A few months back I was wondering what the status of the Mars Rovers were.  We hadn’t heard from them in a while….or rather the media was still being infatuated with its latest darling, Barack Obama. So I took a look around on the Internet to see what I could find.  The answer was: surprisingly little!

Well of course, there was plenty from a historical perspective, but if you wanted to find out what the rovers were up to last week or what they’d be tasked doing next – it wasn’t at all easy to find out.  NASA’s own Mars Rover website was fixated on educating school children about the project; so there wasn’t much in the way of “adult” content.  That may have been due in part to the fact that when I’d started to look for info on the rovers, they were still operating in a kind of “grey mode” – placed in that state to protect them from the elements of the harsh Martian winter.  Not much would be going on during this phase, since they’d just be sitting there save maybe for periodically uplinking to the Mars Reconnaisance Orbiter (MRO) to say “we’re alive”.  Even such abbreviated contact would be interrupted by a Mars-Sun-Earth alignment (where Earth and Mars are on exactly opposite sides of the sun) because no relay satellites yet exist to broker communications during such an event.

Above are captures of Adobe Flash elements on the NASA Mars Rover site, which depict the environment immediately around each rover in real time.

Things have improved considerably since.  The most significant development was the release of Google Earth 5.0, which added geological survey data for the planet Mars to the other two operational modes; Earth and Sky (which serves as a low-end planetarium app for your PC).  Of particular interest with the Mars feature was updated tracking of the Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity.  Unfortunately, I quickly discovered the data was a little more dated than Google let on.  To Google’s credit, however, the service is supported by university students rather than dedicated staff responsible for updates.

So where do you go if you want information up to the current ‘Sol” (Martian day)? There are weekly digests one can review from the JPL website.  Reading them independently without the context presented by Google Earth 5.0, I found them both dry and difficult to follow.  But once famaliarized with the rover’s activity, it makes a lot more sense.  Suddently terms like “Home Plate” and “Victoria Crater” mean something more than literally an abstract place name on a far away planet that people never visit.  Plus when you look at some of the key sites using the panoramic view options, you can even examine some of the science being conducted for yourself.

It remains unclear exactly how realistic the Mars feature is within Google Earth 5.0.  When in Earth mode, there’s an option to show the sunlit face of the world.  This feature works in Mars mode too, but it’s not clear whether the software is converting between Mars & Earth time, and showing the sunlit surface of Mars per the current Earth time correctly.  Even so – keeping occasionally informed about the Mars rovers while the media scarcely takes interest has become a lot easier.

UPDATE (2-Apr-2009): By comparing the "Time on Mars" graphic on the NASA Mars Rover site with the sunlit surface indicated on Mars using the Google Earth 5.0 application, it now appears that Google Earth accurately depicts the current sunlight surface of Mars at any given time.

Polygamy is coming ”There seems to be fairly unanimous consensus amongst mental health professionals that it is a marker for poor mental health when a person "consumes" other people for the sole purpose of sexual gratification. Someone who allows themselves to be "consumed" should seek counseling. In a situation where a married person who keeps a "boy toy" on the side with her partners's blessing will not be the poster child of good mental health, neither will the spouse or "boy toy" be considered in good mental health. We should not confuse legalizing polygamy with embracing the morality of sexual promiscuity with no regard for the emotional well being of sexual partners. We do not jail pregnant teens, but that does not mean we believe teen aged pregnancies are morally acceptable choices. If we do not jail consenting adults who choose polygamy, that does not mean we must give everyone engaged in multiple sexual relationships a moral stamp of approval.”    — Michelle

Issues like this breed confused dialogue and quasi-religious tangents faster than rational folk can respond.  Before very long, one gets cynical and dismisses the rest of the world as a thinly-veiled looney-bin, generally speaking. But if instead one pauses to examine the reader comments left in the wake of a news story of this kind and contemplate what, other than simple craziness, might lay behind seemingly arbitrary assertions of morality - a pattern emerges.

The notion being advocated, yet not otherwise stated, is simply that “Behaviour contrary to the ‘preferred lifestyle’ (i.e. outside of traditional heterosexual monogamy) is wrong, because it is also contrary to the written word of God.  Questioning the accepted interpretation of the written word of God necessarily indicates a lack of faith, which is also wrong.  Therefore in order to behave rightly, it’s best to not think critically lest it lead one to question the accepted understanding of God’s word.”  One might add to this that lip-service may be paid to openness to such questioning – provided that the discussion results in the unequivocal affirmation of the accepted understandings of God’s intentions.

Granted, not all of this resistance to what gets labelled “secularism” is the result of rooms full of mostly clergymen enforcing doctrine.  In many cases, the church’s own congregation is to blame.  And there are all kinds of sociological reasons one could forward to characterize individual scenarios.  But again, in general, churches are attended by people looking for enlightenment from a higher power – a power that has been type-cast and is universally accepted as being opposed to gay marriage and polygamy.  So if the clergy aren’t entirely in control of how God’s word is interpreted, the congregation is already stacked with generations of followers, raised from childhood with a healthy list of preconceptions (too often disguised as mere tradition) that achieves the very same thing.

Now, of course even the most devoutly fanatical, stem-cell detracting, pro-life, bible-thumping, church-going Christianette (a term I use to describe the televangelist or Sunday zealot-led religious automaton, loosely associated with the more secular marionette) will deny that critical thinking is discouraged by their like-minded.  But one need not read very far into some of the posts coming back to the polygamy article in yesterday’s Citizen to find corroborating evidence:

“Wish that people would STOP referring to same-sex unions and polygamy as 'marriage'; it is NOT marriage as God intended. It is an abomination. So bite me.”

— June, responds to ‘Polygamy is Coming”, Ottawa Citizen,
    March 28, 2009

When mulling over what it must be like for people who think at this level, I can’t escape the notion they’ve got to harbour hatred or at least some kind of disdain for those they consider “an abomination”.  To use that kind of adjective – which intones ideas of inherent wrongness; a malignancy that needs to be eradicated to set the world right again – there’s certainly an idea here that a kind of mercilessness and disregard for the needs or desires of the other party (or “the abomination”).  And, admittedly it’s been a while since I found myself paging through the New Testament, but from what I remember this doesn’t reflect Christ’s teachings.

And strangely, this is a recurring theme of late.  It seems we keep finding religious groups sounding the trumpet, leading the attack on tolerance and acceptance for gays and now again on polygamy.  Christianettes are being rather ill-served by their puppeteers since those of us who didn’t abandon critical thought realized long ago there was a certain inconsistency in opposing equal rights for gays and polygamists when it states repeatedly in the Bible that God regards each person as equals – sinners all.  Not to mention that other little bit about “Judge not lest ye be judged…” (Matthew 7:1)

The inevitable comeback concerns whether being gay or even polygamous is itself sinful or, in other words wrong.  We don’t hear a lot of those opposed to gay marriage or polygamy using the word “sin” or “wrong” when they intone their opposition – very likely because it’s understood that the vast majority of the population simply doesn’t agree there is a moral issue permitting either.  Occasionally, we’ll hear a televised zealot cite scripture where it indicates ‘man shall not lie with man’ or whatever (I can’t cite a specific example at the moment), but outside of the 10 Commandments, the Bible wasn’t ever intended to catalogue behaviour into ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ indices.  The overwhelming theme of the Bible is one of studying the all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God.  Even if there were a few passages that could only be singularly interpreted as stating ‘gay marriage is wrong’ or ‘polygamy is wrong’ (and I’m quite sure there aren’t), there is much more evidence that He would rather we looked for ways to eliminate specific harm to our fellow human beings; to make life as pleasant as we can for each other.

To the Christianettes, this will all seem irrelevant, of course.  One can’t pick and choose which of God’s directives to follow, they’ll say; or some other argument that willfully misses the point.  But while still believing polygamy is wrong for the same reason being gay is wrong – because God says so – will not be cited aloud during the general public debate.  Instead, this same group will conjure up all kinds of other reasons why polygamy is harmful; perhaps it spreads disease, or it creates health issues.  Perhaps organized crime is involved somehow – something will come up.

Fortunately, we live in Canada where people seem inclined to be more pragmatic in evaluating issues of this sort.  So I suspect the polygamy debate will run much the same as gay marriage – with a well-reasoned outcome.  But the religious wing-nut is an increasingly thriving species hereabouts and this resistance not only to reason, but to remembering God’s disposition toward those traditionally rejected by society demands vigilance by all who crave tolerance and freedom.

“After more than a million Facebook users expressed their dislike of a recent Facebook redesign, the social networking site said today that it [again] plans to make some changes...”   — ZDNet, 03/24/2009

For a number of years, I've been of the suspicion that the emergence of the "killer app" on the Internet was less the product of good design or sound technological innovation and more the product of luck coupled with skillful cross-linking and business (social) networking. And, in my view, MySpace and (to a lesser extent) Facebook are realizaitons of this theory. Certainly it would make sense that the folks behind each site are competnet at the art of social networking online independent of their own technologies.

But what could have, and still can blow Facebook and its like out of the water is a social networking site that gains the same viral momentum of its predecessors - and is designed really well. If I had the investment capital at hand, I might even be inclined to take a crack at it myself - spending some time integrating SharePoint Server or other portal technology to let the users tailor their own interface.
In any case, there's plenty of room for improvement and if history is any teacher, Facebook's not likely to get it right with these latest "upcoming changes".

• Tories 'prepared to defend' polygamy ban

Okay – I’ve been accused of having ‘liberal’ views about many things.  (Topics under the heading ‘sex’ included.)  But while I’m not a big fan of polygamy, that attitude isn’t grounded in religious doctrine, nor in my own sexual preferences, nor really in anything that could justly be characterized as prejudice.  My concerns about polygamy are roughly the same as those I have about religious cults; the apparent risks for psychological abuse as a means of gaining money and/or power.  And this is largely the product of reports in the media and research on the subject at various points during my time in high-school and university showing relationship between polygamous groups and criminal behaviour.

Of course, there is nothing about polygamy that is inherently criminal or immoral.  Nor can I say conclusively every polygamous group (nor even most) will indulge in criminal behaviour.  And so, I have an opinion.  An opinion that could be right or wrong.  But even if my opinion is 100% right, there’s still something of a gap to be filled before claiming a solid foundation for outlawing either polygamy or aspects of a polygamous lifestyle.

This must be why Conservatives speak with such excitement and frustration with Liberals.  That gap between opinion and enacting laws doesn’t exist for them; so when suddenly Liberals are conjuring up arguments like “what about the rights of the minority?”, Conservatives simply can’t relate.  Indeed, the whole argument has to be offloaded to their “war room” for in-depth study and analysis before any coherent public debate can happen because “so what?” doesn’t make a good sound-bite.

So the idea that minorities like gays, bisexuals and even polygamists might be entitled to a lifestyle that’s not the same as the majority seems alien to contemporary conservative thinking, and thus rare in Canada’s Conservative Party.  As with gay marriage, we in Canada are yet again talking about behaviour that occurs amongst consenting adults (typically in the privacy of the bedroom) because it seems that there is a persistent and increasingly vocal group within the Conservative Party that wants to make its opinion and whimsical preference the law of the land.  All in the guise of enforcing “Canadian values”.

"Canadians of all backgrounds share some basic values, like a belief in human dignity, equality between men and women and the rule of law. It is these values that unite us as Canadians," states a note prepared for the minister [of Justice]. "The practice of polygamy represents a clear challenge to those unifying values."

              — Ottawa Citizen, March 24, 2009

In other words, a marriage or other intimate relationship involving more than 2 people is inconsistent with a belief in human dignity, gender parity and the rule of law.  The Minister calls this “clear”, which I take to mean obvious – yet it somehow escapes me how intimacy between consenting adults numbering more than two somehow threatens the rule of law in Canada (never mind women’s suffrage or abstract belief in human dignity).  Indeed, this statement from the Minister of Justice is about the closest tangible example of pure nonsense as I have yet seen or heard of.

Were I to counter with a statement like “Canadian values, most fundamentally, are derived from a notion of tolerance and individual equality without discrimination.  Among those derived values are freedom from discrimination sexual orientation or lifestyle, so long as such pursuits fall short of intrusion on the rights and freedoms of others”, I expect I’d see greater consensus than that resulting from the Minister’s own statement.  In short, very few Canadians care or want to know what’s going on in their neighbor’s bedroom – and that, more than anything yet grasped by the Minister (apparently) reflects Canadian values!

Indeed, why the Conservatives bother to set themselves up for such high-profile defeat – I just don’t know.  It’s news like this which has kept them from winning Parliamentary majorities in a country that historically is inclined to elect majority governments.  Mind you, I’d much rather they stay true to their ideals and suffer occasional embarrassment than have them form a majority government and get to enact the lengthy list of laws that would have us all conforming to their notions of dignity and values – whether we’d each want to or not – strictly on the basis that they won a majority of the votes cast in an election.