Babbleocity 23

Things don't quite add up ....

Auto rebate leak? - The headlines of the LA Times today blared 'Auto rebate program runs out of money'. The article presented these figures: Total in rebates made available by the government - $1 billion; Maximum rebate available to each buyer - $4,500; Vehicles bought through the program as of late Wednesday - 22,782. Now, I'm no math professor, but 22,782 multiplied by $4,500 is 'only' $102,519,000, not quite $1 billion. There seems to be about $897,481,000 left to spend. So, where does the 'out of money' claim fit in? Looking further into the article, it's clear it's 'pending applications' and projected total demand they are talking about. If the current demand continues the fund will run out before it's originally planned November deadline. Talk about making a point through misdirection and false advertising... Shame on you, LA Dog Trainer!

Summing up Health - One of the bigger tenets of Health Care Reform is a switch from 'pay for procedure' to, well, some other system. The concern is that doctors who get paid by each procedure performed will naturally do more, even if they are not strictly - or possibly even remotely - necessary, adding zillions to our health care bills. OK, I accept that's a problem, but what to do about it? So far the only thing I've heard is the President saying doctors should be paid for how healthy their patients are. What? Healthy people - especially young, healthy people, tend to stay away from doctors. How then do the doctors get paid? And how do we know how much to pay them? It's a thorny problem, and one that better be well worked out before the bill becomes the law...

Curbing banker's enthusiasm - An angry Congress lashed out against Wall Street executives and their fat bonuses. The House, supposedly angered at the $1 billion plus received by executives from 9 'banks' that received government funds, voted today to restrict certain types of pay - most especially bonuses for taking risks. Good! I think. Get some of that back and the auto rebate can continue ...

Speaking Up ...

Sometimes helping can get you in such trouble. Ask Lucia Whalen, the neighbor who reported the possible break-in that started the whole Gates arrest mess ('SNAFU in Massachusetts').

After the Gates arrest made the headlines, and Mrs. Whalen's role became known, she claimed harsh criticism from the press and from some who called her 'racist'.

Today she held a press conference to make it clear she didn't mention race initially in her 911 call. Only when pressed by the 911 interviewer did she say the suspects might be 'Hispanic'. She claimed she made no mention of 'black males with backpacks', and the release of the 911 tape a day earlier supported her claims.

So, good news for Lucia Whalen - she's now off-the-hook she should never have been hung on in the first place. She can go on about her life - even if she won't be sipping beer with the professor, the policeman, and the Prez.

But we should ask ourselves - carefully, why would it have been wrong if she had said 'I saw two black males with backpacks', if that had been exactly what she witnessed? Surely, it wouldn't be racist or racial profiling if it was an accurate description?

In the Gates case, the witness, Mrs. Whalen, wasn't even quoted accurately, and thus labeled 'racist' without any justification. But hers' is just an extreme example of how quickly people will resort to deflection and finger-pointing in tough situations. Unfortunately, accuracy is no protection against being labeled a 'racist'. Or, in other situations, against being unfairly labeled a 'leftist' or a 'socialist' (Eh, Mr. President and my fellow Democrats?)

So, if you witness what you suspect to be a crime, and you are asked by the police to describe the suspects, I hope you have a camera on hand and can just hand them a picture. If not, don't say anything that might remotely suggest ethnicity or racial heritage. Or religion ('I saw two Lutherans with backpacks'). Better safely and anonymously quiet, than publicly sorry. Just ask Lucia Whalen.

Shuttling Down ...

While the crew of the Endeavour were 'walking' in space and sprucing up the Space Station, like something from the 'Home Makeover' shows - or perhaps 'This Old House', NASA was preparing to give the series it's walking papers.

STS-127 is the first of the final eight Space Shuttle missions. And then it will be over. Back to disposable rockets, parachute re-entry, and 'capsules'. Old-School.

Way back on April 12, 1981, when STS-1, the first flight of the first operational shuttle, the Columbia, left the launch pad in Florida, the story was entirely different. This was the new way to do things. This was the future of manned spaceflight. This was the 'Buck Rogers' that was to - in the long run - save us bucks, turning space into a frequent and (relatively speaking) affordable destination.

And it was something special to behold. Although skeptics did abound - I was one.

I can remember reviewing a fold-out diagram of the Columbia in National Geographic and just knowing the dang thing wasn't going to work. It was too ungainly, and there were too many things to go wrong. Not like the relatively simple rockets in use at the time. And those failed often enough too, despite their simplicity. My family lived in Lompoc, CA, next door to Vandenberg AFB, a sort of west-coast Cape, and a self-destructed, off-course rocket was a not too uncommon sight in the night skies.

But on April 12, 1981, the Columbia roared aloft and, despite all fears, made it safely home. Seeing that orbiter glide in on the dry lake at Edwards AFB was truly inspirational, and a sure sign that a new age of spaceflight had dawned.

Time and tides are tough on all things made by humans, however, and the ensuing years since that triumphant first mission have not been kind. There have been many successes, true, some of them tremendous achievements, but the overall goal of the project has failed. Spaceflight is not cheaper than before - those reusable orbiters need extensive and expensive upkeep and repairs after every mission; the flights have never become routine - never truly 'shuttles'; and there have been tragic failures.

So, with the final missions just ahead, where do we go next? NASA seems intent on following a model of expendable spacecraft, including fully-automated ones not meant to be piloted by humans.

I find that logical, but immensely sad and uninspiring. Despite NASA's failure to build a truly reusable manned space vehicle with the shuttle program, the concept remains a good one, and a worthy goal for future development.

Besides, those of us who grew up watching 'Star Trek' yearn to see a spaceship named 'The Enterprise' someday, and unlike that early shuttle prototype of the same name, we want it to be fully-functional. To boldly-go, as it were.

And it would be best if that future Enterprise didn't just shoot up into space never to be seen again. It should fly grandly back from it's adventures and land here on Earth, intact, just like a space shuttle...

Standing By ...

Sometimes, not often, but perhaps just when you need it, something good comes on the tube on a Friday night. This night, this Friday, it was 'Stand by Me'.

I can remember seeing this movie when it came out, back in 1986. I had to see it, since my then girlfriend's Uncle trained the dog in the movie. Not much of that dog made it on screen, but the Uncle was an ace trainer so I am guessing a lot got left on the cutting room floor (they still cut tape back then).

When I saw the movie, I was 31. I was just about in the age group the movie was aimed at, and the movie was a box office success. It spoke of our childhood to many of us, and reminded us of simple, exciting times when the world was very big and our futures unknown. The movie also reminded us of just how good the friendships we made then were.

'Stand by Me' was based on the Stephen King novella, 'The Body'. It's one of his best - I'd say the best, excepting perhaps 'The Long Walk' (written as Richard Bachman). And the movie is arguably the best adaptation ever of a work by King. Better even than the excellent 'The Dead Zone', and ahead of 'The Shawshank Redemption' by virtue of less pathos and more cultural relevance.

The movie also happened to be the watershed of it's director, Rob Reiner. Sure, he'd already done 'This Is Spinal Tap', and he'd yet to do 'When Harry Met Sally', but only the most rabid Tap and Meg Ryan fans would assert those pictures were better than 'Stand by Me'. This is his best work. Light hands on the reigns, excellent casting (River Phoenix, Will Wheaton, Corey Feldman - excellent here, and a host of others, including Kiefer Sutherland), and a keen sense of the essence of King's story. Reiner nailed it, and if there's any justice in this world, he will at the very least be remembered forever as the best adaptor of King ever.

But more to the point, the movie was faithful to Stephen King's story of four kids going on a quest to find the dead body of a boy their age. And what a story. One kid is 'the invisible boy' since his better-liked, successful, football star brother died and his parents can't adapt. Another is the son of a brutal, but tortured father (who we don't see, but seem to know), a man he loves despite the pain he inflicted on him. There's the fat, goofy kid, who may be truly clueless or may be acting that way to fit in. And then there's the 'bad' kid, from a troubled family, who's trying to rise above his lot - and just might, with the help of his friend, the invisible boy - who's a budding talent as a writer, and perhaps an analog of King himself. All these kids are different, but they are all friends, if just for a time, a summer, an adventure.

There's also 'The Body' - the dead kid, killed by a train. In the climax of the movie, his body is fought over by our gang and an older group of JDs headed by 'Ace' (Sutherland). His sad end started the whole journey and fueled the story, but had little to do with it, except perhaps as a presaging of the future of at least one of our heroes.

The novella and the movie seem to say 'you can't escape fate, but you can play with it a little'. There's some wiggle room in all of our lives, but making the most of it doesn't always lead to a happy ending.

I find this movie more arresting now than back in '86. The nostalgia overwhelms me now in ways it never could, when I was still 'young'. I had no kids of my own then.

'Have Gun Will Travel, Is the Card of A Man' ... indeed.

SNAFU in Massachusetts

Now that the media sharks have got hold of the 'story' of Henry Louis Gates arrest by Cambridge police, it's hard to sort out the facts. The headlines blare 'Racial Profiling' and claim racial bias is still present in America. As if that was news to anyone. President Obama calling the actions of the police stupid doesn't really help the clarity of the situation.

From what I can gather, here's what seems to have happened. Gates, arriving home with a friend, found he'd misplaced his keys. He decided to break into his own house. A neighbor spots this break-in and, like you'd hope a neighbor would, calls the police. They arrive and ask Gates for identification.

Now up to this point, there's nothing unusual here, even the fact the neighbor didn't recognize Gates. It was night after all, and few among us know all of our neighbors that well these days. The police did what they should. You don't respond to a break-in call and then accept the word of whoever you meet at the house that, 'it's alright, I live here'. You ask for proof.

After this point, though, it starts going horribly wrong. Gates, though likely embarrassed at having the police at his door, should simply have shown his ID. If he had done that, with no commentary, the police would have filled in a couple of forms and that would be that.

But, for some reason known only to Professor Gates, but perhaps because police officers don't always have the best public relations skills, he refused to comply with the police request and claimed the responding officer was being racist - that he was being racially profiled. That he was being asked for his ID in his own home only because he was a black man.

It's not an easy thing to calmly accept being called a racist, especially if you don't think you are, and it seems the officer didn't take this well. At this point I gather (the facts are hazy) he threatened to arrest Gates if he didn't calm down and comply. The published reports don't say how much of this went on and for how long, but at some point Gates relented and showed the officers his ID.

Here again, things could have ended, if not happily, at least acceptably. The police could have said something like, 'Thank you, Mr. Gates. Sorry for the inconvenience - just checking to be sure everything was OK. Good Evening', and beaten a hasty retreat. But, no, for whatever reason, possibly because Gates was loud and insistent that he was a racist - we'll never know for sure, the officer decided Gates' behavior was sufficiently wrong to require his arrest.

Oh Boy, Big Mistake! Haven't the police learned anything in the last 30 years about race relations and the media? Not in Cambridge, Mass., it seems.

What we have here, in reality, are two men with bruised egos rankled by what they perceive as false and unfair accusations. One of them a distinguished scholar who happens to be a black man, and the other a dedicated defender of the public safety who happened to take the wrong call at the wrong time. Both good men, both naturally angry at being accused of something they didn't do. Sadly, neither were generous or humble enough to admit their mistakes.

Functionally, the President was right, the police were 'stupid', in that the public will always hold the police to a higher standard than an individual. Even though it was a human being who made the decisions here, he's seen as part of an organization that should know better, should be immune to human emotions. Gates, as a fallible individual, gets the benefit of our doubts.

So the police dropped the charges.

But, of course, it's now too late. The media have taken over. The President has weighed in. Lawsuits will ensue.

SNAFU, baby!

A Dream of Mars?

By way of celebrating the 40th Anniversary of their historic moon shot, the Apollo 11 crew practically ignored our nearest neighbor. They'd been there, and, well, they'd done that. Time to move on. High time. Past Time, even.

No, their eyes were on Mars. More accurately, their dreams were directed to that red and (most likely) lifeless planet, since they will never make it there themselves. Too much time has passed since their historic achievement, and they weren't exactly kids back then.

So what is it that has these men, who accomplished all they were ever going to personally achieve in space exploration forty years ago, so fired up on going to Mars? Perhaps it's just because it's there. Way out there. Maybe it's because the trip would require a stretching of technology and human determination.

It might just be possible these good fellows were recruited by someone to pitch this trip. Recruited by someone who believes this anniversary and their prestige can help close a very hard sell in these tough economic times. With money being poured on fiscal fires at every turn, President Obama, if not Congress, could justify reluctance to spend hundreds of billions on a Mars trip - an 'investment' that would generate no immediate return.

The astronauts pitched the value we received from the ground-breaking technology the Apollo program generated. It's likely the computer I type this on wouldn't exist otherwise, nor would the internet in it's present form. Many hope a trip to Mars would do more of the same, while fearing a return to the moon wouldn't.

They could be right. But, if so, I think only partly. A return to the moon would require new technologies, or at least require a rapid evolution of technologies that exist now in research laboratories. Robotics, for instance.

A return to the moon makes so much sense it pains me to see Aldrin and Collins downplaying it (Armstrong came off neutral - the man's beyond influence, it seems). Such a return would stretch technology, and lessons learned would serve a later Mars journey.

Of course, it's possible that the Apollo 11 astronauts could be thinking that government funded missions should focus far out - at the bleeding edge. Perhaps they believe 'backfill' trips are better left to private enterprise.

A bleeding Mars, and the Moon as a 'suburban' development project. Dream or nightmare?

Babble-On 22

Is it still Monday?

Selling the Moon - It's been reported that Google is sponsoring a contest for private firms to send a rover to the moon. All well and good, except one company plans to take this technology to an absurd end - to advertise on the moon. I don't know about you, but if I look up at night and see 'Drink Coke' or something like it writ large in lunar dust, I will absolutely revolt. And I am talking the lit torches, barrels of feathers, and hot tar at the ready kind of revolt. So watch out, You!

Selling Out Reform - The media seem to have turned on President Obama's Health Care Reform Effort. I guess all it takes are a few 'Blue-Dog' Democrats (whatever the hell kind of pooches they are) to ignite a NIMBY sort of 'who's gonna pay for it' stalemate masquerading as a debate, and the media change tune. Of course, taking the controversial - but popular- position sells, so what else could we expect? More, I'd hoped ...

Selling the Longest Goodbye - If the media can't hold their water on Health Care Reform, why should we expect them to refrain from capitalizing on tragedy more than is necessary (from a newsworthiness perspective). Long after his actual death, Michael Jackson remains a headliner in the news. The press is still pondering whether his death was an accident or murder. I guess it couldn't be hoped that such an out-sized individual as Mr. Jackson be allowed to go quietly and with a modicum of dignity, but, this is beyond-the-pale (sorry).

Monday, Begone! Onwards to a better (or saner) rest of the week (please)...