In Memory Of Those Who Served

I was torn about which of Tim's journal entries I should post here, 

and I finally settled on two, one of which is 

presented here and the other I posted earlier.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Today is Memorial Day, 2010. Like every Memorial Day for the past eight years, I’ll be at Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery honoring the men and women who gave Their Last Full Measure of Devotion to this country, as well as those who served and were blessed to have lived beyond their service years and died in the Land of the Free. Like my father Carl P.J. Forkes and my brother Carl C. Forkes, who is interred at Fort Rosecrans.
 My favorite snipe at the Navy men in the family — and my friends who served in the Navy — They chose to serve their nation in the Navy, but I chose the military instead when I joined the Marines. D’OH!

Dear Old Dad served in World War II. He signed up for the Navy in January 1942, a little over a month after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. I don’t really know the details of how and why he decided to join the Navy, other than a desire to serve and defend his country, a sentiment shared by millions of his generation at that time.

He became an Electrician’s Mate by chance. According to the Old Man, when a crusty old chief asked for any experienced electricians to step forward, Dad did so, even though he had never had a moment of electrical training or experience.

Whether he had any experience from working on anything electrical on the family farm is questionable; most of the place didn’t get electricity until the late 1930’s at best. But, Dear Old Dad learned a trade in the Navy, while fighting and defeating the Japanese.

Pop didn’t start his Navy career in the Pacific though. First he was stationed aboard the U.S.S. Texas, a mainline battleship stationed in the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Shortly thereafter he came down with some disease, the specifics of which he never explained, and was sent back to a Naval Hospital in Philadelphia. Maybe Grandma was happy; her son might be spared serving in a war zone and sent home, but that was not the case.

Towards the end of 1942 dad was sent to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, to pick up his next duty, a Destroyer Escort: The U.S.S. Wyman, DE-38. Man, that must have been a bummer! From one of the biggest ships of the Navy — the pride of the Navy — to the smallest, most unglamorous ship. Service aboard the corvette may not have been glamorous, but it proved every bit as dangerous as any ship serving in the Pacific Theater of Operations.

Destroyer escorts were small, with crews of less than 300. The skippers were generally commanders, or even lieutenant commanders. The job of the DE was to escort convoys and main battle groups, task forces, to and from various locations. They were submarine hunters primarily and DE-38, the Wyman, had two confirmed kills. The first was the Japanese submarine RO-48 on July 19, 1944 and the second, I-55, on July 28, 1944.

Right after sinking the first submarine, the Wyman’s whaler went to investigate the wreckage of the sunken sub and was strafed by friendly planes that thought it was a surfaced Japanese submarine. None were killed, although several men had been injured.

Afterwards, the Wyman served on escort duty, with time spent in “Taffy 38,” the task group charged with the invasion of the Philippines, and then with duty in the operations to invade Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

The war ended for Dad when the Japanese signed the instrument for surrender on September 2, 1945.

Young Carl’s story is different. He joined the Navy early in 1963 and served aboard the U.S.S. Pickaway, APA 222, from 1964-1967. Most of his time was spent taking Marines to and from the Western Pacific, with occasional stops in Hawaii, Guam and The Philippines. He saw the effects of war up close as Marines returning to San Diego from Vietnam would board the Pickaway for the arduous ride home.

Most people remember American forces getting to and from Vietnam by aircraft, but for a while, the Marines were arriving the old fashioned way: by taxi. Carl and I used to pick on each other with our inter-service rivalry and I always referred to Carl and the Navy as the Marine Corps’ taxi service.

The most memorable exercise Carl and his crewmates participated in was landing the 2/9 — 2nd Battalion, 9th Marine Regiment — on the beaches of Da Nang, South Vietnam. That was July 7, 1966.

Carl was supposed to start his Navy career as a radioman, but due to circumstances entirely in his control, he became a boatswain (pronounced “bosun”). Entirely in his control? Well, let’s just say he failed to meet the daily requirements needed to graduate “C” School.

He eventually moved from being a deck ape to the radar room, but I never lost the pleasure of calling him a boatswain’s mate!

Both my brother and dad have passed on, Dad over 30 years ago and Carl just under four years ago. His ashes are interred at Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery and it is for him primarily I attend the Memorial Day Service at that cemetery every year.

We all served, and those who lived to tell the tale are every bit as important as those who gave their lives in defense of this nation. All gave some; some gave all. And for that we should all be grateful.


Semper Fi My Friends!

In Memory Of Those Who Served

Feat of History

My uncle often posts interesting articles on a wide range of different topics, usually interrelated but sometimes not. At any rate, he's an interesting read and I would recommend that any one who is reading this to read this.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Been in a Little Feat kick all weekend. Little Feat, the band, not the tootsies things at the ends of my legs. Been singing either “Time Love a Hero” or “All That You Dream” all weekend. Not bad songs to have stuck in your cranial cavity. Well, I did put on Waiting For Columbus, thee Little Feat album to buy if you’re only going to buy one.

So, while listening to that album I did sing along with “Dixie Chicken” and “Tripe Face Boogie.” People always talk about how the Grateful Dead could jam and segue from one song to another, but really, the best band at that was — and possibly still is — Little Feat. Get this album; Little Feat puts on a clinic. You can download it for under 12 bucks.



Recorded live in London, England and Washington, DC, this is the lineup that includes Bill Payne, Paul Barerre, Richie Hayward, Sam Clayton, Kenny Gradney and Lowell George.

Lowell George is one of those guys; if you were an aspiring musician and/or songwriter in the 1970’s, you probably liked or even emulated him. Besides forming Little Feat (with Bill Payne) in 1969, he played with Mothers of Invention. The prevalent rumor is Frank Zappa kicked George out of the band for writing the song “Willin’.” Allegedly for the drug reference in the lyrics: “And if you give me: weed, whites, and wine …”

Sounds like a quaint story now, but a rumor like that, back then, no computers, no Internets to get viral on, the hippie culture moved with stories like that. Like the myth that Frank Zappa ate shit on stage. Not too long ago someone relayed that lie to me, as if it were the truest story that was ever told. And this was a guy who hadn’t been born until 1982. Or there abouts. How the fuck would you know, 40 years after that little piece of rock’n’roll mythology began making the rounds.

Actually, I would bet Zappa loved it though; it gave him notoriety and kind of fell in with his famous poster, Phi Zappa Crappa. If a guy would have a picture taken of himself sitting on the Vertical Throne taking a dump, why wouldn’t he eat shit on stage?

Well, one reason being that shit tastes like, well, shit and Zappa was never high enough to get past that, if he were actually ever high. In his autobiography, The Real Frank Zappa Book, FZ talks about the shit-eating myth (denying it ever happened) and how he had never liked drugs, didn’t want his band members using drugs when the played, or even drinking heavily. Although, as I recall, Zappa admitted he did in fact, inhale — once.

Lowell George was a prodigious drug user. Put me to shame really. Well, maybe not. The only difference between us, I survived and Lowell George did not. He lived to the age of 34, dying of “heart failure” in Arlington, VA June 29, 1979. Heart failure … goes along with excessive weight, too much alcohol and too much of the street drugs, like heroin. The autopsy showed that George actually died from an accidental drug overdose, but people who want history to remember George kindly stick to the “heart failure” story.

Like friends and families of alcoholics who die of kidney failure or cirrhosis of the liver, no one wants to state the obvious: the person died from alcohol or drug use. Alcohol and drugs, like nicotine, kill.

When someone like Lowell George dies from a drug overdose, it makes a lot of news, affirming for those opposed to legalizing street drugs, the reason why said substances should continue to be illegal. Ignoring the fact that being illegal didn’t stop Lowell George from obtaining his drug of choice. Being illegal doesn’t stop anyone from buying or selling drugs and by any estimation, the so-called “War on Drugs” has been a dismal failure for the past 80 years.

The saddest part of Lowell George’s legacy though is that he left behind two children and in a broader world, we won’t get to hear any new music from this man, one of the greatest songwriters to emerge from the 1960’s. He also had a great voice and was a master at the slide guitar.

My one disappointment with Waiting For Columbus is that it didn’t feature enough of George playing that slide guitar. It has all the great hits, like “Time Loves a Hero,” “Dixie Chicken,” “Fat Man in the Bathtub,” “Willin’ ” and “All That You Dream.” It also has scorching versions of “Tripe Face Boogie” and “Mercenary Territory,” quite possibly my favorite Little Feat song.

 “Some kind of man, he can’t do anything wrong

 If I see him I’ll tell him you’re waiting

 “Cause I’m devoted for sure, but my days are a blur

 Well your nights turn into my mornings

 I did my time in your rodeo, fool that I am I’d do it all over again.”

Years ago, right after Little Feat reformed and recorded the album Let It Roll, I had a chance to interview keyboardist Bill Payne. Of his old band mate, Payne said George was the type of guy you loved one minute and were ready to kill the next. Sounds like an addict. Predictably unpredictable. You never know when the person you can talk to sensibly will appear or disappear.

George would be 65 had he lived and likely might still be touring, if not with Little Feat than as a solo act. That’s what he was doing when he died 31 years ago. But we’ll never know. Waiting For Columbus went platinum years ago so he might have gotten out of the music business, got into real estate and ended up like surf guitar legend, Dick Dale, who performed June 6, 2010 at the Fiesta del Sol in Solana Beach.

 Don’t know if Dick Dale is into real estate actually, but if you have money and live in California, owning real estate used to be a great way to make your money grow.

In the thousands of rock concerts I’ve seen over the years, none of them, to my knowledge, included Lowell George. Let’s face it: there are a lot of them I just don’t remember due to too much alcohol and drugs. To this day I swear there were 15 people on stage when the Grateful Dead played Red Rocks on August 14, 1979. My lovely sister Elaine insists that wasn’t the case.

I’ve seen Bonnie Raitt and John Hiatt perform “All That You Dream” several times each, seen the “new” Little Feat a couple of times, but I can never say I saw Lowell George perform.

Back in the 1980’s I took my mother to see Henry Mancini perform with the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra. It had been nearly two decades since Mancini had scored a hit song, but for my mother it didn’t matter. Time had stood still and then rolled backwards. She was singing “Breakfast At Tiffany’s” as if she were 30 years younger.

 “Peter Gunn” is probably the coolest song Mancini ever composed! But Mom loved the romantic tunes.

Just imagine, seeing Lowell George, despite his age, performing his best music. When Dick Dale performed last weekend, he didn’t appear to have missed a beat. But, with Lowell George, it’s not to be. The best we can do is click on YouTube or download Waiting For Columbus.






That’s the true legacy of drug abuse; we lose a bit of what makes us smile every day when our heroes die far too young.






~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Unfortunately most of the pictures did not translate over into the Journal, so if you wish to see this entry in all of it's intended glory, than go here.

Feat of History

The Function Of Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices

Science fiction is known for having weird, far out technologies. But sometimes what was once fiction becomes reality¹.  I have never been completely sure whether it's the fiction influencing the science, or whether a science fiction writer, presumably well versed in science, can see possibilities that someone immersed in science cannot.  I found both possibilities intriguing. If fiction influences reality, than that is a clear demonstration of how we Humans are capable of creating just about anything that we can imagine. It basically getting together and thinking logically about a concept until it becomes real. And that's essentially what's going on in this situation. Someone dreams up some crazy technology, maybe to resolve a plot point or maybe just because the idea is really cool. A scientist reads it, and then sets about trying to make it real. Some one imagines a concept, and someone else creates it. Or maybe a writer can see new possibilities. Sort of like thinking outside the box, or how an outsider sees more of the game kind of thing. An intelligent, thoughtful person who dedicates themselves for a time to learning about a subject can sometimes have amazing insights into the subject. Since your average person is quite capable of being thoughtful and intelligent (though they don't always realize this potential) this would be a clear demonstration of how ordinary people can achieve extraordinary things. A scientifically literate society which happily funds scientific research would likely give gains in both situations.  Which ultimately is the answer to the question, does science fiction influence science, or does science fiction see what science can't? It's a little bit of both.  Science fiction can feed the imagination of a scientist. That scientist then produces results. A fan of science, who possibly writes science fiction, may be able to make the subtle connections between the results, thus pointing the way to further scientific breakthrough.

Of course, some things in science fiction are more likely to generate a real world analogue. And some things in science fiction, while not having a true analogue, will have certain striking similarities. Generally the names for things in science fiction can have striking parallels in reality. Conversely, some real science can sound like fiction. I can easily imagine a writer somewhere utilizing Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices to get the hero out of a pickle.  It sounds like something straight from Star Trek, like the Heisenberg Compensator, or bio-mimetic gel, or transparent aluminum² (Which is a direct translation from fiction to reality). Which I don't think is really all that amazing, since most of the names for things in science fiction use real world concepts. However, SQUIDS³ are completely real, and while not acting as a suitable plot device, they do serve several functions in medical and biological contexts.

I think there are a number of scientists, such as Michio Kaku, who treat science fiction as a wildly game of "Can I make that real?" There may be no real intention of creating a Batman-style grappling hook⁴, or a suit like Iron Man's. But to try and create something like that anyway is just plain fun.  And fun is half of science. A scientist loves to connect the dots, a scientist enjoys immensely put the pieces of a puzzle together. A scientist has fun doing their job. So science is just as much about random association as it is about logical thought. Attempting to create something from science fiction can highlight previously ignored facets of science or inspire ideas for new and innovative technologies. Working on something like force fields or light sabers, while not likely to come to fruition, can often still yield interesting and useful real world applications of science.

Incidentally, Michio Kaku wrote a book and subsequently hosted a show on the science channel call "Sci Fi Science: Physics of the Impossible" wherein he tried to create science fiction realities such as force fields and light sabers. One episode of the show was dedicated to creating a suit like Iron Man's, though he did add one capability to this suit: Mind reading. He figures that one could use atomic magnetometers⁵ to passively read someone's mind.  Interestingly enough, these devices, as he points out, can also be put to use imaging someone's brain or other body part in a way that is far more compact than current imaging machinery, and would likely be cheaper than current methods.  You can see the development of this technology here⁶, here⁷, and here⁸.

What really gets me about this is the time frame in which the technology has had to operate in. I'm not thrown so much by the progress and duration of its development as I am by the political climate that was in place during its development. The first two papers come from 2004, and the last from 2008. With all the talk of health care last year, and with all of Obama's pre-presidential campaigning for scientific development (of which some measure has been seen during his presidency⁹), one would assume that this technology would have been brought up, discussed, and made generally known.  I would imagine that a strong candidate for future medical technologies, such as these atomic magnetometers,  technologies that not only makes health care cheaper but also makes certain medical treatments more accessible and spurs on new medical technologies would have been used as a poster child for the need for health care reform and scientific research. 

The medical field is currently burdened with drug and technology companies fighting for the greatest profit margin. This tends to make these companies more cautious, repressing the risk taking that could generate a new technology. This also tends to force a company to defend its profit margin by any means necessary, such as preventing other companies from developing new technology.  These companies have a vested interest in maintaining the superiority of their product.  Lobbying on behalf of these companies hampers  scientific research by forcing politicians to restrain new developments, new lines of research, new technologies. Repressing scientific research severely constrains the potential of a society. We are a culture of visionaries. We can see new possibilities, and work to achieve them.  Scientific research can have direct and profound impacts on our living conditions.

This one specific technology, or even a handful of others such as low intensity MRI scans¹⁰  or interferometric synthetic aperture microscopy¹¹ would have lent weight and credence to both arguments, that our health care system needs reform (Our money hungry system denies the citizen of promising technology as a byproduct of that hunger) and that pure scientific research is important (As evidenced by these technologies)

Which brings us to the big questions:  Why haven't these technologies seen more government funding? Why haven't these technologies seen more media coverage?

________________________________________________________

1 John Blodgett, Continuum, "When Science Fiction Becomes Reality", University of Utah (2009)

² Live Science Staff, Live Science, "Military: New Aluminum Windows Stop .50-Caliber Bullet" (2005)

³Wikipedia, "SQUID"

⁴ Gizmodo, "MIT student creates real life Batman utility belt"

⁵ Wikipedia, "Magnetometer"

⁶ I.M. Savukov, M.V. Romalis, Physical Review Letters,  "NMR Detection With An Atomic Magnetometer", Princeton (2004)

⁷ P.D.D. Schwindt, S. Knappe, V. Shah, L. Hollberg, J. Kitching, L. Liew, J. Moreland, Applied Physics Letters, "Chip-scale Atomic Magnetometer (2004)

⁸ A.S. Levitt, The Future Of Things, "Atomic Magnetometers to shrink MRI" (2008)

⁹ D. Vergano, USA Today, "  Scientific Climate Is Changing As Obama Takes Office" (2009)

¹⁰ E. Rotman, The Future Of Things, " First Low-Intensity MRI Scan Of A Human Brain" (2007)

¹¹ G. Molho, The Future Of Things, "ISAM - Computed Image Revolution"

The Function Of Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices

5, 12, 15. April is an important month

I've never watched a space launch live, in person. It doesn't seem likely that I ever will. I can, however, console myself with the fact that I have now seen a shuttle launch, live, on television. And it was a good one, too! All early dawn darkness lit up as if by the fires of creation, air torn asunder by the rage of the Gods, and a graceful arc, a brilliant light receding into the darkness. And after, as the sun rises, we see the remnants of it's departure. Noctilucent beauty, pastel light strewn across the face of the sky.

A: Which makes me wonder, what exactly is that gigantic rocket spewing out of it's tail pipe, and how much of it is expelled? Not that I'm saying stop launching stuff into space or anything, I mean, I can't imagine a single shuttle launch is much worse than half of Chicago for about an hour. But this issue does require some attention. I'm not even speaking of emissions laws or anything. First, we don't really know enough to set feasible goals for standards. We must first research alternative fuels in an effort to see which ones are viable, and we must research the technologies that make engines more efficient. Second, being that space exploration is of vital importance, and that there are other, more urgent emissions issue's that need to be addressed (Coal fired power plants!), and that the emissions of Shuttle launches is sparse compared to the emissions of other industries, we should not limit our launches into space based on emissions. We should work to limit those emissions, but not by limiting the number or type of launches undertaken. Before we create any specific emissions goals we first understand what goals might be feasible.

B: Ok, so I don’t really know if the sky sounded as though it were being torn asunder by holy wrath or anything. I was watching this on TV. I just can't imagine anything looking like that not sounding like that.

On the upside, President Obama is due to speak at the Kennedy Space Center on the fifteenth. As he hasn't made too many announcements or spoke too much of his plans for NASA, this should be an interesting speech. Of course, he did make one comment that caused quite a stir. And by comment, I mean the NASA F.Y. 2011 budget. But I still am uncertain on his personal ideas regarding space, apart from all the political, social, and economic factors. How does our president feel about space exploration? I have my own ideas on what should be done, but as I ain't a rocket scientist, I take my own opinion with a grain of salt. I have my predictions for what will be said, and my hopes for what might be said. Regardless of the outcome, it will be a very interesting speech by our president.

Speaking of 2011, April 12th, 2011 will be the official "Fifty Years of Human Space Exploration". You see, Yuri Gagarin made his famous flight into space on April 12th, 1961, ushering in the age of Humanity as a space faring race. I find it to be no surprise that there are celebrations around the world in honor of this historic event. I should like to celebrate Yuri's Night next year, in honor of the first Human in space and the global feeling of peace, wonder, awe and co-operation that began with his flight. I should also like to propose a celebration on July 20th, 2011, the 42nd anniversary of Apollo 11. Those two events, more than any others, encapsulate Humanities birth into the cosmos. First we proved that we could go to space. Then we proved that we could go to other worlds. Now, the only question is which worlds would we like to visit first?

To decide that, though, we must know what technologies are at our disposable. And so we must research the technology a little before we say which destination should be our next goal. We must also consider the cost and benefits of our current space programs. To research the technologies to go, and eventually actually to go to places like Mars is expensive. Maintaining a transport to low Earth orbit is also expensive. We have plenty of data regarding long term stays in space. We know how to fly in deep space. We are nearing completion of the ISS. We no longer need our government space program to maintain a low Earth transport system. The commercial sector can handle that, while NASA focuses on other, more important things. We do not need both expenses. The commercial sector will employ those who will soon be unemployed, because lets face it, if you've worked for NASA and have an excellent school career, then that is your entire resume. And soon, in the fullness of time, NASA will again engage the public in a plan to send Human Beings to a place that no one has gone before. This speech will not tell us exactly when or where we will be going. But it will layout the path that we need to take to one day go there.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Russian Cosmonauts Honor Yuri Gagarin, 1st Man in Space, From Orbit (space.com)

5, 12, 15. April is an important month

The End Is Near

Seen here imitating Neo

The White House now has an imminent threat: Apophis. Though the likely hood is small, it is entirely possible that this asteroid may be hitting us relatively soon. While the chances of such impact are small, the consequence is dear. While the odds are in our favor compared to what we regularly deal with, on a cosmic scale the odds are very small for us. That consideration aside, this issue has raised awareness for the need to closely monitor the skies for all such threats. The White House only now really understands that need, and is seeking a way to meet that need.

The country is not entirely stable. We are engaged in two wars far from home. We have a global energy crisis. We have an impending global food crisis. We have a global environmental crisis. Just pouring the money into NASA won't sit well with most voters, despite the relatively cheap investment needed. The WH must justify the expense somehow, and Apophis suits the purpose. Additionally, the WH sees this as an opportunity to look like the good guy, a political booster shot for the whole idea of our government. They can accomplish this by claiming they gave NASA a mandate to start this research years ago. In order to look like the good guy, though, you have to make someone the bad guy.

Image via Wikipedia. And Space!

Using this situation to build prestige will hurt NASA's image. If the WH wants to achieve its goal within the time alloted, they are going to need not just the loyalty of NASA, but that the public be loyal to NASA. By attaching blame to the administration, the WH forces NASA to defend itself any way it can. The have chosen to freely admit that there was a mandate to search for Near Earth Objects. They also raise the point that though the WH did indeed order them to achieve this goal, they did not provide any funds for the job. This has thus far been a frank telling of fact, with no concern for the guilt involved. And yet NASA goes still further, and says that they never asked for funding. NASA always fess's up. They rarely make mistakes, and when they do, they admit it. From Apollo 1 until now, NASA has always been very honest. This gives most people pause. If nothing else, they figure, NASA honestly tries, and usually succeeds, in their endeavors. That can rarely be said about a politician. I think that most people would be willing to give money to NASA to accomplish the goal of cataloging all large NEO's, and developing the technology and experience to do something about it if one of those objects is heading straight for us. All that is needed is for the WH to do the same: Dispassionately lay out the facts. Then together, NASA and the WH can confidently and openly declare what needs to be done, how it will be done, and how much it will cost.

The backwards 'N' indicates their certainty

As some have said, the end is near. The end of our old ideas of nationalism. Globalization is coming. From many sources does it come. From the WWW and GPS, Google Earth, and global woes. The exploration of space is vital to the future of Humanity. But such exploration must be done as a species, not as nations. And yet it is space exploration that is helping drive globalization. From the WWII and it's subsequent cold war came the Apollo-Soyuz test project. From those two events we have the international space station. And now nature has seen fit to give us a dispassionate global threat, one that enforces cooperation. The end is indeed near. Globalization is coming.

The End Is Near

I Am

I am. I exist, and nothing anybody does or says can convince me that I don't exist. Because I can state my existence, then I must be aware of my existence. Being aware of my existence, I can understand how I interact with the world. Knowing how to interact with the world I can learn how the world works. Knowing how the world works, I can judge the consequences of my actions. Being able to judge the consequences of my actions, I have free will. From the moment we achieved sentience, we possessed free will.

If I have free will, then I must be able to know that I actually have free will.

I must be aware of my own existence before I can contemplate the consequences of my actions. If I do not understand the consequences of my actions, how can I really be said to be choosing? If I were told to pick a number between 1 and 1,000 I would have just as much reason to pick one number as another. There is no way to make a real decision which uses your intellect and awareness, and is therefore essentially choiceless. I do, however, understand the consequences of my actions. Not perfectly, no, but well enough. Because of this knowledge I am able to use my intellect to discover new possibilities and my reasoning to choose which path to take.

If we are at any level of the decision making, then we are at all levels of the decision making. I do not supplicate to a higher authority in the confines of my own head. I assess, I understand, I decide. If my decision is biologically and environmentally conditioned, so what? All those paradigms of our existence (i.e. I rather enjoy breathing, hard work brings about satisfaction) are the outcome of the decisions of all my ancestors. I naturally know how to do many things, like breathe. The choices of my forebears shaped me into this person. My environment is similarly the product of the choices of those that came before, as well as those alive now. Centuries of people acting, living, choosing, creating, destroying, has shaped my world. There is much to be learned from the environment I exist in. As I grow I choose which patterns of thought I want ingrained in me, ready for immediate use. It is only rarely that I need to question the pattern. But at all times I have the ability to choose: do I follow instinct? Do I do as the others have done? Or do I see a new way of being?

Everything has a price, but that doesn't prohibit action. That only deters action. Everyone can choose to do something really stupid sometimes. We have before us a plethora of possibility, and yes, our decisions are weighted. And they are considered. Our choice is our own to make. All of my decisions are mine to make, no matter if the decision is the best one, or the worst. I still made the decision.

The idea of free will is predicated on the fact that I exist.

I Am

Red Moon

Russia wants to go to Apophis and change it's course in order to prevent the asteroid from hitting the Earth.
WTOP
Pravda

Anatoly Perminov, rocket scientist. Quite accomplished and credentialed. But it seems that he's spinning a party line. Why can he not quote his source? Where is his refutation of the NASA figures for collision? Who made the observations he's going off of? Why bring up such sentiment as

"People's lives are at stake. We should pay several hundred million dollars and build a system that would allow to prevent a collision, rather than sit and wait for it to happen and kill hundreds of thousands of people"?

Why should we pay? Who should pay? According to Perminov, Russia will create the plan, and then invite other nations to participate. Of course, since the system won't be built at that point, it's likely that part of the deal is that you have to pay to play.

Why is he spinning? Well, maybe intercepting and changing the trajectory of Apophis is not the primary goal. It may be just a cover for something else involving long term space travel and complex maneuvers. Is it possible that Russia is aiming for the Moon? After all, America beat them to the Moon forty years ago, and now there are other nations poised to. Russia did not like being beat by America, and likely does not want to be beat again, especially as China is one of the most likely to go to the Moon next. But Russia cannot come right out and say, we're off to the Moon. As it is, those nations eyeing the Moon do not have the goal a high priority. But if Russia announces that it's headed for the Moon, then some countries and China certainly would rev up their space program.

Why should we pay? Everyone, ostensibly because we are all facing imminent threat, and the time to act is now. Of course, we're not really facing any sort of threat and we will know long before the event that we will be struck. But it does not seem that we will be paying for a preventative, life saving mission. It sounds like we will be financing Russia's politically motivated moon shot.

Why demand that Russia come up with the plan and then we follow it? If the ultimate goal is the Moon yet Russia's stated goal is changing the trajectory of Apophis, then Russia will have inevitable contradictions in priorities. Russia may push an engine that is better suited for a Human moon shot, or a guidance system that that can also guide you to a moon landing, and if other nations are in on the planning stage then the best systems for the stated mission will be used. Russia must tailor the plan to their ultimate goals and then hide that within the plan that gets presented to other nations. I'm sure that they would have areas that they're willing to compromise with, so they can be seen to "show willing" but it they will not change certain parts of the plan for baffling reasons. If no one signs up, then they do it anyway, but if they can they will dupe other people into financing them.

Russia is going to make a play for the Moon, and is hiding it's attempts under the shroud of Apophis, and hopes that other nations will buy into their plan.

Popular Mechanics

But we should not ignore this threat. Minor though it is, it's consequences are deadly. As NASA plans, we should monitor the situation, possibly sending a radio transmitter to the asteroid. We have plenty of time to avoid catastrophe, and we need time to gather more information. We do not want to accidentally be the cause of our own demise. NASA claims that we will know by 2014 what the asteroid will do. That still leaves us twelve years to do something about it before the 2026 deadline. If we could go to the Moon in eight and a half years, certainly we can send a robot to bump into a rock in twelve.

Red Moon

Numerology

I ran across an article in "teachers at work" talking about how to use threes effectively in your writing. This made me think about another quirky thing about the mind, that is, how we have the minor pentatonic scale seemingly hardwired into the brain.

Three is very significant in music. From the standpoint of chords, it is the third that is the biggest determinent in the sound of the chords. Change from major seventh to minor seventh, and the change is subtle. Change the third and the change is drastic. It is the third that separates a major from a minor. And you use thirds to build larger chords. Start with a major third, you set the stage for any other notes that you place on top of it. If you then add a minor third to the previous two notes (first and third) you come to the fifth note in the scale that your chord is built from. These three notes, first, third and fifth, form your fundamental chords. So again we find three. Not only is three fundamental in the 'tone' of the chord, it is with three that you build your fundamental chords, and three notes make up a fundamental chord.

It is not only three that seems to get so much unconscious attention. There are other significant numbers to be found in the psyche, as it is so in music. The root, the essential determiner for a scale. The third, the primary determinant for a chord. The fifth, the note that works well with just about anything. Speaking of five, the minor pentatonic scale seems to be ingrained in the Human mind. If you go to the World Science Festival website and check out the video entitled "The power of the pentatonic scale" you will see what I mean.

So I suppose this raises the question, why are certain numbers hardwired into the mind?

Numerology

Star Wars was an awesome movie

If we really wish to enter the space age, it must be us as HUMANITY. We enter space as one race. That will never happened if we weaponize space.

I'll start with Wikipedia, as they're generally unbiased.

The military does have some non-weapon uses in space, reconnaissance, especially for nuclear arms de-proliferation,and GPS. Having a global communications network is a must, and not for purely military reasons. There are commercial interests, such as UPS knowing exactly where your package is, especially in the age of Amazon.com. But weapons in space are not a feasible option. Space is not the "ultimate high ground" because any one else can launch weapons into space. We can never hope to prevent all launches by other nations, or hope to maintain space superiority as all our budget will go towards funding maintenance, repair and replacement of our weapons platforms, which all will be outweighed by the massive expense of preventing other nations from gaining access to space. A thing which will be made difficult as those other nations have just as much a right to space as we do. Some of the weapons being researched are downright scary, considering enemy nations could put up similar weapons.

Not very informative, unfortunately, but it's hard to find an unbiased view of such projects. So in order to fill in some of the information gaps, I have three links to biased yet informative articles.

There is no need for a strong military presence in space. There are few nations at the moment who could attack is in a manner that would justify such defenses. Except, if it's a weapon, it's not defensive. Since the weapon can strike any point on the Earth, it is most certainly an offensive weapon. It's only use would be to prosecute a war far from U.S. soil, to attack enemy positions. But some would say that the only defense is a good offense. This may be true in football, or individual battles and skirmishes. But a permanent, unilateral foreign policy of full readiness for war with any nation on the planet is a policy that ultimately fails.

What would happen to a society that had weapons pointing at everyone, including its allies? That society would soon have no allies, and would be the enemy of every other nation. There is no nation on Earth, nor has there ever been, that could withstand and defeat the might of the entire rest of the world. No nation would feel secure when another nation has such power, and one of the few options available at that point would be to attempt to create a similar power (look at the proliferation of nuclear weapons. After the U.S. and U.S.S.R. attained them, [Britain just wants everyone to forget that they have nuclear weapons as well, so let's not mention it, ok?] every nation cowered in terror from the threat of obliviation. Those having or seeking nuclear weapons now are a product of that first division. Those newer nuclear nations either toadied to or tried to emulate one nation or the other, or they chafed under the enforced nuclear rule, and so sought out their own nuclear weapons.). But this would be seen as an act of aggression, and thus the one nation could and would use such a project as an excuse to use military force against the offending nation. The nation that first controls space must rule all of the world, or fear that its own strategies will be used against it. Global unity will never be achieved by hegemony or use of force. Humanity will not survive without global unity.

When you tell one populace that they cannot do what you are doing, that populace tends to get a little steamed. When you use lethal action to enforce your position, when you dominate a society, that society fights back. Look at slavery in The United Stated Of America. Or the French revolution. Or every POW camp escape. The only way the U.S. can hope to never use weapons in space once they have them is to deny all other nations access to space, and this will have to be done by force, for no nation will take that lying down. And it is too late to even attempt such a thing. And yes, those nations will use space based weapons to harm us, but that will be because we will have done so to them. If the U.S. puts one weapon into space, the U.S. must become a tyrant to the rest of the world, an untenable position. Or the U.S. must remove all such weapons and impede no one in their efforts to peacefully use space for the benefit of all mankind.

If any nation attempts to weaponize space, then they have cast a net over the Earth, trapping all of its inhabitants to its surface. We are already far too violent to share such cramped quarters, especially with our growing numbers. Add to that the threat of death from the heavens, and the stress of being prohibited to peaceful action and national growth, and Humanity will have encapsulated itself in a pressure cooker. Such heat, intensity and pressure will inevitably lead to Humanity's self destruction.

Finally, all people have equal right to space. When Yuri Gagarin first entered space, he entered it as an envoy of mankind. When Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the Moon, he was an ambassador of Humanity. All people have equal claim on the bounty of space, and no one has the right to deny any one
else of the peaceful use of space.

I have viewed the issue dispassionately, listening to arguments from both sides. I have created my own arguments and counter-arguments. I can see no logic or rationale that justifies the weaponization of space. But I feel that these peoplecan put my case far more eloquently than I can.

If we wish to enter, habitate, and use space to our benefit, we must enter space as Humanity. If we are to enter space, we must do so as one race. Or we enter space not at all.

On a related note, I saw this advertisement recently for mycriminaljusticecareers.com. It showed a faceless person in black battle gear handing you a gun. The company advertised that, "We need SWAT, FBI agents, DEA and secret service. Click here to get free information on how to join law enforcement". So the basic message is, "Learn the intricacies of justice! MIGHT IS RIGHT!"

Star Wars was an awesome movie