Even though I have a Master’s degree in English, I am a science geek. My interest in the sciences prompted me to take two chemistry classes in high school (AP Chemistry as a senior) and two anatomy classes at the University of Illinois. My first love where science is concerned lay in astronomy. In fact, the only thing for sure on my “bucket list” is to see the southern night sky. That said, I have been reading with some amusement the apoplectic reactions to the news release made by the Minnesota Planetarium Society (MNPS for the sake of brevity) that there are actually thirteen signs in the Zodiac rather than the traditional twelve. To make matters more confusing and annoying, they say the dates associated with those signs have changed as well. This prompted people to post comments to the linked news stories and to social networking sites, crying defiantly, “I don’t care what they say! I’m a Taurus!” or, “What the hell is Ophiuchus? I’m not gonna be a sign I can’t pronounce!”
In my opinion, there is really no need to adopt these new dates or the “new” astrological sign Ophiuchus. There is a simple explanation why the dates have changed from what is familiar to most of us. The MNPS is correct that the Sun does enter these constellations in this order, starting from the northern spring equinox (either 20 or 21 March): Pisces, Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpius, Ophiuchus, Sagittarius, Capricornus, and Aquarius. This order is accurate for 21st century astronomy, but the order differs from ancient times when the Babylonians, Greeks, and other ancient cultures created astrology (astronomy’s mystic bedfellow).
Since the Earth’s axis has a 23˚ tilt and is constantly pulled by the Sun and Moon, the axis wobbles like a top, tracing out a circle that takes 26,000 years to complete one cycle. Because of procession, there was a different pole star in the days of ancient Egypt and Babylon 4500 years ago. Consequently, the order of the Zodiac was different as well; the spring equinox started when the Sun moved into Aries (the order remains the same). That is why we have the Zodiac order many people are familiar with: Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces. The ancients presumably omitted Ophiuchus for any number of reasons; the most likely explanation is there are approximately twelve lunar cycles in a year so having twelve Zodiac signs fit best. Since the Sun enters Scorpius first, they decided it best to omit Ophiuchus.
If the MNPS decided to make this observation, known to many astronomers (including me), public, I suggest they propose the following changes: change the names of the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn to the Tropics of Taurus and Sagittarius. It would be accurate and it works so well in their argument.
14 January, 2011
06 August, 2010
The Finger-Popping Pimp Hand of Adam Smith
Music is powerful. It helps us learn things (think of the Alphabet Song or anything from Schoolhouse Rock). It recalls memories of events past, both specific and vague. For me, I see myself walking past WIMPE (the former nickname for Campus Recreation Center - East at the University of Illinois) on my way back to Allen Hall whenever I listen to Hearing Aid by They Might Be Giants. Music can lift our spirits or drive us deeper into despair. Because music has such an impact, I argue advertisers use music, popular music especially, to subconsciously feed our society's runaway consumerism.
Once upon a time, advertisers used to commission songwriters to produce songs specific for the product they wanted to sell. The jingles for Alka-Seltzer® and Tootsie Rolls® come immediately to mind for me, but there were thousands of jingles for the thousands of products advertised on television and radio. In the last fifteen years, most advertisers stopped writing jingles, choosing instead to cull form the vast music library of popular music to find songs that made the best fit for the message they wished to convey. For example, I am a big fan of The Smiths. One of my favorite songs by them, How Soon Is Now?, recalled portions of my sophomore year of Illinois. Now when I hear the song, I think of those times but they are interrupted with images of a cherry red Nissan® Altima performing a slow motion skid on wet pavement ever since Nissan® used How Soon Is Now? in a TV advert in the late 1990s.
Over the last decade or so, increasingly popular songs appear in television advertisements. Banana Republic® used Nina Simone's Feelin' Good to sell their clothing in the late 1990s. The Gap® superimposed AC/DC's Back in Black over Audrey Hepburn's spontaneous dance routine in "Funny Face" to shill their Skinny Black Pant. Heineken® used Green Onions by Booker T & the MGs in a commercial showing how three men: The Rookie, The Pro, and the Master, hid their precious stash of beer with varying degrees of success ("The Master" hid his bottles of beer inside of a cooked turkey). These songs, since they are older, would appeal to an older demographic. Advertisers though are getting cleverer in their use of popular music in their television advertising.
More recently, newer artists have their music featured in television commercials. For example, Natasha Bedingfield's song Unwritten is featured in a Pantene® shampoo commercial in 2007, Paolo Nutini plays his song New Shoes in an advert selling Puma® athletic shoes. I suspect using current artist's songs in television commercials plays into many retail establishments’ use of popular music over their PA systems rather than instrumental muzak from years past. If advertisers use popular music to sell products, you will be more likely to associate those products when you hear the songs from their commercials played over the store's or mall's PA system.
I can't fault advertisers and the corporations who hire them using this technique to sell their products. However, I do miss the days when I could hear a song on the PA system without thinking about shampoo or shoes I never intend on buying.
Once upon a time, advertisers used to commission songwriters to produce songs specific for the product they wanted to sell. The jingles for Alka-Seltzer® and Tootsie Rolls® come immediately to mind for me, but there were thousands of jingles for the thousands of products advertised on television and radio. In the last fifteen years, most advertisers stopped writing jingles, choosing instead to cull form the vast music library of popular music to find songs that made the best fit for the message they wished to convey. For example, I am a big fan of The Smiths. One of my favorite songs by them, How Soon Is Now?, recalled portions of my sophomore year of Illinois. Now when I hear the song, I think of those times but they are interrupted with images of a cherry red Nissan® Altima performing a slow motion skid on wet pavement ever since Nissan® used How Soon Is Now? in a TV advert in the late 1990s.
Over the last decade or so, increasingly popular songs appear in television advertisements. Banana Republic® used Nina Simone's Feelin' Good to sell their clothing in the late 1990s. The Gap® superimposed AC/DC's Back in Black over Audrey Hepburn's spontaneous dance routine in "Funny Face" to shill their Skinny Black Pant. Heineken® used Green Onions by Booker T & the MGs in a commercial showing how three men: The Rookie, The Pro, and the Master, hid their precious stash of beer with varying degrees of success ("The Master" hid his bottles of beer inside of a cooked turkey). These songs, since they are older, would appeal to an older demographic. Advertisers though are getting cleverer in their use of popular music in their television advertising.
More recently, newer artists have their music featured in television commercials. For example, Natasha Bedingfield's song Unwritten is featured in a Pantene® shampoo commercial in 2007, Paolo Nutini plays his song New Shoes in an advert selling Puma® athletic shoes. I suspect using current artist's songs in television commercials plays into many retail establishments’ use of popular music over their PA systems rather than instrumental muzak from years past. If advertisers use popular music to sell products, you will be more likely to associate those products when you hear the songs from their commercials played over the store's or mall's PA system.
I can't fault advertisers and the corporations who hire them using this technique to sell their products. However, I do miss the days when I could hear a song on the PA system without thinking about shampoo or shoes I never intend on buying.
09 July, 2010
Oops.01 July, 2010
... By Any Other Name
Disclaimer: This is simply an observation. To those with children, no offense is implied.
I used to work as an inventory specialist for a furniture store chain. While my cubicle sat in a raised mezzanine overlooking the large distribution center, I occasionally ventured out to the stores to manage the scheduled inventory of an individual store's stock (floor samples and so forth). On one of these trips, I met a person who worked for one of those independent inventory contractors with a very peculiar last name. While I cannot remember his first name, his last name is one I will never forget. It was Cmunt (pronounced "smunt"). Given his small stature, I gathered he had his share of ass-kicking and name-calling while growing up with a name like Cmunt. His well-weathered, lined face adorned with a walrus mustache and bushy goatee complemented his cheerful demeanor though. When speaking with him, he spoke of his last name with a weary, good-natured humor. It was obvious he clearly enjoyed having his last name since it's obviously a talking point similar to a childhood scar or a bad haircut that hasn't grown out. The funniest thing he said about his last name was, "When my son was born, I wanted to name him Harry, but my wife said no."
I think of Mr. Cmunt and his story because many people I know who have and will have children most likely struggled (or will struggle) with names for their kids. I can only speak of this in the abstract since the only things I have named are inanimate objects like my computer's hard drive and my car (HAL 9000 and Firah, respectively). They cannot feel embarrassment or pride if their name is odd or cool, depending on your point of view, unlike children whose parents gave them names that are culturally significant, rich with meaning, or uniquely silly.
Glossing over the fashion of certain Baby Boomers who gave their children hippie names (Moon-Unit and Dweezil Zappa come immediately to mind), there are many children of my generation whose names can be lumped into certain categories. For example, I am sure most people in my age group knows or went to school with at least a half dozen girls named Jennifer or Kristen (the latter with different spellings). That phenomenon is most common among middle class white suburbia, along with boys in that demographic named Michael or Kevin. In more urban settings, boys and girls were occasionally given monikers with hints of bastardized Latin (Tranquilla), pidgin French, or had something that rhymes with "Shawn" following a D or an L separated by an apostrophe (if it was a girls name, it was feminized by adding an "a" at the end).
In an effort to create new trends in children's names, some people in my generation (who now have children of their own), have taken to giving their daughters first names that are or were more commonly known as WASPy surnames: Tyler, Taylor, Madison. Perhaps it's a nod to our 19th century American presidents (which makes me wonder if there is a klatch of girls in Ontario with names like Macdonald and Diefenbaker). Names like Haley and Kaley and their variants have replaced Jennifer and Krystin while for boys the trend seems to be inspired by the Bible (more Lukes and Ezras rather than Ezekiels and Hezekiahs).
Thankfully, there are those who choose to give their kids names that have cultural meaning. Americans who are culturally Irish give their kids names like Medb or Tadgh (pronounced Maeve and Teague), a mother originally from Barcelona naming her son Xavi (cha-vee), or parents who name their son that actually means something in Swahili. It's unfortunate that there are others who saddle their kids with odd names like Apple (Gwyneth Paltrow's daughter), ESPN, or anything connected to a geographical location (you know who they, or you, are).
I used to work as an inventory specialist for a furniture store chain. While my cubicle sat in a raised mezzanine overlooking the large distribution center, I occasionally ventured out to the stores to manage the scheduled inventory of an individual store's stock (floor samples and so forth). On one of these trips, I met a person who worked for one of those independent inventory contractors with a very peculiar last name. While I cannot remember his first name, his last name is one I will never forget. It was Cmunt (pronounced "smunt"). Given his small stature, I gathered he had his share of ass-kicking and name-calling while growing up with a name like Cmunt. His well-weathered, lined face adorned with a walrus mustache and bushy goatee complemented his cheerful demeanor though. When speaking with him, he spoke of his last name with a weary, good-natured humor. It was obvious he clearly enjoyed having his last name since it's obviously a talking point similar to a childhood scar or a bad haircut that hasn't grown out. The funniest thing he said about his last name was, "When my son was born, I wanted to name him Harry, but my wife said no."
I think of Mr. Cmunt and his story because many people I know who have and will have children most likely struggled (or will struggle) with names for their kids. I can only speak of this in the abstract since the only things I have named are inanimate objects like my computer's hard drive and my car (HAL 9000 and Firah, respectively). They cannot feel embarrassment or pride if their name is odd or cool, depending on your point of view, unlike children whose parents gave them names that are culturally significant, rich with meaning, or uniquely silly.
Glossing over the fashion of certain Baby Boomers who gave their children hippie names (Moon-Unit and Dweezil Zappa come immediately to mind), there are many children of my generation whose names can be lumped into certain categories. For example, I am sure most people in my age group knows or went to school with at least a half dozen girls named Jennifer or Kristen (the latter with different spellings). That phenomenon is most common among middle class white suburbia, along with boys in that demographic named Michael or Kevin. In more urban settings, boys and girls were occasionally given monikers with hints of bastardized Latin (Tranquilla), pidgin French, or had something that rhymes with "Shawn" following a D or an L separated by an apostrophe (if it was a girls name, it was feminized by adding an "a" at the end).
In an effort to create new trends in children's names, some people in my generation (who now have children of their own), have taken to giving their daughters first names that are or were more commonly known as WASPy surnames: Tyler, Taylor, Madison. Perhaps it's a nod to our 19th century American presidents (which makes me wonder if there is a klatch of girls in Ontario with names like Macdonald and Diefenbaker). Names like Haley and Kaley and their variants have replaced Jennifer and Krystin while for boys the trend seems to be inspired by the Bible (more Lukes and Ezras rather than Ezekiels and Hezekiahs).
Thankfully, there are those who choose to give their kids names that have cultural meaning. Americans who are culturally Irish give their kids names like Medb or Tadgh (pronounced Maeve and Teague), a mother originally from Barcelona naming her son Xavi (cha-vee), or parents who name their son that actually means something in Swahili. It's unfortunate that there are others who saddle their kids with odd names like Apple (Gwyneth Paltrow's daughter), ESPN, or anything connected to a geographical location (you know who they, or you, are).
07 April, 2010
Uncut or Edited for Content?
Good friends of mine are expecting their first child this summer. As part of all the preparation they are doing, they are reading as much information as they can. Mom-to-be came across an article that may be of broader interest so she posted a link and suggested feedback by doing so.
I found Swaminathan's anti-circumcision argument compelling but weak in two certain points. He argues that in recent years many people are questioning the reasons why men should be circumcised and how those numbers are increasing. He also points out why the medical rationale for circumcision (which makes it popular in the United States) is flawed. While I cannot dispute that circumcision is not medically necessary I will argue that it's done mainly for hygienic reasons. This is Swaminathan's first flaw; while arguing against the need for circumcision he cites examples indicating why parents of newborn boys should. He quotes a New Jersey mother warning parents to be "extra vigilant about keeping the cheese outta there." He also states adult film star Rocco Siffredi (AKA the Italian Stallion) at the age of thirty-one had himself circumcised for hygienic reasons. Doing so, Swaminathan bolsters the Occam's Razor why circumcision is hygienically necessary.
What I found most disturbing are the assertions from the people Swaminathan cites in his argument, suggesting that circumcision is akin to mutilation. I inferred this to mean that people like Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Hitchens, the unnamed Atlanta woman, and several others equate circumcision to the abysmal practice of female circumcision. I frankly don't see how the removal of a boy's foreskin compares to the removal of a girl's clitoris. That is mutilation.
The most ridiculous comment comes from Intact America's (an anti-circumcision group) Georganne Chapin. When some parenting experts suggest circumcision for their newborn son because dad is circumcised, she scoffs, "If your husband was missing an eye, would you poke his [son's] eye out?" Swaminathan did not need to add a ludicrous straw-man comment to bolster his claim.
Swaminathan's weak argument against circumcision does have its merits. If you choose not to circumcise your son, the parents and the son will have to be vigilant to keep him(self) clean. Otherwise, there can be painful consequences. If you do choose to circumcise your newborn son, the hygiene is easier and when he grows up, he will not know what he missed.
I found Swaminathan's anti-circumcision argument compelling but weak in two certain points. He argues that in recent years many people are questioning the reasons why men should be circumcised and how those numbers are increasing. He also points out why the medical rationale for circumcision (which makes it popular in the United States) is flawed. While I cannot dispute that circumcision is not medically necessary I will argue that it's done mainly for hygienic reasons. This is Swaminathan's first flaw; while arguing against the need for circumcision he cites examples indicating why parents of newborn boys should. He quotes a New Jersey mother warning parents to be "extra vigilant about keeping the cheese outta there." He also states adult film star Rocco Siffredi (AKA the Italian Stallion) at the age of thirty-one had himself circumcised for hygienic reasons. Doing so, Swaminathan bolsters the Occam's Razor why circumcision is hygienically necessary.
What I found most disturbing are the assertions from the people Swaminathan cites in his argument, suggesting that circumcision is akin to mutilation. I inferred this to mean that people like Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Hitchens, the unnamed Atlanta woman, and several others equate circumcision to the abysmal practice of female circumcision. I frankly don't see how the removal of a boy's foreskin compares to the removal of a girl's clitoris. That is mutilation.
The most ridiculous comment comes from Intact America's (an anti-circumcision group) Georganne Chapin. When some parenting experts suggest circumcision for their newborn son because dad is circumcised, she scoffs, "If your husband was missing an eye, would you poke his [son's] eye out?" Swaminathan did not need to add a ludicrous straw-man comment to bolster his claim.
Swaminathan's weak argument against circumcision does have its merits. If you choose not to circumcise your son, the parents and the son will have to be vigilant to keep him(self) clean. Otherwise, there can be painful consequences. If you do choose to circumcise your newborn son, the hygiene is easier and when he grows up, he will not know what he missed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Past as Prologue
