Pale Blue Dot

Tags

America, apollo, apollo 8, appreciation, astronomy, carl sagan, conservation, cosmology, earth, earth day, earth rise, earthrise, environmental, environmentalism, global, global consciousness, human, humanism, humanitarian, humanitarianism, international, international affairs, international relations, nasa, national, pale blue dot, planet, planet earth, planetary society, politics, preservation, sagan, science, space, united states, vogager 1, voyager

A growing awareness of the earth began in the 1960s.  The connection between astronomy/cosmology and environmentalism is a very clear one.  When NASA’s Apollo astronauts took photos of the earth from space for the first time (including the iconic “Earthrise”, an image taken by Apollo 8 astronauts during the first human space flight to orbit the moon in 1968), a never before experienced sense of awe was felt by humans who could truly see the sheer beauty of their home for the first time.  The environmental movement was born out of a convergence of factors, including mounting fears over nuclear weapons.  The photos the astronauts took transcended borders, and impacted people in a way political arguments never could.  It began in the United States, but in the decades since its inception has become a global phenomenon, celebrated in at least 144 countries worldwide.  Many of these countries recognize the accompanying Earth Week, the week leading up to April 22.

“Earthise”, 1968

In honor of Earth Day, I’d like to draw attention to the importance of preservation by highlighting one of the most visceral and affecting descriptions of Earth I’ve seen.  This description comes from the introduction to Carl Sagan’s 1994 book A Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space.

 

 

Credit: NASA / JPL

“Pale Blue Dot”, 1991

According to the Planetary Society, of which Carl Sagan was a co-founder:

“This excerpt from A Pale Blue Dot was inspired by an image taken, at Sagan’s suggestion, by Voyager 1 on February 14, 1990.  As the spacecraft left our planetary neighborhood for the fringes of the solar system, engineers turned it around for one last look at its home planet.  Voyager 1 was about 6.4 billion kilometers (4 billion miles) away, and approximately 32 degrees above the ecliptic plane, when it captured this portrait of our world.  Caught in the center of scattered light rays (a result of taking the picture so close to the Sun), Earth appears as a tiny point of light, a crescent only 0.12 pixel in size.”

From http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/voyager/pale_blue_dot.html

“We succeeded in taking that picture [from deep space], and, if you look at it, you see a dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever lived, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.

The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity – in all this vastness – there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It’s been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.”

-Carl Sagan

Earth, for all of its resilience, is a fragile ecosystem.  Science is miraculous, and life on earth is the most improbable of possibilities.  While the search for astrobiology continues in earnest–efforts not least of which have been made by Carl Sagan’s Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, or SETI—so far, our one planet is all we have and the only place in the universe that we know with certainty contains life.  As Sagan said, the responsibility of stewardship of our home is “up to us” because  “there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves”.  Not only should we direct our efforts at treating out fellow human beings with “kindness” and “compassion”, but we should “preserve” and “cherish” Earth.  This is the message of Earth Day, a message we celebrate every April, but one we should carry with us every day.

Advertisements

Dangerous Excess Against the XX

Tags

abortion, abstinence, affordable care act, american economy, Ann Coulter, ann romney, biden, congress, conservative, contraception, democratic, democrats, domestic violence, economy, education, equal pay, equal rights, female, females, feminisim, freedom, girls, glenn grothman, government aid, governor walker, grothman, health care, healthcare, house, immigrants, immigration, interest group, joe biden, labor, legislation, lgbt, liberal, mitt romney, money, mothers, native american, obama, paul ryan, paul ryan budget, phyllis schlafly, politics, president obama, progressive, republican, republicans, rights, romney, ryan budget, salary, scott walker, senate, single mothers, unions, united states, vawa, vice president biden, violence, violence against women act, walker, war on women, wisconsin, women, women's rights, work, xx, xx chromosome

With all of the recent “War on Women” rhetoric, I’d like to sound off on this subject.  “Polls show Obama ahead with women by 19 points”.  “Romney is trailing with female voters”.  “Women have historically voted more for Democrats”.  “The real way to appeal to female voters is…”  Stop.  Women are human beings.  Depersonalizing the existence of more than half of the population is a sure way to alienate a group so seemingly important to politicians.  You’d think their strategists would realize this.

I’m not part of a monolithic voting bloc, and I’m not an interest group.  President Obama made this very “not an interest group” point at his recent summit on American women and girls.  Sure, he was pandering, but at least he actually has such a summit.  This was not the first time the summit convened.  It is not merely an election year tactic. 

Yes, I’m voting for President Barack Obama.  I’m sincerely hoping he gets reelected—not because I think of myself as a female voter, and women’s issues are at the top of the list for me.  Quite the contrary.  I wouldn’t have even been thinking about so called “women’s issues” very much had it not been for the recent onslaught against women’s rights.  I’m talking beyond issues of birth control, which, itself, is an unbelievably backward thing to even be bringing up this campaign cycle.  I’m talking about things such as fair pay for women, protection of health benefits, a sense of self worth and privacy, dignity, and pride in oneself.

President Obama is taking advantage of the current political climate in which a great deal of Republicans have been toxic to women.  I’m aware that he hopes to score political points, but I’m not terribly cynical as I accept the fact that such political point scoring on his part might be necessary in order to get reelected.  If he’s talking about actual accomplishments—concrete steps toward advancing and protecting the rights of women—I’m ok with the president reminding the public, and garnering the recognition.

The president has lauded the fact that the first bill he signed into law after being elected was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  When I heard about this initially, at the beginning of Obama’s first term, I was extremely surprised that such an act was not already in place.  The president’s signing of this bill, the contents of which protect a woman seeking retribution for unfair pay even after her employer has paid her less than her male colleagues for years, is a big deal.  Contrast this with the recent undoing of Wisconsin’s fair pay law by Governor Walk All Over Workers (Governor Walker).  Walker has a history of abusing his power and fervently attacking workers and unions in the short time he has been governor.  Now that he is set to be recalled, he has kicked into overdrive, much like the especially active 111^th Congress in late 2010 during the “lame duck” session.  The “quiet” action he took on women’s pay is one of several bills the governor has recently passed in such a fashion.  The New York Daily News elaborates: “The wage bill was one of several items Walker, a controversial union-defying GOPer, signed off on this month.  Other pieces of legislation included barring abortion coverage through health insurance exchanges, mandating doctors to consult privately with women seeking abortions, and requiring sex ed teachers to stress abstinence.”

Add to this the recent comments by  Wisconsin State Senator Glenn Grothman, claiming that women don’t need to be paid equally to men and that more money was more important to a man because his ego is very important and he might want to be the breadwinner.  In a recent article, The newspaper explains, “Under the old law, employees who win discrimination lawsuits can collect between $50,000 and $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.  The GOP bill bars anyone from collecting such funds in employment discrimination suits.

Democrats argue the bill negatively affects women who suffer discrimination in the workplace.

According to the recent Shriver Report, women are the primary or co-breadwinners in two-thirds of American families — but continue to make 23 cents less than men for every dollar earned.”

The entire article can be found here: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-11/news/31326804_1_wage-gap-wage-bill-discrimination

Grothman thinks “workplace bias” is bullshit.  Not only is this terribly ignorant and out of step with modernity; it is unbelievably offensive.

Speaking of the shockingly offensive, the Violence Against Women Act is up for a reauthorization vote in Congress.  This should be a no-brainer.  It should not be a partisan vote, and it hasn’t been a partisan vote in the past.  It is worth noting that Vice President Biden is responsible for the original Violence Against Women Act.  This particular piece of legislation is facing significant opposition for the first time.  Whether this is some subtle way of trying to score points against the president’s reelection bid (because it is Biden’s legislation) at the expense of women or for some other nefarious reason, it is a disgusting display of disregard for their fellow human beings.  The Violence Against Women Act protects women in particularly vulnerable positions, and for a party that claims to be so chivalrous and value “the fairer sex”, you’d think Republicans would do all that’s in their power to reauthorize such a bill.      

 According to an article in The Huffington Post,  “Since the Violence Against Women Act was first enacted in 1994, reporting of domestic violence has increased by as much as 51 percent.  The legislation was aimed at improving the response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.  Yet according to national statistics, more than three women are, on average, murdered by their husbands or boyfriends every day.” 

Terrible, right?  Strengthening protections for women through a reauthorization of this bill should be a bipartisan effort, right?  Wrong.  The article goes on to say “Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and a few conservative organizations, object not to the act as a whole, but to new protections for LGBT individuals, undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse and the authority of Native American tribes to prosecute crimes.”

For those interested in reading the entire article, it can be found here.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/16/violence-against-women-act-reauthorization-senate-vote_n_1429327.html

I could go on and on about Mitt Romney’s record on saying that poor women must have the “dignity of work”—meaning work outside the home—if they are to qualify for state aid, which is understandable, but less understandable when he and every other Republican, it seems, have  advocated cutting childcare and education programs like Head Start.  Most women do not have the luxury of raising children without working outside the home (unlike his wife, who has the “hardest job there is”, apparently), especially single mothers, and for the poorest women, outside work is increasingly difficult if they do not receive adequate government aid.  The much-celebrated Paul Ryan budget plan deals a disproportionately heavy blow to women as well.

From frighteningly restrictive abortion laws (such as the recent law that says that life begins two weeks after a woman’s period), women’s basic rights to their own bodies and their ability to make decisions are being trampled in the name of some warped, overbearing ideology.  President Obama’s Affordable Care Act is not aimed specifically toward women, but in many ways it advances women’s rights.  Nothing in this bill, not even the apparently terrifying contraception language, is as overarching as many recently proposed (and passed) bills limiting women’s rights.

While I do not want to be defined by my gender, I feel a duty to inform those who share it a bit about what is happening in America.  Every individual is free to vote for whomever she or he wants to, but I don’t understand how any woman who isn’t Ann Coulter or Phyllis Schlafly could ever—in good conscience—vote for a Republican this cycle.  If someone finds me a Republican who bucks this trend, I would be very happy.

Give Me Liberty, Not Cyber Death

Tags

ACLU, boundaries, cyber, equality, facebook, federal government, freedom, government, Harry Potter, inequality, internet, justice, libertarian, libertarianism, liberty, online, politics, privacy, religion, rights, school, security, social networking, social networks, technology, tyranny, warrentless wiretap, warrentless wiretapping, work

The recent attempts by authority figures at curtailing individuals’ Facebook activity are disturbing.  Two recent examples of such action include attempts by employers to obtain new and prospective employees’ facebook passwords and the order by officials at a Crown Heights, Brooklyn high school that students must cancel their Facebook accounts or suffer expulsion from school (in addition to a $100 fine). 

It is a new, more open world in which technology allows activity that hasn’t been regulated.  Those who wish to control such activity by members of their groups are playing catch up, trying to exert control over people in a changing world.  The advent of Facebook creates a plane in which people can express themselves outside of the controlled environments of school or work.  On Facebook, the person is free to be himself or herself without the enforced constraints of these environments, and transcend the identifiers of “student” or “employee”.

Every day, I hear cries of “tyranny” used by people against the power of the federal government, and dismiss them as hyperbole.  In the cases of cyber infringement (more of which I’m sure are to come), a smaller private body is trying to get its overarching tentacles into the personal affairs of citizens in the same way that some allege that the federal government tries to control aspects of their lives.  I do not consider myself a Libertarian, but something must be said for personal freedom.  Let’s be clear: these individuals are not being targeted for engaging in illegal or otherwise criminal behavior.  No such invasion of their privacy or usurpation of their autonomy is necessary.  Was warrantless wiretapping ok in order to listen in on people’s conversations?  Many people thought it was not, and the reason given for such intrusive action was national security.  Though “national security” was an ill-fitting, catch all phrase, at least it hinted at the possibility of a real reason.  Nothing approaching this scale even comes close to the reasons behind destroying a large part of someone’s autonomy.  Again, not hyperbole. 

 With the number of Facebook profiles approaching the 1 billion mark, Facebook is no mere fluke or fringe movement.  It is a worldwide, easily accessible network, which makes it a threat.  It is also an extension of ourselves.  When the rabbis in charge of the Crown Heights school claim that the world created by the website is “not real”, they display a gross misunderstanding of the technology.  Interactions occur through Facebook, but profiles also serve as a conduit for a wide-ranging manner of personal information.  It is no wonder each page is called a “profile”.  From photo albums which chronicle important life events to the digital recognition of personal milestones to spaces in which everything from niche interests to news stories can be disseminated and connections can be built, Facebook is like the Room of Requirement for any person wishing to use it.  Yes, that was a Harry Potter reference.  The next thing you know, those frightened, ignorant adults will be trying to ban that book series too.  Oh, wait, that’s already happened.  Thanks, overzealous Christians who think that the wizards and sorcery in children’s books are the “devil’s work”. 

Digressions aside, we live in the 21st century.  Such technology cannot and should not be held back because it presents uncertainty for a ruling class in any situation.  Employers claim fear of liability if they don’t properly vet employees.  Fine, perform background checks.  Asking for a Facebook password oversteps any reasonable person’s bounds.  Social networking is very new.  The Internet is not much older.  It is easy to forge these facts because they have become such an integral part of our lives.  Because the youth have grown up in the cyber age, we have taken for granted the wonders of the Internet, particularly the freedom and the new degree of interconnectedness it allows us to have.  This is all the more reason we should be aware of attempts to chip away aspects of this from us.  Anything that upends the status quo is viewed warily by those in positions of power.  Facebook is the latest battleground.  We must protect our liberty, or someone more powerful will always try to take it away.