This morning before what should have been sunrise, I was riding along the seashore against a strong head wind. Cloud covered most of the sky. But something attracted my eye upward, as if a lamppost had gone up like a rocket. It was the Moon, in a gap.
It was at Last Quarter, almost exactly. Well, that moment had been a bit earlier, at five.
See the end note about enlarging illustrations.
The Moon when at Last Quarter is crossing inward over our orbit, so it is in front of us. You can see that it is close to the point marked “Earth’s direction of travel.” It is also, at this time of year, near to the crossroads of celestial equator and ecliptic – the equinox point – because it is 90 degrees from the Sun, which has almost reached the winter solstice point.
So I was on the front of Earth, pedalling forward in the direction Earth travels at 19 miles a second. No wonder I felt a strong head wind! Or that’s what the objectors to Copernicus and Galileo might have wondered. They asked “If Earth is moving eastward as you claim, why don’t we feel a huge wind from the east?”
***
Down on Earth department:
Jimmy Carter, aged ninety-three, has had some falls and had to go to hospital. I wish I could let him know what I think of him.
Not long ago, Britain’s National Health Service gave me for free an operation that would in the U.S. have cost fifty grand, and on top of that gave us a taxi for the three-hour journey home. Recovering from general anaesthesia, I would have preferred silence, but the driver was a talkative man, with slightly over-precise English, suggesting that it was not his first language; he told us his whole life story, was half Cypriot, his wife was Indonesian. Noticing American traces in our speech, he asked which president we had liked best. I said: “Jimmy Carter.” I said only a little of why. The driver remarked that he had been impressed by Ronald Reagan, pronouncing “ree-gan.” I said only a little of why I thought Reagan one of the worst. What kept me awake part of that night was running over the fuller retort I might have made. During the Carter-followed-by-Reagan time I found myself amassing enough notes and clippings on the contrast between them to make a book. I won’t try to dip into all that, or to list all the ironies of the contrast or the many good things Carter did, but merely recall a few that come to mind.
The first I heard about Carter, then governor of Georgia, was that his family allowed each other to read books at the meal table. That prejudiced me toward him. Then he became the human-rights president. I was putting half my time into Amnesty International. Actually that may have begaun partly from inspiration by Carter.
He (these are my opinions) was not ideological: he thought each issue out on its merits. So no one was consistently pleased. He had almost too much grasp of details; he was a bit of a micro-manager. He failed in much because Congress was against him.
His downfall was brought about by an action that was more compassionate than it should have been: admitting the Shah of Iran, a brutal despot, to America for medical treatment. The Khomeini regime that over threw the Shah in his absence took revenge on Carter by seizing rhe 52 Americans in the embassy and holding them hostage for 444 days until Carter was replaced by Reagan, upon which the hostages were immediately released. (“America cannot do any thing!” exulted one of the signs brandished by Iranians. America could have done the same.)
Reagan was an actor, best known for starring with a chimp in “Bedtime for Bonzo.” He was put forward as a front man for the moneyed interests. His casting type was genial.
He was relaxed about work, and came over well on television, aided by prompt cards. He disliked press conferences, held them about each second month; Carter held about two a month, answering questions extempore and carefully. One journalist who knew them well remarked: “It was ironic that Reagan earned the title of Great Communicator. Without his note cards, he was scarcely articulate.” Another: “Reagan, not very approachable in private life, was perceived as the easy-to-know neighbor next door.”
At the end of one of their debates, Carter left the stage while Reagan strolled over to shake the hands of the questioners. This seemed to confirm Carter’s reserve and Reagan’s geniality. But one of the strict rules by the sponsors was that both should immediately leave the stage together; only Carter complied.
What did they do after their presidencies? Reagan, who had already shown signs of Alzheimer’s, played golf. Carter founded the Carter Center, a human rights powerhouse; worked with his bands for Habitat for Humanity; went to Nicaragua, Haiti, Colombia, Sudan to mediate in conflicts or monitor elections.
Reagan was backed by the religious right, but never went into the White House chapel. Carter regularly did, and still teaches Sunday school in his little Georgia hometown.
And to end with some fun poked at dear Jimmy. During his candidacy campaign a cartoonist mocked his seemingly perpetual smile, which looked like a quarter moon. “Hi, I’m Jimmy Carter, and I need your help. You see, for the last three weeks I’ve had this coat-hanger stuck in my mouth.”
I wish I could find that cartoon!
__________
ILLUSTRATIONS in these posts are made with precision but have to be inserted in another format. You may be able to enlarge them on your monitor. One way: right-click, and choose “View image”, then enlarge. Or choose “Copy image”, then put it on your desktop, then open it. On an iPad or phone, use the finger gesture that enlarges (spreading with two fingers, or tapping and dragging with three fingers). Other methods have been suggested, such as dragging the image to the desktop and opening it in other ways.
This weblog maintains its right to be about astronomy or anything under the sun.
Carter put solar panels on the White House roof. Reagan had them taken down as soon as he moved in.
Ford was another ineffectual president and played the baffoon although unlike Regan not deliberately!his falling down a jets steps in Peking,no one called it Beijing then,was great entertainment although proving he was only human we all have slips and falls including the great and the good look at the position Prince Andrew of England now finds himself through choosing friends unwisely.another thing with Venus is it’s closeness to the horizon so it appears to be moving in relation to the horizon if you are moving yourself just like stars seem to move when seen through moving clouds.regarding Putin I think that he has a less confused view of the past than Yeltsin.with Yeltsin,we from a western perspective as reported by our press,it was almost as if the USSR had never existed and they Czar was a perfect being but it was largely because of the Czar’s brutality and indifference that the October revolution occurred, the Czar was as responsible as Lenin in a round about way.people like Yeltsin should have remembered,when he was sober,it was the USSR that put the only human probes on to Venus and the first man in space not agarian Czarist Russia.thus Putin is a realist realizing that he and modern Russia is a child of the USSR as much as of the old pre October 1917 Russia.
Ford was another ineffectual president and played the baffoon although unlike Regan not deliberately!his falling down a jets steps in Peking,no one called it Beijing then,was great entertainment although proving he was only human we all have slips and falls including the great and the good look at the position Prince Andrew of England now finds himself through choosing friends unwisely.another thing with Venus is it’s closeness to the horizon so it appears to be moving in relation to the horizon if you are moving yourself just like stars seem to move when seen through moving clouds.regarding Putin I think that he has a less confused view of the past than Yeltsin.with Yeltsin,we from a western perspective as reported by our press,it was almost as if the USSR had never existed and they Czar was a perfect being but it was largely because of the Czar’s brutality and indifference that the October revolution occurred, the Czar was as responsible as Lenin in a round about way.people like Yeltsin should have remembered,when he was sober,it was the USSR that put the only human probes on to Venus and the first man in space not agarian Czarist Russia.thus Putin is a realist realizing that he and modern Russia is a child of the USSR as much as of the old pre October 1917 Russia.
I was not a Carter supporter when he was President, but in hindsight I have come to understand that in at least one area I would say he was our best president since Hoover: he did not get involved in any wars or “military actions” during his tenure. But it is especially his actions after leaving office that I think mark him as the most principled person we’ve had in the White House for over 75 years. His support of human rights in general, but in particular, politically unpopular causes such as the plight of the Palestinians, is courageous.
As for Reagan, I have mostly reversed my previous belief that he was a good President, but I think one of his stances is underappreciated. When Gorbachev initiated glasnost and perestroika, he and Reagan began negotiating to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles, but Reagan came under intense criticism at Reykavik from all the neo-con war hawks in the U.S. for being too conciliatory towards the Soviets. I think he really believed that if the Soviets were willing to stand down in the Cold War, the U.S. should join them, but his intention was thwarted by the foreign policy “establishment” here. Had we followed his philosophy after 1991 when the Soviet Union broke up, instead of trying to exploit a vulnerable Russia and expand NATO, they probably would not have Putin as President now.
One last note on Reagan-Carter. Little known is that during the election of 1980, when obviously Carter would have wanted to see the hostage crisis resolved, (I have read reporting that clearly lays out how) George H. W. Bush, Reagan’s running mate, traveled in secret to Paris in September or October 1980 to meet with representatives from the Iranian government to promise them a good deal in resolving the hostage crisis if they stalled in making an agreement until after the election. And yet Bush was lauded by the mainstream media as some sort of paragon of virtue when he died last year. One reference for this:
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2006/092106PARRY.html
The problem arises when people with severe behaviorally problems get into positions of great power I think of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
Great compare-and-contrast of those two US presidents.
I’m going to respectively disagree with you on the Carter vs. Reagan comparisons. Carter was a most ineffectual President foremost because he didn’t stand up to Iran from the outset and our hostages languished for 444 days. Utterly inexcusable. While I realize Carter came in during a period of stagflation, his inability to deal with Congress, the energy crisis of 79 and the recession in 1980 continued to highlight his ineffectiveness. Reagan, on the other hand, with his folksy ways seemed to connect with the people. You highlighted a 1950’s movie as a best known for point. A little bias perhaps? You forgot all about how he stood up to Russia and was instrumental is winning the cold war. We could go back and forth all day picking points to “prove” our arguments, but you will never sway me and I dare say, millions of Americans as well in stating Carter was better than Reagan.
You say Carter didn’t stand up to Iran. He ordered two military rescue attempts, but both failed.
You made my point for me. Exactly. To be precise there was no 2nd rescue attempt. It never got past the planning stages.
Your Carter:Reagan comments are incisive and well-considered. I can hardly wait for your views on the current situation in the U.S. with an impeached (but acquitted) president who is almost certainly psychologically, if not mentally, handicapped running for a second term. He has rewarded his followers by ruining much of the Left’s achievements in protecting health and environment, appointing conservative judges, and allowing the Obama-era economic recovery and employment rate numbers to continue to improve (while happily taking credit for them), and I have no particular animosity toward people who are on one or another of the behavioral spectra. But I have a serious problem with the people who, despite the fact that they must be aware of his problems, continue to enable him. Will you risk a comment?
John asks me to risk a comment on the impeachment. And it is risky, because I’m neither a historian nor an investigative journalist.
Trump tweeted that “impeachment is an ugly word.” It’s a pretty word (association with peaches) and it represents a fine feature of the American constitution: a safeguard against autocracy.
The history may in future be written something like this:
Putin would like to go down as a new Tsar, rebuilder of the Russian empire. He works to weaken rival powers, the European Union, Nato, and the U.S. Ukraine is the greatest of the lost provinces. If you look at the map, you can see that Ukraine half blocks Russia’s access to the Black Sea and the outer seas. The Crimea commands the strait to the Sea of Azov and the mouth of the Don. The Russian minority in eastern Ukraine enabled Putin to stir up a civil war, and send in Russian troops. He annexed the Crimea. Obama started sanctions on Russia and military aid for Ukraine. Trump has business dealings in Russia, and Biden in Ukraine. Trump used this for his personal advantage, He told Ukraine’s new president Zelensky – inexperienced, a comedian – that the military aid would be withheld unless Zelensky dug up dirt on Biden.
This is an abuse of power of the very kind that the framers of the constitution wanted to rule out, so it is what constitutionally disqualifies Trump.
I think that what more generally, though not legally, disqualifies him to be president is that he is – like Zelensky – an amateur. He had no previous political experience. He just does not know what kinds of language and behavior are expected of a statesman.
John, your bias is showing. Where, other than your armchair analysis is the proof that President Trump is CERTAINLY psychologically, if not mentally, handicapped. Are you a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist? You then write: “…He has rewarded his followers by ruining much of the Left’s achievements in protecting health and environment, appointing conservative judges…” Um, well, yeah of course he appointed conservative judges…the same way any president of a particular party will appoint judges that define his philosophy. You say that as if it is a bad thing, if so, then it was bad when Obama did it, no? I’m curious as to when a president can take credit for the economy? President Obama kept blaming Bush for 4-5 years for what he inherited, but his recovery from the recession was weak by all measures. So, immediately after Trump’s election and well before his inauguration the market started moving upward and has continued. So, at what point are the moves that continue this market climb Trump’s, and not Obama’s? I made and continue to make money during both administrations.
Carter also claimed that he’d seen a UFO.i obviously wasn’t there with him but it sounds a bit like Venus which they say is oft mistaken for a UFO why I know not as it doesn’t move much!
Kevin: The effect of a stationary light appearing to move is a well known feature of human perception known as the autokinetic effect. It is thought to occur because motion perception is always relative to some reference point, and in darkness or in a featureless environment there is no reference point, so the position of the single point is undefined. I learned about this many years ago in studies as an Optometry student.