Salvation Show

         As I followed the many news reports covering the selection and investiture of the new pope, I marveled at the hordes of people, both Roman Catholic and otherwise, who followed a selection process with the same intensity you would expect if they were following their own spiritual destinies.  I also could not help but be reminded of the parallels between modern history and ancient history: comparing the crowds greeting and acknowledging Pope Francis with New Testament narratives of Jesus Christ being hailed and enthusiastically greeted with a parade of palms and with much rejoicing as he entered Jerusalem, only to be turned against, vilified, and crucified a few short days later.  Christ was hailed as a new spiritual leader, and then his fickle followers found themselves disappointed, so disappointed that their cheers turned into jeers.

          By the way, if at the outset you think that this posting might a simple and easy castigation of the pope, you will be mistaken.

That the pope leads one of the most powerful, one of the richest, organizations in existence today is certainly no secret.   Political leaders meet with him and give him his due respect as such a leader.  The Roman Catholic Church commands of billions of dollars and millions of people, and the Pope is the Supreme Authority of the Roman Catholic Church.  I have no problems with the acknowledgement of such power.  I may take issue with the way the billions of dollars are invested and with certain policies, but that belongs in a different posting.

History tells us there have been good popes and bad popes; I do not know why people have problems with that.  There have been good queens and kings, and there have been bad kings and queens.  There have been good emperors, and there have been bad emperors.  There have been good presidents and bad presidents.   Yes, the Catholic Church has made bad decisions, terrible decisions, which have affected millions one way or another.  So have various nations throughout history.   

Through the centuries, the pope has remained a source of holy awe by Roman Catholics.  Respect is both understood and understandable.  “Holy awe,” as evidenced by the recent videos, photographs, and reports, is quite another subject.  Surely, in this day and age, we are all cognizant of what it takes to be a powerful leader of a powerful organization with powerful dollars behind it.  I do not quibble about the basic business knowledge and acumen needed to lead.  I do wonder though how “holiness” can exist in the same job category that contains the words “power” and “money.”

          The pope is considered “infallible” by his followers.  The doctrine of papal infallibility states that when the pope teaches ex cathedra (“from the chair”) his teachings are perfect, incontrovertible, and omniscient. Such infallible papal decrees must be made by the pope, in his role as leader of the whole Church, and they must be definitive decisions on matters of faith and morals which are binding on the whole Church.  The doctrine was defined at the First Vatican Council in 1870, although it existed long before 1870.  What if the pope, in his ex cathedra role, declared that half of the Vatican’s wealth should be distributed to the needy and hungry?  I wonder if the various Vatican counsels would still follow his orders as they are pledged to.  I wonder how long he would remain pope after such a declaration.

The issue of infallibility of one person it seems to me is grounded in arrogance and vanity, an arrogance in which one equates oneself with God, and hence equates with pride which is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.  Over and above any interpretation of sin, in an era where we are all too familiar with the frailties of human nature, how can such a proclaimed attribute be taken seriously?

By the way, I do not lay any blame upon new Pope Francis personally for this double crown of thorns of infallibility and holiness.  These are responsibilities contained in the job description, and, let us be honest, it cannot be a job that very many people want.

However, what is more disconcerting are the people who need to believe in that infallibility, who need to believe in that absolute holiness, in that one man's absolute perfection.  They need their leader to be perfect so they can cling to an ideal of a certain type of faith, actually the same type of blind faith contained in that mob that turned against Christ within a matter of days.

What about those droves who look upon the pope, or look upon any leader or teacher, as the perfect avatar of wisdom and spirituality?  We are not talking about the simple need to be lead; we are talking about that need to be lead by one who is thought of as perfect, who will give without fail the most profound and perfect advice.   

We look for answers to life’s most profound questions, and we want those offering up answers to proclaim their words with final authority.  We demand guarantees.  We demand that they possess that impossible quality of infallibility.  When you think about it, the pope is really only giving people what they want.

However, when we discover that the true answers in life must be discovered within ourselves, that no one individual outside of ourselves has the perfect answer, that those perfect answers can only come about when we dwell, meditate or pray, we become disillusioned.   When we realize that we have to “do the work” ourselves, that what we perceived as the promised answers (the Promised Land?) are only really words, that disillusionment magnifies.  The hordes of people, instead of accepting responsibility for themselves, for their own souls, basically say to the pope “Okay, Papa, tell us exactly what to do and we know we will then go to heaven.”  When it is realized that no one can tell anyone exactly what to do in order to attain the ideal of heaven, a sense of betrayal follows.  The mob turns.

  Centuries ago the mob turned because they discovered they were not lead by a king who would literally raise them above their earthly human condition; they misunderstood the lessons.  Today’s mobs turn in a different way, they turn cynical, critical and fall into despair, because they STILL misunderstand the lessons, the lessons of all the truly great and profound teachers.

In the little known Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is quoted as saying:  If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.

        Buddha admonishes:  No one saves us but ourselves.  No one can and no one may.  We ourselves must walk the path.

        The Bhagavad Gita teaches:  It is better to live your own destiny imperfectly than to live an imitation of somebody else's life with perfection.

        In Luke, Christ assures us:   Everyone who seeks, finds.

         In the end, those who follow any leader, religious or political, or any faith, religious or political, with blind awe and devotion only fail themselves; they fail their already-perfect souls by not creating a human experience of understanding that is meant to enhance even more those perfect souls.

        If you are going to have blind faith in anything, have blind faith in your soul.

 

      Until next time, LL&P!

  

References:

First Vatican Council, "First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church", chapter 4, 9
infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error", P. J. Toner, infallibility, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910. 

 

 

 

The Sharps and the Jets

         With the decision to allow knives into the airline passenger cabin, it seems that the Transportation Security Administration has forgotten why it was formed after 9/11.  While they try to assure that razors and box cutters will still be prohibited, I am a bit confused.  I guess that no one at the agency realizes that a blade from a pocket knife can in fact be sharpened to a nice keen edge. 

Sports equipment such as billiard cues, ski poles, hockey sticks, Lacrosse sticks and golf clubs will also be allowed.  I guess none of the smart guys ever heard of the damage that the pointed end of a ski pole can do, and that golf clubs, hockey sticks, Lacrosse sticks and billiard cues can be used to whack a person in the head, break a limb, and if you jab someone hard enough with one of those things, well, you can kill. 

Have I been watching too many CSI episodes perhaps? 

The specifics are that passengers will be able to carry-on knives that are less than 2.36 inches long and less than one-half inch wide.  Do the smart guys know where the jugular vein is located?  Do the smart guys know how close the jugular vein is to the skin?  Do the smart guys know that an eyeball can be pierced?   

Maybe I have been reading too many Lee Child, David Baldacci, Brad Thor, Steve Martini, and Jeffery Deaver novels.  (Not that any of them might have written of passenger jet hijackings, but you do get a whiff of versatile and effective manslaughter techniques.) 

What is the TSA thinking of?  Oh, that’s right.  They are not thinking.   

They are not remembering what happened on 9/11; and, as a side note, although it was widely reported that the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters in their attack, the weapons were not recovered, and investigators believe other types of knives were used. 

TSA maintains that the new regulations will allow them to better focus efforts on finding "higher threat items such as explosives.”    Higher threat?  They do not think that the danger of a slit throat or two falls under the category of “higher threat”?  

They go on to say that the newly-permitted items are “unlikely to result in catastrophic destruction of an aircraft,” and that policies already in place, such as hardened cockpit doors, federal air marshals, crew members with self-defense training, reduce the likelihood of passengers breaching the cockpit.  Let us say that potentially you have half a dozen guys on one plane bent on creating mayhem with their sticks, poles, and knives:  I for one would not care to gamble that heartbreaking destruction is impossible. 

Theoretically, the new rule will allow screeners to focus on finding explosive device components and other things that can be "catastrophic" to a plane, speed trips through security checkpoints, and "address the hassle factor." 

Sure, we all bemoan the inconveniences of flight security.   The need to arrive at the airport an hour and a half to two hours before flight time is a real pain.  Ask yourself seriously, though, to weigh the lesser of the inconveniences:  arriving an hour earlier for your flight, or finding yourself on an airliner being aimed towards the closest tall building. 

Now I am the last person who wants to live in a police state, and I believe our individual freedoms are important to maintain.  However, when I get on an airplane, a train, a boat, I want to know, not feel that I am, but know that I am as safe as possible from the even remote possibility of a repeat of 9/11.

TSA spokesperson Nico Melendez said that removing small knives and some sports equipment from the list prohibited items “will help align TSA’s list with international standards and help decrease the time spent rescreening or searching bags for these once prohibited items.”  International standards? Has the TSA ever heard of El Al?  An Israeli airline, and with all that can be implied with it being an Israeli airline, El Al is about the safest way you can fly.  When was the last time El Al reduced its security efforts?   

"It's as if we didn't learn anything from 9/11," said George Randall Taylor, head of the air marshal unit of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA). "Flight attendants are going to be sitting ducks.”  A union representing 90,000 flight attendants called the measure "a poor and short-sighted decision by the TSA."  "Continued prohibition of these items is an integral layer in making our aviation system secure and must remain in place," the Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions said in a statement.

We Americans seem to have conveniently short memories, and we want it all: we want to be safe, yet we do not want what we regard as our freedoms to be affected.  I ask you, what harm is it in demanding and requiring that a passenger not carry a knife, or any other weapon, on board a plane?  Yes, some will say that you erode one freedom you erode them all.  But, remember, being a passenger on an airliner, just as with driving a car, is not a right; it is not a freedom.  It is a privilege (which we may pay a lot for these days in dollars and cents, but a privilege nonetheless).   

Is the purpose of this relaxing of weapons carry-on truly due to the desire on the part of TSA to make our lives as travelers easier?  I doubt it.  If anyone in the government was really serious about making flying easier they would enact legislation requiring wider seats in every class.   

TSA just recently signed a deal to spend $50Million on new uniforms.  All the budget cuts currently under review, the rampant fear-mongering about reduction in social services, and the TSA has $50M to spend on uniforms!  This reeks of the same bile as Senatorial vacations and perks. 

Wait a minute, with the reduction in TSA security, the current number of agents won’t be needed right?  What will they do with the money left over from the uniform budget?  Return it? 

            Maybe the money should be set aside for a contingency terrorist victim relief fund.

 

            Until the next time, LL&P!

 

 

References:

http://www.nbcnews.com/travel/tsa-allow-passengers-carry-small-knives-planes-1C8700194

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/travel/tsa-carry-on-changes/index.html?hpt=hp_bn10

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/03/06/tsa-rule-change-knives-down-shoes-must-go/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/tsa-signs-50-million-uniform-deal-as-billions-in-federal-cuts-ripple-across/

 

 

 

 

 

Telecommuting Trials

          Marissa Mayer, Yahoo’s CEO, has taken brutal criticism for ordering telecommuting employees to return to company offices. What might lie at the core of this decision, and is she in fact as off base as her detractors believe? Could there be more than a tiny bit of logic in her decision?

         At the outset, it is worthwhile mentioning that while Cisco Systems, Apple Computer and Google lead the vanguard of technologies which facilitate telecommuting, they encourage in-person collaboration. It should also be noted that, while these three companies continue to grow and profit, Yahoo has fallen behind in innovation and competition. Google and Facebook rely upon the judgment of managers when letting people work from home, and both companies have acknowledged that they see a benefit in the creative sparks that come with random meetings in corridors or cafeteria.

When asked how many Google employees telecommute, Chief Financial Officer Patrick Pichette replied, "As few as possible." "There is something magical about spending the time together, about noodling on ideas, about asking at the computer, 'What do you think of this?' " Reflecting Google and Apple’s philosophy, Yahoo's human resourcies chief wrote in a memo, "We need to be working side-by-side," citing the importance of decisions and insights that can arise from impromptu meetings and that "speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home." 

Mayer’s supporters defend her decision by pointing out that many Yahoo workers who work at home never came in and hid from management, and that her decree is a wake-up call to get focused on teamwork and innovation so that the company can get up to speed. 

CEO Mayer, a former Google executive, had already taken steps to improve work conditions at Yahoo, giving employees new smart phones and providing free meals, among other amenities, but critics say that Yahoo’s new policy seems oppressive. "The question is whether this move will result in an exodus among the company's top talent," said John Challenger, CEO of the outplacement firm Challenger Gray& Christmas, noting that "many Silicon Valley tech firms are battling each other to attract and retain the best talent."  

While this might be a viable argument, one cannot help but wonder if the many currently unemployed would make the sacrifice of commuting to work for a regular paycheck. We are not talking about oppressive working conditions; no one would want to work for such a company. We are talking about commuting to work, and working for a company that also supplies free food. But perhaps I digress. 

Stanford economics professor Nicholas Bloom spoke of a study of a Chinese online travel firm, CTrip, which found call-center employees were more productive and performed at a higher level when allowed to work from home. However, a distinction was drawn between call-center workers and higher-skilled professionals, such as executives or software developers. He said the latter can benefit from the flexibility of working at home but also from collaboration in the office. "It's typical for high-end employees to work from home one or two days a week," he said. "They get time away to think and time to be creative and to have a work-life balance. But it's not helpful to have them permanently absent from the workplace." 

I think we need to be clear about two points: (1) we are not discussing call-center employees. The work of the call-center employee is closely monitored by log-in procedures, phone records, key strokes, etc. When they are working, there is nothing nebulous about it. (2) we also are not talking about the telecommuting contractor.  

For the most part, telecommuting sounds appealing, but telecommuting can mean that you wind up working more hours per week than you would if you did not spend time working from home. “The ability to telecommute simply lengthens your work week,” says Jennifer L. Glass, of the University of Texas, who wrote a study with Mary C. Noonan of the University of Iowa, which was published in the Monthly Labor Review. “The promise of telecommuting was that it would help us work when we want where we want.” Instead“it’s really a story of managers being able to squeeze more work out of us,”she says. Telecommuting doesn’t substitute for time spent in the office. “We still have a face-time culture where managers expect us to be in the office for a certain amount of time,” she notes. 

Environmental pundits say that Yahoo is also setting itself up as a company that is not “green.” As of June 2011, there were roughly 2.9 million telecommuters in the UnitedStates, according to the Telework Research Network (TRN), a telecommuting consulting and research firm group. Per TRN, stay-at-home workers save an annual 390 million gallons of gas and prevent the release of 3.6 million tons of greenhouse gases. Regular telecommuters will total 4.9 million by 2016, TRN finds, a 69 percent increase from the current level. If all 50 million US employees who TRN deem "telework-compatible" were to work from home 2.4 days a week, the savings would total over $900 billion a year. That's enough to reduce our Persian Gulfoil imports by 46 percent, the firm says. 

A current popular belief is that employees commit to an organization because they buy into company goals and feel valued, not because they are ordered to sit at their desks. I don’t know; I think a good salary and good benefits go a long way too. Some people maintain that Yahoo may have long-term trust and morale issues if it continues this policy, and it may result in exodus, as talents leave for employers who do not see work-life flexibility at war with job performance. I don’t think that Yahoo has to worry about this; as the unhappy talent leaves, happy talent, talent happy to have good jobs, will take their place. 

Workers who have control over where, when and how they work are thought of as less productive; giving workers flexibility to integrate personal life with work is viewed as antithetical to boosting performance, especially when that integrating of personal life occurs during “regular” work hours. However, studies have shown that all workers value control over personal and work time. The argument for it is that having flextime and telework can make a huge difference in people's lives as they juggle work and life. 

Then there is the argument that telecommuting flexibility enables an employee to work at his or her optimum time and/or hours. This might be true, but if your optimum working hours are from 10:00pm to 6:00am, how do you participate in meetings and collaborate? How far should flexibility be taken before other employees and the work product suffer? The experts say that companies need to set clear performance goals and regular times for meetings and calls, and, when management is no longer sure who works for them or how to coordinate a team, and employees always place their own interests over the company, that’s when it is time to draw in the telecommuters. Is this not just what Mayer is doing? 

            Now let us discuss an aspect that no one seems to want to address or even think about: The Legalities. The February 2013 issue of the Labor Letter did just that in addressing legal concerns that telecommuting raises. 

Even if an employee works from home, the company is responsible for compliance with state and federal wage-hour laws, including paying non-exempt employees overtime for all time worked in excess of forty hours in a work week. If an employee takes calls after hours or even when on vacation, or if the employee answers emails late at night or during the weekend, that time could count as compensable work time. 

More legalities: employers are responsible for providing a safe workplace to all employees, even employees working at home, under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Workers’compensation laws still apply to telecommuters, even when working at home. (I wonder how many employers know that!) To address these issues, telecommuters could be required to have a designated workspace that has been inspected and approved by the company to address workplace safety obligations. The designated workspace can even be subject to random safety inspections and it can be required that the telecommuter maintain safe work practices. Remember, this is in the home. 

Employers are obligated to protect employees from discrimination and harassment, whether they work at home or in the office, and any telecommuting policy must be implemented in a nondiscriminatory manner. In other words, if you let one employee telecommute and not another, you better have a good reason, a good delineation, why one can and another cannot. 

            With the complicated and potential legalities involved, if companies fully understand and appreciate them, you wonder, why they would want employees telecommuting. 

The most telling problem with telecommuting as a work-life solution, according to the study published in the Labor Review mentioned above, is its strong relationship to long work hours and the “work devotion schema.” The majority of wired workers report telecommuting technology has increased their overall work hours and that workers use technology to perform work tasks even when sick or on vacation. I think that the key phrase to this aspect of the study is “. . .wired workers report . . .“ Did they really think the telecommuter would report that they were underworked? That’s pretty naive. 

I think that there can be a good future for telecommuting but only when the issues are resolved, especially the issues of time accountability and the issues of participation in the collaborative and/or creative processes. We have all worked with employees who were supposed to be knee-deep in a project who actually were at the movies, the golf course, the beauty salon, or Nordstrom. I have also worked with the telecommuter who is “too swamped” to finish and/or present a project, or who suddenly experiences software issues, and so the load falls on the shoulders of the on-site employee. I have heard the telecommuting employee complain on a speaker phone “I need a little cooperation here” when an on-site employee really was too busy to finish the work for him. To be fair, I have also seen telecommuting at its best, when the telecommuter seemingly has worked magic with his results. However, unfortunately, that was more uncommon. 

As unpopular as Mayer’s decision might be in certain circles, it has in fact given air to the need to zero in on telecommuting policies and procedures to insure that ALL employees, whether on-site or telecommuting, are fulfilling their commitments to the company that issues their paychecks.

  

Until next time, LL&P!

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_22666067/yahoo-ceo-marissa-mayers-ban-telecommuting-sparks-firestorm?source=most_viewed

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/27/opinion/kossek-yahoo-mayer/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2012/06/art3full.pdf

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/12/21/dont-get-caught-in-the-telecommuting-trap/

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0226/Marissa-Mayer-telecommuting-ban-Will-Yahoo!-rebound-by-being-less-green

http://www.flexjobs.com/blog/post/telecommuting-advantages-and-some-disadvantages-for-good-measure/

http://www.flexjobs.com/blog/post/telecommuting-advantages-and-some-disadvantages-for-good-measure/

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/labor-letter-february-2013-should-your-91563/

 

 

Ersatz Strength

          You’ll have to excuse this week’s blog which is more of a release of frustration through stream of consciousness than anything else.  After experiencing a bit of rudeness at the library, my brain went into tirade mode.

Let us begin with a quote from Edmund Burke:  “Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.” 

Working on my laptop in the library, my research train of thought was interrupted by a cell phone broadcasting a Broadway tune.   The woman at the table next to mine proceeded to answer and carry on fifteen minutes of laughing and light-hearted conversation.  I add this last bit of information in the event you might be under the delusion that an emergency or near-emergency was the reason behind the conversation.   How on earth has engaging in a loud or otherwise phone conversation become acceptable library behavior? 

Movie theater owners and managers no doubt are fully aware why many of us avoid the movies these days.  Yes, of course, the ticket prices are ridiculous, but, over and above that, who wants to pay $10.00 and up to watch a movie that is intruded upon by those who are bound to the incus and stapes by their cells or androids.  Each perpetrator believes in their exceptionality; that their call and/or text message is the most important and good grief, it’s only for a minute so what’s the big deal.  Why this sense of entitlement and importance that whatever you want to say supersedes the enjoyment of the rest of the viewing audience?   

Rudeness resides not only in the realm of a cell phone user. 

Reams have already been written in blogs and online articles about that damned airline seat.  Reclining a bit is one thing; but reclining into another person’s lap is quite another.  Do not give me that hoo-haw about the airlines being at fault because of cramming the seats together to make more money per flight.  Yeah, be rude to the passenger behind you, and then blame your own rudeness on an entity that is not experiencing the effect of  your rudeness.   How on earth could anyone remotely believe that another human being would appreciate an accumulation of his or her dandruff flakes in their lap? 

Could also someone please explain to me why a person would walk in the door of a store, any store, and then stop; just stop dead.  If deciding upon which direction to go overtaxes ones brain so much that it leads to physical paralysis, before that paralysis completely sets in, move to the side until the phase passes.  Why stop at the front door, top or bottom of the escalator or stairs, and create a back-up of people who know where they want to go? 

Who among us has not encountered the shopper in a grocery store who insists on blocking the aisle with his cart.  I saw one shopper consistently do this as she walked her way down three aisles. Then when you try to get around the hogwart (my new use and definition of the word) by saying “Excuse me” they look at you as if amazed that they are not the only shopper in the store.   

While we are still at the grocery store, would someone explain to me the philosophy of waiting until your items are completely bagged before even pulling out your wallet or opening your purse?  Are these people somehow expecting the store to give them their groceries out of the goodness of its heart?  Are they surprised that they have to pay?  Yes, you want to watch the cashier as your selections are rung up, but what is the excuse after everything has been rung up and groceries are bagged?  THEN you first take out your wallet and look at the total? 

Since I wrote about bad driving a couple of months ago, we will not go there today.  I will say, however,  that if I ever see you park in a handicapped spot without displaying that handicap placard, you will experience my wrath. 

 

Are people really deaf to the cellophane rustling as they unwrap their pieces of candy at a concert or movie?  What on earth possesses a person to continually unwrap one piece after another after another after another?  If you know that you need to suck on cellophane-wrapped lemon drops the entire evening, then for heaven’s sake, unwrap the lemon drops before the program begins. 

Rudeness is defined as: lacking the graces and refinement of civilized life; uncouth.  The old Sid Caesar Show once had a skit in which Caesar played a gangster who was spurned by his girlfriend.  "You are so uncouth" she told him in her rejection.  He turned around to one of his minions to order "Couth.  Go out and buy me some couth."  Would that it were that simple!

Many words have already been written, many words have already been spoken, about the generations of parents who spawned a new generation of self-centered narcissistic can-do-no-wrong I’m-always-right children.  I do not blame the generation raised this way; I feel sorry for them that their parents did not love them enough to teach them the quality of empathy which shows itself in just plain civilized behavior.  

Perhaps the economic crises we have endured these last dozen years have contributed to the rudeness disease.  People are so caught up in their own serious financial difficulties that this is all they can see, their own financial problems.  Certainly, feeling that inner panic and the consequences of losing your home, losing your savings, losing your standard of living, can place one in such a different world that all you can think is “what am I going to do.” 

Yet, is this really a good excuse for the rudeness disease?  An elderly person pointed out to me once that the country has gone through economic crises before, speaking specifically of the Depression of the 1930s.  I responded that a major difference between the Depression of the 1930s and the Recession of the 21^st Century (no one wants to call it a Depression), is that back then, back in the 1930s, people really cared about each other; they cared about their neighbors; they shared the food on their tables with strangers.  Today, yes, people will give money in response to a natural or man-made disaster, but when was the last time any of us shared our own food with someone we knew, or even suspected, was in trouble.   

The rudeness, the disconnection, the self-centeredness are part of the same pollution of narcissism that seems to be sweeping most parts of this world.  Yes, of course, there are exceptions and without a doubt we all know more than one exception; but it is pretty pathetic that the exceptions are outnumbered by what has come to be accepted as normal every day behavior. 

So, what is the answer?  How can we tilt not merely our own society, but all of our fellow men and women, towards the practice of empathy?  How do we tilt our behavior to the civilized side of the line?  How do we stop the malaise of rudeness?   

All I can say is that nothing will change, and it will even get worse, until we start to look at each other, I mean really look, and see ourselves reflected in another being.  Of course, to see ourselves reflected in another being, and respect that other being, means that firstly we have to respect ourselves. 

Perhaps therein lies the problem.

 

 

Until next time, LLAP!

2012 DA14

          An asteroid formally known as 2012 DA14 will pass close to Earth on February 15, 2013. It will fly within the orbit of the moon and pass closer than many orbiting communications satellites.  Scientists opine that it is made of silicate rock, but they are not 100% sure.  Its shape and precise size also are mysteries, but it is estimated to be nearly 150 feet wide, about the size of an Olympic swimming pool, with an estimated mass of about 130,000 metric tons.  It is tilted slightly, an inclined ellipse, and, like Earth’s orbit, it is not circular but elliptical. Astronomers in Spain discovered 2012 DA14 on February 23, 2012.  Because its orbit is similar to Earth’s, it had until then eluded astronomers.

Our asteroid was given the name of “2012 DA14” as a “minor planet designation.”  Formal minor planet designations are number–name combinations overseen by the Minor Planet Center, a branch of the International Astronomical Union.  Designations are used for dwarf planets and small solar system bodies such as asteroids. 

2012 DA14’s approach will be the nearest known flyby for an object of this size.  Astronomers assure that it will not strike Earth, and also assure that nothing will happen when it passes, no alteration of tides, no volcanic eruptions.  "No Earth impact is possible," Donald Yeomans, manager of NASA's Near-Earth Object program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena CA, assures us.  Even the chance of an asteroid-satellite run-in is extremely remote. "No one has raised a red flag, nor will they," Yeomans told reporters. "I certainly don't anticipate any problems whatsoever." 

This also marks the first time such a close passage has been known about a year in advance.  We will not get another pass of 2012 DA14 until February 2046 when the asteroid misses us at twice the distance of the moon.  

The closest approach of 2012 DA14 will occur Friday afternoon over Indonesia.  The asteroid will be invisible to the naked eye, and even with binoculars and telescopes will appear as a small point of light.  The prime viewing locations will be in Asia, Australia and Eastern Europe.  It will approach Earth from “down under,” and be straight overhead for observers in the pre-dawn hours located in western Indonesia.  Australia and eastern Asia will have a shot at seeing the asteroid as it whizzes through the sky in the early morning hours. Observers in western Asia, Africa and Europe will see the asteroid lower to the east on the night of the 15^th.  In the United States, astronomers using NASA's deep-space antenna in California's Mojave Desert will have to wait eight hours after the closest approach to capture radar images. 

Now what is the basic nature of this object swinging so closely to our planet?  Asteroids are also known as "minor planets.”  The four largest asteroids known are spherical or ball-shaped, like the Earth, and have diameters of between 100 and 500 miles.  In comparison to Earth's moon, which has a diameter of about 2100 miles, even the largest asteroids are still small. The remaining asteroids range in diameter all the way down to less than five miles.  Asteroids with diameters of thirty miles or less no longer have a spherical shape.  Most asteroids orbit the Sun between Mars and Jupiter.  Although some asteroids have sizes comparable to some moons in our solar system, these are not moons because they only orbit the Sun, and not planets.  The largest asteroids are called planetoids. Most of our solar system's asteroids are located between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, and have remained there for billions of years.  Some occasionally visit Earth's neighborhood. 

The flyby of 2012 DA14 highlights the need to keep track of what is out there, if for no other reason than to protect the planet.  NASA's current count of near-Earth objects: just short of 10,000; and that figure is thought to represent less than ten percent of the objects out there.  No one has ruled out an eventual serious Earth impact, although the probability is said to be extremely low.    

What they do know with certainty:  "This object's orbit is so well known that there's no chance of a collision," Yeomans assures us. Its approach will alter its orbit around the sun in such a way as to keep it out of Earth's neighborhood, at least in the foreseeable future. (I personally find these “at least in the foreseeable future” assurances less than confidence building.)

"Space rocks hit the Earth's atmosphere on a daily basis. Basketball-size objects come in daily. Volkswagen-size objects come in every couple of weeks," Yeomans said.  The grand total of space stuff hitting the atmosphere every day?  "About 100 tons," according to Yeomans, though most of it arrives harmlessly as sand-sized particles. 

NASA has been on a mission to find and track all near-Earth objects that are .62 miles in diameter or larger.  The effort is intended to give scientists and engineers as much time as possible to learn if an asteroid or comet is on a collision course with Earth, in hopes sending up a spacecraft or taking other measures to avert catastrophe.  An object the size of DA14 can be expected to strike Earth about every 1,200 years. 

DA14 will soar through the sky at about eight miles per second.  At that speed, if it did hit the Earth, the energy equivalent of 2.4 million megatons of TNT would be released and wipe out 750 square miles.  In Siberia in 1908, forest land around the Tunguska River was flattened by a slightly smaller asteroid that exploded five miles above ground.  The explosion killed reindeer and flattened trees, leveling eighty million trees over 830 square miles.  The Tunguska event has been estimated at 3 to 20 megatons...2012 DA14 is in the same approximate realm. 

And let us not forget: approximately 66 million years ago, a six-mile diameter object smashed into what is now the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico leading to the demise of the dinosaurs as well as most plant and animal life on Earth. 

To all of this, to NASA and all the other planetary research agencies, I only ask the same question posed by Bruce Willis in Armageddon:  “What’s your contingency plan?”

 

Until next time, LLAP!

 

  

http://www.universetoday.com/99865/asteroid-2012-da14-observing-prospects-and-how-to-see-it/

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news174.html

http://www.emirates247.com/offbeat/this-is-life/asteroid-to-just-miss-the-earth-on-february-15-2013-02-10-1.494327

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/08/asteroid-flyby-february-15-how-close_n_2644960.html

http://earthsky.org/space/asteroid-2012-da14-will-pass-very-close-to-earth-in-2013

http://www.universetoday.com/60393/what-is-a-comet/

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/explore/comets/background/

http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/1-asteroid-planetiod-meteoroid.html