I was in junior high (what they now designate as “middle school”) and I was in the “accelerated” or “gifted” students classes. We got into some serious debates about missiles, the Cold War, the Soviet Union, labor unions, etc. I was a supporter at this point of JFK.

The first presidential election in which I voted (you had to be 21 then, not 18) was 1968. I was deeply into a religious fundamentalism/political conservatism of the time. I made the one absolutely most regrettable presidential vote of my life. Yes, I voted for Nixon. I almost went for Hubert Humphrey, but at the last minute I let my Bible college buddies convince me that a vote for Nixon was a vote for God and righteousness in the White House.

Yeah, right.

Since that election, I have voted consistently Democratic for the presidency, though I have voted for a few Republicans on the local level, mostly people I knew or had met personally.

Which brings us to the current presidential hoedown. Swing your partners, ladies and gents, for the world will end if we don’t start presidential elections, say, a year or two ahead of the actual election day. Our nation and our world will crumble if we can’t have a media-anointed “winner” in each of the major parties before January or February 2008. (Here’s a very useful guide from the federal government which gives a nice overview of issues and events related to the 2008 election. Check it out.)

Of course, we all know that it’s going to be Hillary Clinton against Rudie Giuliani, right? And I’ve posted a couple of times in recent months that I think Hillary is unelectable, primarily because she is 1) a woman, and 2) the wife of Bill Clinton. I simply don’t think the “real” electorate out there, all the closed-mouthed grumps who avoid polls and opinion pages, is simply not ready to elect a woman president. And, many of the same folks would be outright opposed to having Bill Clinton as “First Spouse” or whatever.

But, I could be wrong. If it comes down to Clinton and Giuliani, Clinton might have the simple edge that she’s 1) actually done something as a political leader in the Senate, and, 2) has a last name folks can spell.

Ah, well, what do I know? I’m just a guy who reads the papers. (Side note: For those of you keeping track who might wonder about my short presidential history — I turned 60 in August.)

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

‘Great White Way’ may be dark for the holidays

Shed a tear, I guess, for alas, Broadway may be dim and dark for the holidays. Due to ongoing union strikes involving the stagehands, which apparently have broken down again, all those folks who come to New York City to see a Broadway show for the holidays may have to pass this year.

But here’s a thought: Outside of New York City, just how many of us are interested in Broadway shows these days anyway? Seriously.

I recall a recent Broadway category on “Jeopardy” and the three contestants knew less than a third of the questions/answers among them. They repeatedly stood there making no attempt to buzz in and respond as the clues were read.

Oh, well, don’t look at ME — I didn’t have the slightest clue about the, uh, clues, either.

Which brings me to the point: With the widespread variety in today’s entertainment market, from websites to podcasts, to “old fashioned” CDs and DVDs, who in the world takes Broadway seriously anymore? I have no idea how many people care about or watch broadcasts of the annual Tony Awards (Broadway’s Emmys and Oscars). But I’d bet good money there are radically fewer people watching than there were a decade ago.

Sure, I’m sorry about anyone suffering economic hardships because the strike on Broadway has left them unemployed — especially at the holiday season — but don’t expect me to take the whole Broadway scene seriously. Remarkably, I live outside New York City along with most of the world, and I have little interest in obscure plays starring obscure actors.

Ah, well, what do I know? I’m just a guy who reads the papers.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

« Previous Entries