NEW YORK (AP) –
A polar bear at the San Diego Zoo got into the holiday spirit on Thursday by playing with a large plastic pumpkin.Kalluk, an enthusiastic 735-pound
sub-adult male, amused himself for several hours by tackling, hugging
and pouncing on the large plastic jack-o-latern.
New data from the Cassini probe has revealed that Titan is one weird moon. Excerpts:
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – The surface of Saturn’s moon Titan may be covered by thick drifts of combustible organic "snow" floating on lakes of liquid methane or water and ammonia ice flows, NASA (news – web sites) scientists said on Friday.
Scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California have been poring over new radar and infrared images of Titan taken this week by the Cassini spacecraft in the closest fly-by ever of the smog-covered moon.
The slice of terrain captured by Cassini’s instruments in Tuesday’s fly-by showed sharply contrasting bright and dark areas with sharp and grooved features that scientists believe may be "wrinkle ridges," where the moon’s thin plates collided.
The data also seems to show that Titan could be covered in up to 656 feet of fluffy hydrocarbon "snow" that fell out of the heavy atmosphere. It is still not clear how much of the surface is liquid and how much is solid and whether the "land masses" are ice, scientists said.
"We are beginning to see a few things we recognize, but most of what we see is very alien," geophycist Laurence Soderblom said.
"The surface could be very flammable," scientist Toby Owen said at a Friday briefing. "We can imagine flammable swamps on Titan with liquid methane and flammable aerosols."
Contacted by the Daily Planet, 30th-century superheroine Saturn Girl (who is a native of Titan) said: "There is a reason why we have a planet-wide ban on smoking on my homeworld. If you visit Titan, leave your matches and lighters at home. We still haven’t recovered from the Great Marlboro Disaster."
MONSTER ISLAND (DAILY PLANET) – Supertitious natives inhabiting the atoll containing Monster Island have been discovered to be still practicing child sacrifice, as shown in the photograph below, showing a native boy being offered to Godzilla in an attempt to avert his wrath from their island.
U.N. officials have expressed horror at this practice, which is a violation of the international human rights charter.
It is also ineffective said Dr. Toshiro Ichiozaki of Tokyo University (Dept. of Monstrous Studies). "One kid is not going to satify the hunger of a 400-ft. tall beast like Godzilla. Invariably when islanders do this the beast simply eats the kid and then rampages through the village anyway. Under the influence of superstition, villagers have interpreted this as a sign that the sacrifice wasn’t of acceptable quality, but it isn’t a quality problem, it’s a quantity problem."
Dr. Toshiro added: "Further, the sacrifices themselves become ‘bait’ for Godzilla, luring him to their islands instead of letting him stay in the Monster Island Nature Preserve that ecologists insisted on creating for him in the 1970s."
CORRECTION: The above picture is actually a wire photo captioned "A boy plays under a ten-meter-high giant statue of Godzilla displayed at a botanical garden in Yokosuka, suburban Tokyo.(AFP/Toru Yamanaka)."
See, they think that there may be comets out there with very low reflectivity, making them hard to spot. Such comets might sneak up on Earth like a stealth bomber sneaking up on an enemy base and then smack into it (the Earth) with planetkilling force.
Since we can’t (yet) see stealth comets, we don’t know how many there may be. Hopefully, there are none, but if there are some then the chances of a planetkilling impact are higher than we’ve previously thought.
Fortunately, scientists have a new tool they hope will "de-cloak" the stealth comets that may be out there sneaking up on us.
No word whether the same tool will work on Klingon or Romulan birds of prey.
BTW, folks, I know there are a number of good comments discussions going on right now, and I encourage y’all to (politely!) have fun in them. I’m afraid that I’ve got some stuff going on the next couple of days that will prevent me from participating in the comments discussions that much, so if I’m not answering it’s because I’m not able to at the moment. Blog entries will be going up on the usual schedule though, so do stop by over the weekend.
Have a good ‘un!
Given my own recent experience with bees, I definitely would not have been interested in participating in the recent alternate-reality game I Love Bees. But tons of sci-fi fans itching to have fantasy invade real life did.
LEARN MORE ABOUT ALTERNATE REALITY GAMES.
FIND OUT WHAT ONES ARE CURRENTLY IN PLAY.
I’ve been doing some analysis of historical electoral college voting maps, and I hope to have it ready to share soon. There are some interesting history lessons on these maps about how politics in America has evolved over time. One thing struck me in examining the recent ones: The conversion of the South from a Democrat stronghold to a Republican stronghold wasn’t a complete and instantaneous thing. In fact, the two most recent Democrat presidents (Carter and Clinton) were both Southerners who pulled significant electoral votes from Southern states.
This, of course, suggests an obvious potential strategy for Democrats: Nominate Southerners in the future and you’ll do better in the electoral college. Picking up a few Southern states can allow the Northern Alliance to get enough votes to push you over the magic 270. This is an obvious thing, one I’ve thought about before, and one I’m sure many Democratic movers and shakers have thought about. But Bob Novak points out a problem resulting from Tuesday’s election:
In the wake of
Kerry’s unimpressive candidacy, Democrats ponder the alternative of
Howard Dean’s radicalism that is even further removed from the
political mainstream. The more attractive course would be a return to
the artful Southerner model of Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton —
conservative in style, liberal in substance. But with the Republican
sweep in Dixie, there are no such Democrats to choose from — certainly
not Sen. John Edwards, who as vice presidential candidate exerted no
impact in his own state of North Carolina. Sen. Hillary Clinton as the
presidential nominee in 2008 would only compound the party’s dilemma [Source].
This is something that hadn’t quite struck me before. Even if the Dems might want to nominate more candidates on the mold of Bill Clinton, they will find it increasingly difficult to do so. There are only two basic offices that put you in position to run for the presidency: senator and governor (vice-president doesn’t count since vice-presidents are almost invariably senators or governors first). You have to be one of these two things before you are likely to be perceived as a credible presidential candidate.
But the Dems can’t come up with a Southern nominee if there are no Southern Democratic senators and governors. We’re not at the zero number just yet, but we’re getting close, with Republicans holding all but four Southern senatorships and a similar number of governors, and many of these are not suitable presidential candidates for a variety of reasons. Not every senator or governor makes a good candidate for president: Just look at Howard Dean (a governor) or Ted Kennedy (a senator).
If the Republican consolidation presently underway in the South gets to a certain point, it may become impossible for Democrats to pursue a Southern strategy for lack of potential candidates, quite apart from the increasing radicalization of the party (which would disincline them to nominate a moderate Southern Democrat).
It may be possible for them to raid other red state areas for candidates with Southern appeal, but not for long if the consolidation continues apace there as well.
Over on Mark Shea’s blog, Mark is having a discussion with some folks who are asking for a detailed consideration of what would have happened if Vatican II didn’t take place. Mark has been concerned to point out that the actions of an ecumenical council must be understood in relation to their animation by the Holy Spirit.
Some thoughts:
1) Concerning the theological nature of an ecumenical council, not every question has been answered here. It has been a tradition since the Council of Jerusalem (which wasn’t an ecumenical council per se but which serves as the prototype for such councils) to speak as if the council’s decisions are prompted by the Holy Spirit (though in that case the council seems to have been called by the Holy Spirit himself in special revelation, so the participants might have extra reason to think that the results they arrived at were at His prompting). They certainly are protected from error by the Holy Spirit when the Council engages its infallibility, but even when it does not do so the motions of the Holy Spirit must be presumed to be animating the Council, though the human element at work in the Council can make bad decisions and even say false things when not under the protection of infallibility.
2) It seems to be an open question theologically whether ecumenical councils are always called at the appropriate time. One could maintain that a council should have been called, should not have been called, or that it should have been called earlier or later. Nevertheless, once it has been called the successors of the apostles gathered in council invoke the Holy Spirit to guide their actions, and the motive of faith tells us that He does so. We can think that in particular things the human element in the council predominated, but we cannot dismiss a council as not guided by the Holy Spirit.
3) Regarding the "What if Vatican II never happened?" fantasy, it seems to me that it is okay for people to wonder about how history would have been different if different things happened in it. God gave us the gift of reason, which invariably leads us to wonder about "what if" scenarios. It’s therefore okay in principle to wonder about such things. It’s even okay to wonder "what if" questions about the actions of God (e.g., What if God had not let Adam fall?, What if Mary had said No to Gabriel?). These are questions every child asks at some point while absorbing the faith and thinking it through. We don’t always have good answers to such questions, but the questions are okay in and of themselves.
4) That being said, there is something distinctly unhealthy about asking historical "what if"s for people who have an axe to grind. They invariably conjure up "what if" scenarios in which, if history had only taken a turn in their direction at a key juncture, then everything would have been wonderful and humanity (or the Church or the nation) would have entered a Golden Age in which their view triumphed and all problems vanished and everyone gratefully recognized that They Were Right. These are not serious alternative histories. They are fantasies. In reality, history would have been hard and difficult on the other side of The Turning Point as it always is. No Golden Age for mankind until the Second Coming.
5) It is part of human nature to fantasize. It is part of how our intellect works to imagine how things might be different, and part of our emotional nature to imagine how they might be vastly better than they in fact are. It is therefore natural for pro-lifers to fantasize about how the world would be different if only Roe v. Wade didn’t happen, or for Democrats to fantasize about how the would would be if only Gore or Kerry had won, or for militant Muslims to fantasize about how it would be if only their forces were victoriously triumphing over the West everywhere, or for people who have an unhealthy fascination with the idea of Vatican II not happening to fantasize about Vatican II not happening. That’s human nature.
6) But this does not mean that one should encourage people to indulge in such fantasies. They can be very destructive, both for oneself and for those who are led to entertain them. We don’t need any more Muslims fantasizing about vanquishing the West than we already have, thank you. Similarly, we don’t need to spend all our days pining away for a fantasy world in which Vatican II never happened and Traditional Catholicism rules the world. That’s not the world we live in, and if we spend most of our time thinking about what we can’t and won’t have then we will only frustrate and disappoint ourselves, and possibly ruin our spiritual lives and the spiritual lives of others in the process.
7) It is therefore okay to spend a *little* time on "what if" fantasies, but one must not bog down in them. One must face the task that God has put before us, which is making *this* world better, not spending excessive amounts of time in a different world. It is unhealthy to do the latter, and totally appropriate to point out the unhealthiness of doing so.
8) A serious attempt to construct a "what if" scenario would involve no Golden Age and a chronicling of all the *problems* that would have emerged even if The Turning Point had gone differently. These are much less fun than fantasies about where everything goes the way one wants it to, but then that is why there is a difference between fantasy and reality.
Over on Mark Shea’s blog, Mark is having a discussion with some folks who are asking for a detailed consideration of what would have happened if Vatican II didn’t take place. Mark has been concerned to point out that the actions of an ecumenical council must be understood in relation to their animation by the Holy Spirit.
Some thoughts:
1) Concerning the theological nature of an ecumenical council, not every question has been answered here. It has been a tradition since the Council of Jerusalem (which wasn’t an ecumenical council per se but which serves as the prototype for such councils) to speak as if the council’s decisions are prompted by the Holy Spirit (though in that case the council seems to have been called by the Holy Spirit himself in special revelation, so the participants might have extra reason to think that the results they arrived at were at His prompting). They certainly are protected from error by the Holy Spirit when the Council engages its infallibility, but even when it does not do so the motions of the Holy Spirit must be presumed to be animating the Council, though the human element at work in the Council can make bad decisions and even say false things when not under the protection of infallibility.
2) It seems to be an open question theologically whether ecumenical councils are always called at the appropriate time. One could maintain that a council should have been called, should not have been called, or that it should have been called earlier or later. Nevertheless, once it has been called the successors of the apostles gathered in council invoke the Holy Spirit to guide their actions, and the motive of faith tells us that He does so. We can think that in particular things the human element in the council predominated, but we cannot dismiss a council as not guided by the Holy Spirit.
3) Regarding the "What if Vatican II never happened?" fantasy, it seems to me that it is okay for people to wonder about how history would have been different if different things happened in it. God gave us the gift of reason, which invariably leads us to wonder about "what if" scenarios. It’s therefore okay in principle to wonder about such things. It’s even okay to wonder "what if" questions about the actions of God (e.g., What if God had not let Adam fall?, What if Mary had said No to Gabriel?). These are questions every child asks at some point while absorbing the faith and thinking it through. We don’t always have good answers to such questions, but the questions are okay in and of themselves.
4) That being said, there is something distinctly unhealthy about asking historical "what if"s for people who have an axe to grind. They invariably conjure up "what if" scenarios in which, if history had only taken a turn in their direction at a key juncture, then everything would have been wonderful and humanity (or the Church or the nation) would have entered a Golden Age in which their view triumphed and all problems vanished and everyone gratefully recognized that They Were Right. These are not serious alternative histories. They are fantasies. In reality, history would have been hard and difficult on the other side of The Turning Point as it always is. No Golden Age for mankind until the Second Coming.
5) It is part of human nature to fantasize. It is part of how our intellect works to imagine how things might be different, and part of our emotional nature to imagine how they might be vastly better than they in fact are. It is therefore natural for pro-lifers to fantasize about how the world would be different if only Roe v. Wade didn’t happen, or for Democrats to fantasize about how the would would be if only Gore or Kerry had won, or for militant Muslims to fantasize about how it would be if only their forces were victoriously triumphing over the West everywhere, or for people who have an unhealthy fascination with the idea of Vatican II not happening to fantasize about Vatican II not happening. That’s human nature.
6) But this does not mean that one should encourage people to indulge in such fantasies. They can be very destructive, both for oneself and for those who are led to entertain them. We don’t need any more Muslims fantasizing about vanquishing the West than we already have, thank you. Similarly, we don’t need to spend all our days pining away for a fantasy world in which Vatican II never happened and Traditional Catholicism rules the world. That’s not the world we live in, and if we spend most of our time thinking about what we can’t and won’t have then we will only frustrate and disappoint ourselves, and possibly ruin our spiritual lives and the spiritual lives of others in the process.
7) It is therefore okay to spend a *little* time on "what if" fantasies, but one must not bog down in them. One must face the task that God has put before us, which is making *this* world better, not spending excessive amounts of time in a different world. It is unhealthy to do the latter, and totally appropriate to point out the unhealthiness of doing so.
8) A serious attempt to construct a "what if" scenario would involve no Golden Age and a chronicling of all the *problems* that would have emerged even if The Turning Point had gone differently. These are much less fun than fantasies about where everything goes the way one wants it to, but then that is why there is a difference between fantasy and reality.
A revised proposal based on where Texans-at-heart live (props to Steve Schaper, who drafted the proposal):
CLICK TO ENLARGE.
Might be objected to by some non-Texans-at-heart, but would be a useful staring point for negotiations. (No war this time, remember?)