The Remarkable Sally Ride

I'm not a big one for memorial blogs. Great people die every day, often unnoticed by everyone who wasn't close to them. Famous people do, too.

Everyone once in a while, someone dies who is both great and famous. Sally Ride was famous to many people because she was the first woman the US sent into space (not the first woman in space - Russia had us beat by a couple of decades), the youngest to go into space and, for those who care about such things, the first lesbian in space (someone's sexual orientation, to me, is not important, but I can understand her being an inspiration to many for that reason).

For me, those are trivia question answers, not why someone is "great". She was a good and dedicated scientist, an accomplished astronaut who went on to teach and make a difference in the world of science and space long after she stopped being an astronaut. And that's good.

But, to me, she was great because of how she cared about space and science, how she dedicated so much of her life to sharing that love with children. To me, she was great because she understood what was really important and stood up for those who were worried about safety when everyone else was on gung-ho fast forward. She brought that sense of practicality and understanding of priorities to everything she did, which was why she was so popular on studies and reviews in her lifetime.

To me, she wasn't great because she was an astronaut. She was an astronaut because she was great. She spent all her life trying to make the world better than it was when she came in, mostly in a quiet but profound way.

She will be missed.

Read more...

"Normal" People

Proposition 8 in California was overturned as unconstitutional. It's not news, but it's started an interesting discussion over on Janet Reid's excellent blog. I call it interesting, not because I feel this issue has any fuzz on it - someone else deciding who marries who? - but because I'm frequently amazed at the reasoning people come up with for whatever notions they have. Even if they make no damn sense.

Take this quote:

For many years and for many people *marriage* has always been a sacred covenant between two people and their deity. Not just the Christian god either. Gay *marriage* is an deep and personal affront to that covenant.

I don't know if anyone else noted the inherent contradiction between the first two sentences and the third, but I did. Well, heck, for centuries, marriage was a way to possess women, their wombs and sometimes fortunes. I'm sure there are people who would like to go back to that "sacred" way, too. Nor is homosexual marriage unprecedented. Sometimes history is left behind for a very good reason.

Thing is, someone is entitled to think of marriage however they want. You see it as a sacred right between a man and a woman, by all means marry someone of the opposite gender. The question isn't about changing your personal belief. It's about the concept that you can inflict your belief on someone who feels differently, can keep them from doing something so personal, so life-altering, with a person of their choosing just because you don't think they should be able to. It's the concept that some people think they have the right to take this basic right - the right to choose your own spouse - from others because they're not "normal" and the marriage they want isn't "normal."

Even assuming the majority represents "normal," I have to ask - so what? This country was founded on folks who refused to be normal, who bucked the powers that be that told them who they were, what they should believe, what they could expect from themselves. And that reverence for those that weren't "normal," who were different or odd, for those that thought outside the box or refused to be pigeonholed into one way of thinking is a key element in much of what Americans have accomplished, one reason why ingenuity and originality has been such a part of our history.

Not that we haven't had backward moments or that we didn't restrict many portions of the populace from the same respect and reverence (different races and women, for example). But it's our individual freedoms, our individuality that have, in my opinion, done the most for this country.

These "normal" folks obsessed with those that aren't "normal" (and I personally think there are any number of what I consider normal people who are perfectly comfortable with individuality) are the ones that stand against every advance, every change for the better, every improvement we've ever had, mostly because they want everyone else to become what they see as "normal." I've never been sure why there is this compulsion to make everyone the same, though I don't discount the possibility that insecurity, the need to feel accepted, is part of it. People (many of them normal) I know that are comfortable with who they are don't feel the urge to force others to be as they are. No pro-choice people I know have ever advocated forcing abortions on the unwilling. No homosexual couples I have known have ever worked heterosexuals having relationships.

"Non-normal" people just want to live their lives to suit their own purposes, decide their own futures, be left to live their non-normal lives in peace with the same rights and responsibilities as all the "normal" people. A few decades back, may I remind you, the "non-normal" people were blacks and women.

A few centuries ago, they were the original settlers here.

Just sayin'.

Read more...

I Love Learning Something New

Most mornings I check snopes.com's "what's new". I love snopes. They examine all the crap that wanders into email inboxes and internet hoaxes. More than once, they've brought a phishing scheme to my attention, including one I nearly fell for.

When I get a warning or a story that seems hard to believe, a surprisingly large percentage of the time I've found the truth on their site. I never forward anything without checking there first (though, in truth, I rarely forward anything anyway, but that's another story). I love that they include their source material so you can see for yourself. I still remember a frenzied story about a report that said women caused more fires from static electricity at gas stations because of their pantyhose and cell phones. They read the report and noted that gender wasn't mentioned at all, nor were cell phones implicated. At work, safety officials were passing around the story (with the link) as if it were true. Guess who didn't read the report (I did - snopes.com was right.)?

Anyway, I like snopes.

Today, I like snopes even better because I learned something new to me. Apparently, some clever Brits managed to smuggle money, maps and more to the WWII British POWs in monopoly games. The maps were silk screened on to silk so they could fit in small spaces and didn't rustle when opened. The boards were hollowed out and slim compasses, maps and tools were slid into place. The Monopoly fake money would hide a stack of real money pertinent to the area. The maps were made specific to the area pertinent to particular POW camps.

I found that too cool for words.

Since board games were acceptable as care package fodder and, by a coincidence, the company that perfected silk-screening happened also to be the company authorized to make Monopoly for Great Britain, the idea took off.

I love learning new things, don't you? (And if you already knew, and I'm sure some of you did, what can I say? I didn't.)

Read more...

Bare Necessities: Cultural Studies

What the heck am I talking about? Cultural Studies? That's not a public school class!

No, but it ought to be. Sure, some social studies classes include some cultural information, usually wedged in between GDP information, population and interminable maps. Sometimes you accidentally get a little in Political Science classes, but the classes are more about government than about people and, generally, they are not interchangeable. You're more likely to get interesting cultural information in history or a foreign language class and that's a real pity.

Exposing oneself the history, the culture, the religion, the language, the music, the art of other societies and cultures of the world can do wonders for one's own mind. When you understand where attitudes and philosophies come from, if you understand the history and culture of a people, it's much harder to dehumanize them or get lost in hatred.

Travel is good for that, too, and, though I'm not a traveller myself, I respect those who learn other cultures by immersing themselves.

The thing is, isolated in your own little world, the culture and society you grew up with, it's so easy to think you know everything, that you can judge and dismiss the challenges, the problems, the successes of other societies. You get arrogant and close-minded. That's bad.

Not just for people in other societies, who will undoubtedly find your arrogance irksome and counterproductive for cooperation. But also for you and your future. Arrogance and conceit are a recipe for stagnation, fine if you don't mind ending up like the Romans, but stupid for any culture that wants to continue to mature.

Just sayin'.

Read more...

Bare Necessities: History

I mentioned two of the big ones for education, math and English (or language), both of which are often dismissed as overrated. And, yes, that still blows my mind. Another one that often gets treated with contempt is history.

History is absolutely fascinating to me. It's all about what came before. Problems that were faced with fortitude or caused by callousness. The shortsightedness, the farsightedness. The discoveries, the failures, the whimsical tides of fate that made someone successful or destroyed. It is absolutely mesmerizing for me. Equally interesting are the differences and holes in history as victors slanted the documentation or aspects are explained only with the scantest available information.

But why do we need it?

Because history contains a wealth of information about where we are today, how we came to be. It's so easy for people to get complacent that they built where they are, that they are deserving of all they have going for them, but truth is it's the luck of the draw. What language you speak, what freedoms you enjoy, what education you have available, what resources, what headstart - those are all products of those that came before. And you can't really appreciate those blessings, those boons unless you understand the blood and pain that paid for them. That goes for the pieces that aren't so good, perhaps the repressions or limitations, the hardships and challenges, those are part and parcel of history, too, and--and this is the kicker--learning from history is the best way to make your future better.

Because no one has time in their lives to make all the mistakes we've made in the past. Learning from those mistakes is the best way to move forward. Unfortunately, many places in the world (if not all of them) are notoriously bad at repeating the failures or slipping into the same destructive cycles of the past. People who don't know history have little choice but to repeat it, never understanding what they could do to keep from wandering into mishap or failure.

Knowing, of course, doesn't mean that you automatically preclude repeating it. But you have a chance of moving forward and making all new mistakes if you know where you've been, how you got there and where you're headed.

Is history important? Damn straight.

Read more...

Thieving Thursday: Queen of Sarcasm

I promised JD of I Do Things that, on this week's Thieving Thursday, I would provide examples of my Queen of Sarcasm experience.

Unfortunately, most of this happened when I was much younger. Since I've spent most of my life as a goody two shoes, it is not uncommon for people to try to shock me. Since I went to high school in Las Vegas, I had plenty of opportunity to be shocked and I learned, fairly early, to turn that about.

So, when I first started working at JSC, it was a mixture of people close to my own age and people who had been there since the Apollo days. Many of the people I worked with were crusty old men, who were quick to temper and considered themselves dirty old men (DOM). Several of them would occasionally try to shock me much as my schoolmates had done before. Unfortunately, most old men can't take what they dish out nearly so well as they think they can. Also, unfortunately, those exchanges are also really inappropriate for a family-friendly blog. I do recall one I could repeat, though it's actually unfair.

The gentlemen in question was indeed a gentlemen, not one of the DOM type at all, and he was helpfully trying to talk me out of becoming a test subject. But old habits die hard. He said, "You know they have to use electrodes against your skin. They'll have to shave your chest."

"Well, how hairy do you think it is?" I found myself asking. Poor man turned beet red instantly.

But, though I can't use most of those stories, I do have one.

When I started a new job, I was thrust into a very fast-paced activity, building and designing at a clip I had not experienced before and have not experienced since. The group I joined was fairly tight-knit and contained some of the most talented people I ever met. A few of them had egos to rival (if not surpass) those talents. Early on, only a couple of days after I had taken the job, we all sallied forth to dinner. I had been rather quiet, as I often am when I'm learning a new job, and continued that way for most of the dinner. One of our software contractors was rather taken with himself that evening. He'd gone off on a concept he seemed quite enamored with (PG-13) - a titanium condom. It was easy to clean and lasted indefinitely, he went on.

After some time on this vein, I found myself speaking up. The group silenced. Apparently, it was unusually for anyone to call this fellow on any of his nonsense. I asked, "The thing is," I said, "If you found a woman willing to entertain a titanium condom, what exactly would she need you for?"

The man blinked at me. For several seconds. "Well, for the novelty of having someone in bed with you."

"For some of us," I told him, "It isn't a novelty."

OK, so it's not always sarcasm but I don't often feel at a loss.

Read more...

An Example of What I'm Talking About

I said I'd be moving on to the Constitution but the thread on yesterday's post got me thinking about giving an example instead of just speaking in generalities. As did my sister's post. So, today, that's what I'm going to do.

Let's take the story of Noah. In a nutshell, people were going wild, but Noah was a good guy, still buds with God. So, according to the Bible, God told him, "I'm eradicating the race of men." And then told him to make a wooden vessel (approximately 135m x 22.5m x 13.5m) that would hold two (or seven) of every living thing and food for such (he ended up needing >300 days worth). And his family and their families. The water rose about 7m and covered the mountains (apparently the really short ones) for 150 days. Then God blew the water away over a period of months before (I'm not kidding) opening the single window. Weeks later, they opened up the ark and let everything repopulate the earth.

First, do I have to explain why this isn't physically possible? Skip the logic and the flood, it's not physically possible to put every animal even in a geographical (let alone the world) into a volume like that with enough food to sustain them for close on a year. Available data nixes (decisively) the worldwide flood possibility.

So, if it's categorically untrue as written, does that mean that this story is worthless?

Not necessarily.

It could be a version, embellished, likely over generations, of a man and his family that escaped a flood, perhaps a tsunami or a hurricane. Afterwards, perhaps, the survivors tried to make sense of the loss and destruction around them (as, no doubt, many did after the Boxing Day tsunami). In this case, much like The Illiad, factual events are given divine explanations and motivations.

But, what if, God (presuming he's the inspiration) wasn't providing history but allegory (as his reputed Son was prone to in the next Testament), telling a story to provide a lesson. What lesson? And, if God wasn't the inspiration, this is clearly a story that promotes piety as an amazing number of Old Testament stories are.

Well, and that's the part I didn't go into yesterday - because just as those writing down the Bible had their own mindset and prejudices that became part of the story, so those reading it pull things from the Bible depending on what they expect to see, what they want to see.

One could read that story and get the lesson that the pious will be protected by God and everyone else is at risk. One could also get the lesson that man has the responsibility to protect nature (animals) or that those that are prepared can weather even cataclysmic events.

I personally think that understanding how such a story originates can go a long way to help you figure out what, if anything, to get from it.

Read more...