Alright, I suppose that not many people will be familiar with the bad one-hit wonder lyrics (For those who are really curious, they happen to be from Snow's "Informer."). However, there is a serious point to the rather flippant title. Currently, the nation of Romania has been faced with a growing furor over the release of files about the secret service during the Communist regime. Apparently, the nation of Romania had 700,000 informers in a population of only 21,000,000 people. Seriously, that is one informer for every thirty people. And people think I'm paranoid.
Anyway, with all that snooping going on, it appears that some skeletons hidden deep in closets are being revealed in a rather unpleasant manner. For example, one respected former BBC reporter (according to an AP article on this topic by Allison Multer) apparently was snooping on his friend, a poet, because he had made a fellow university classmate pregnant and refused to marry her. For this the government blackmailed him. At least his friend, upon finding out what was reported, had the kind heart to forgive the reporter for what was "neutral" information. Many others were not so fortunate.
What makes someone turn informer? It is a frightening thing when societies become so dark, and so incapable of handling matters openly and honestly that they must sneak around in dark corners trying to find all sorts of unpleasant information to turn family members and friends against each other. It's a terrible world when people seek to extort and blackmail others because of our human mistakes in order to make us tools of oppressive tyrannical government. *Shivers*.
It is rather easy in such cases to think the problem exists merely in other societies, particualrly communist or Facist societies. It is certainly true that totalitarian societies tend to have a lot of this sort of informing going on. However, paranoia does not merely exist in societies like Stalin's Russia, Ceaucescu's Romania, or Hitler's Germany. Elizabethan England, for example, had much the same problem. Such informing has existed in our own society before as well, and may yet again.
However, such a paranoid society cannot exist without willing participants. In societies that depend on secretive behavior and the paranoia of thought control, much still depends on the courage and strength of people to thwart the wickedness of corrupt leaders and their shady minions. It may be a regrettable necessity (and I think it is both regrettable and necessary) that we all live at least somewhat secretive lives, in at least certain ways. We call such secrecy privacy after all, and value it highly.
If the rise of snooping technology allows every moment of our lives, and every word we say (or write) fodder for prying and unfriendly eyes, we still do not have to cower in fear if wicked people seek to use such knowledge against us. We have the choice, if we are brave enough, to face up to what we have done and refuse to collaborate with any kind of secret police force. The choice and the responsibility are ours, and we must all face on our own, at some time, the bitter choice between living an honest and candid life and giving in to the temptations of an easier and less complicated life. Nothing worthwhile is simple anyway. Everything is complicated, and those who have easy answers speak without wisdom and understanding. And sometimes, there are no good choices, but merely a choice about whether we are to suffer in one way or another.
Whichever path one chooses in such occasions, though, there is a lot of sympathy from me for such people. After all, those who inform on the lower level are often fairly ordinary people, and often feel the greatest amount of guilt and suffering for what they do, because they do not have the defenses of habitualization that numb and harden the conscience against wrongdoing that come for those higher in authority. Even so, regardless of what one chooses, sometimes there is a bitter price we must pay. It is useful to reflect upon that sometimes.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Planetary Bodies
A group of astronomers have decided to tackle the thorny issue of planetary definitions, a task that has grown more controversial in recent years. They have proposed a hard and fast definition for planets with three components: 1)Planets must be 500 miles in diamater or larger. 2)Planets must orbit a sun. 3)Planets must be circular with self-gravity. This last qualification is the toughest, surprisingly enough, disqualifying earth's moon (whose shared center of gravity with the earth is outside of the moon).
If this definition of planets is accepted, it would mean that there would be 12 currently recognized planets, with the possibility of many more in the future. Besides the eight planets recognized without controversy (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), and my favorite, albeit controversial planet (Pluto), there would be three more planets: Ceres (the largest member of the astroid belt), Charon (Pluto's moon, which would be promoted to the solar system's first "double planet"), and Xena (a recently discovered Kuiper belt object--like Pluto and Charon--slightly larger than Pluto). Of course, any object in the solar system that met the three defintions above would also have to be added to this list.
This would mean that other definitions would have to change. Astroids and comets, for example, could no longer be called "minor planets" or "planetoids" as they currently are. As for whatever heavenly bodies met the definition of planet, they would fall into one of three categories. The first is the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, and Ceres (?)) which are rocky planets of small to moderate size that have a regular orbit and are kept warm to hot by the sun. The second group of planets would be made up of the gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) that are all of large size, with regular orbits, and have a large number of moons. Any of these moons that had self-gravity would also be planets as well, though this does not appear to be the case at all at the current time. Finally, the third group of planets in the solar system would be called "plutons," which are small, cold, distant, dark, and have eccentric orbits. Is it any wonder I like this type of planet so much? Included in this type of planet would be Pluto, Charon, Xena (or whatever they rename it) and any other large spherical Kuiper Belt Objects.
I don't know about you, but I have to salute the 17 year old blogger who mobilized a "save Pluto" campaign and thus influenced astronomers to come up with a consistent definition of a planet, even if it means that textbooks will have to be edited accordingly. At least my beloved Pluto remains a planet, with some new company to boot.
If this definition of planets is accepted, it would mean that there would be 12 currently recognized planets, with the possibility of many more in the future. Besides the eight planets recognized without controversy (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), and my favorite, albeit controversial planet (Pluto), there would be three more planets: Ceres (the largest member of the astroid belt), Charon (Pluto's moon, which would be promoted to the solar system's first "double planet"), and Xena (a recently discovered Kuiper belt object--like Pluto and Charon--slightly larger than Pluto). Of course, any object in the solar system that met the three defintions above would also have to be added to this list.
This would mean that other definitions would have to change. Astroids and comets, for example, could no longer be called "minor planets" or "planetoids" as they currently are. As for whatever heavenly bodies met the definition of planet, they would fall into one of three categories. The first is the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, and Ceres (?)) which are rocky planets of small to moderate size that have a regular orbit and are kept warm to hot by the sun. The second group of planets would be made up of the gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) that are all of large size, with regular orbits, and have a large number of moons. Any of these moons that had self-gravity would also be planets as well, though this does not appear to be the case at all at the current time. Finally, the third group of planets in the solar system would be called "plutons," which are small, cold, distant, dark, and have eccentric orbits. Is it any wonder I like this type of planet so much? Included in this type of planet would be Pluto, Charon, Xena (or whatever they rename it) and any other large spherical Kuiper Belt Objects.
I don't know about you, but I have to salute the 17 year old blogger who mobilized a "save Pluto" campaign and thus influenced astronomers to come up with a consistent definition of a planet, even if it means that textbooks will have to be edited accordingly. At least my beloved Pluto remains a planet, with some new company to boot.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Las Islas Malvinas
I had wanted to write about the Tour de France, but the recent scandal concerning Floyd Landis' win provided a rather cynical story, and though I'm not opposed to those in principle I figured I wanted something with a grim sense of humor rather than an almost Greek tragedy of hubris.
So today I looked at a lovely article which talked about recent problems between Britain and Argentina over some remote rocky islands in the South Atlantic, a few hundred miles off the Argentine coast. These islands were the cause of the Faulklands War in 1982, when I was all of a year old. The upside of this war was enshrining Prime Minister Thatcher as the "Iron Lady" and the collapse of the military dictatorship in Argentina (always a cause for celebration). Of course, this did not settle the issue.
After all, the Fauklands (called by South Americans Las Islas Malvinas) have been an international issue since at least the 1770's. At that time they were empty islands belonging to the crown of Spain. During the collapse of Spain's colonial empire, England began to increase their presence in that part of the world. For example, St. Helena, an island only a few hundred miles away in an equally barren part of the South Atlantic, was the final prison of Napoleon. So some British settlers came to eke out a rough existence of fishing and sheepbreeding (woot) while Argentina was fighting for its independence.
Of course, once Argentina had its independence and government settled (a task that lasted until the 1860's) they wanted the islands back, but it was tough luck, as the British were not interested in returning the islands. Once the British Empire itself fell apart, the Faulklands took on an intense symbolic meaning for both nations, far beyond its actual value (it is a net money loser for England, but that hardly matters when national pride is at stake). For Argentina, the islands symbolize a part of the Argentine homeland that has been taken from them. For the British, the Faulklands are a symbol of glory and empire that has not yet completely died out.
So, what will come of this round of what is currently economic warfare? It is hard to say, but such cases as this are ones I tend to find great amusement (perhaps that is the wrong word) in. How about you?
So today I looked at a lovely article which talked about recent problems between Britain and Argentina over some remote rocky islands in the South Atlantic, a few hundred miles off the Argentine coast. These islands were the cause of the Faulklands War in 1982, when I was all of a year old. The upside of this war was enshrining Prime Minister Thatcher as the "Iron Lady" and the collapse of the military dictatorship in Argentina (always a cause for celebration). Of course, this did not settle the issue.
After all, the Fauklands (called by South Americans Las Islas Malvinas) have been an international issue since at least the 1770's. At that time they were empty islands belonging to the crown of Spain. During the collapse of Spain's colonial empire, England began to increase their presence in that part of the world. For example, St. Helena, an island only a few hundred miles away in an equally barren part of the South Atlantic, was the final prison of Napoleon. So some British settlers came to eke out a rough existence of fishing and sheepbreeding (woot) while Argentina was fighting for its independence.
Of course, once Argentina had its independence and government settled (a task that lasted until the 1860's) they wanted the islands back, but it was tough luck, as the British were not interested in returning the islands. Once the British Empire itself fell apart, the Faulklands took on an intense symbolic meaning for both nations, far beyond its actual value (it is a net money loser for England, but that hardly matters when national pride is at stake). For Argentina, the islands symbolize a part of the Argentine homeland that has been taken from them. For the British, the Faulklands are a symbol of glory and empire that has not yet completely died out.
So, what will come of this round of what is currently economic warfare? It is hard to say, but such cases as this are ones I tend to find great amusement (perhaps that is the wrong word) in. How about you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
