and goes through Neptune's orbit. But why is Neptune still a planet if it's got Pluto going through it's orbit?So Pluto is no longer a planet because it doesn't clear objects out of it's path...?
The interpretation of ';cleared the neighborhood around its orbit'; as it applies to the IAU resolution is poorly defined. Pluto and Neptune are in a resonance s.t. Neptune is far away as Pluto approaches perihelion. ';Clearing'; is a non-issue in this instance.
(In fact, Pluto gets closer to Uranus than it ever does to Neptune!)
The reason Neptune is still a planet is that it is explicitly called out. Read footnote 1 to resolution 5A in the source link.
Now, chances are there are other KBOs still out there near Pluto, and by this standard Pluto's orbit is not cleared, however I don't think this is any more empirical than perhaps some modeling of evolution of the kuiper belt. Give it time though, and I bet some non-resonant Pluto crossing objects will be identified.So Pluto is no longer a planet because it doesn't clear objects out of it's path...?
Because it is larger than Pluto and has a gravitational force better than Pluto
That is the ostensible reason given for its demotion into a second division of Dwarf Planets from the Premier League of Planets,. But there is more to this than meets the eye.
The basic problem Pluto has and had from the outset is that it is smaller than 7 moons in the Solar System: Ganymede, Io, Europa and Callisto (the 4 Gallilean moons of Jupiter) Titan (Saturn's largest moon) Triton (Neptune's largest moon) and our own Moon, all of which were discovered before Pluto.
Heirarchical thinking that Planets ';ought'; to be bigger than Moons and ';size-ism'; prejudice doubtless played a part in the recent IAU decision, But only a minor part. Mercury is smaller than the two biggest moons, Ganymede and Titan but it didn't get downgraded, did it?
From the way some people have reacted. anyone would think the IAU were out to ';get'; poor defenceless little Pluto and the discussion is clouded by anthropomorphic sentiments as a result,
Sentimental attachment is hardly a good basis for scientific classification. The discussion is also clouded by the fact that most people seem to be blissfully unaware of the number and variety of objects we now know there to be in the Solar System and similarly unaware of the fact that we (and Ceres) have been here before, 150 years ago.
Whilst there is understandable and widespread dismay at Pluto being demoted in status, people really need to understand the reasons the IAU had to grapple with definitions and categories at this time:
(1) in 1930 we knew of just one body lying beyond the orbit of Neptune. Now we know of more than 1000
(2) we are discovering asteroids at a rate of 5000 a month
(3) we now know of 200+ extra-solar planets orbiting 170+ other stars, some of which we now know to have asteroid belts
It is conceivable the IAU may create more categories in the future in the light of more discoveries, The moment we find an extra-Solar System planet with extra-terrestrial life on it, for example, I would expect Habitable Zone Planet to be a new category and only Earth and Mars of our local 8 planets to be in it.
We already have the distinction between a terrestrial planet (the inner 4 planets) and a gas giant (the outer 4 planets) and are assessing new extra-Solar-System planets in the light of that distinction and a new category name for the informally-named ';hot Jupiters'; (i.e. large planets orbiting near to their star at less than 1 AU distance) of which we know several, may not be far away,
As science expands its knowledge, it needs more concepts and categories with which to describe and classify that knowledge, That is perfectly normal and should neither surprise nor alarm us,
Creating new categories and reclassifying known objects in the light of them has happened before: in the 19th Century when the number of planets was pruned from 11 to 7 out of concern that being consistent and admitting other, newly discovered bodies to the planetary club that were similar to the ones they chose to kick out instead would have meant the number of planets could rapidly start to escalate and mushroom out of control,
To understand what is going on now, it helps to understand what went on then,
The number of bodies in the Solar System known to astronomers has been burgeoning for a long time now, but the general public seems unaware of this, given the way people blithely talk of Ceres (discovered 1801) Charon (discovered 1978) and Xena (discovered 2003) having ';just been discovered';,
There was a similar definitions crisis in the early 19th century and again in the mid-19th Century as the number of known objects in the Solar System started to grow and grow,
By 1807 the 8 Solar System bodies known to classical astronomy (the Sun, the Earth, our Moon and the 5 classical planets known from antiquity, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn) (1 star, 6 planets, 1 moon) had grown to 26. Uranus was found in 1781 making 7 planets. There were 4 Jovian moons, 7 Saturnine moons and 2 Uranian moons, 14 in all
And then there was the discovery of the first four asteroids. These were 1 Ceres on January 1, 1801, 2 Pallas on March 28, 1802, 3 Juno on September 1, 1804, and 4 Vesta on March 29, 1807,
What were astronomers to call these new objects? They weren't moons as they rotated around the Sun, so they had to be planets, didn't they? As there was, initially, no other category but moons or planets to put them in.
After 2 Pallas was discovered though, Sir William Herschel (the discoverer of Uranus) coined the term ';asteroid'; meaning ';star-like';), in 1802.
But Ceres was meantime assigned a planetary symbol, and remained listed as a planet in astronomy books and tables (along with 2 Pallas, 3 Juno and 4 Vesta) for about half a century until further asteroids were discovered.
So we now had 1 star, 11 planets and 14 Moons, the beginnings of a distinction between major and minor planets and a sense of unease as to what we would do if more asteroids were discovered as the first four were all disappointingly small in size, so did they really belong in the planetary club? (Similar doubts were expressed about Pluto, right from the outset in 1930,)
38 years pass and then in 1845 the asteroid 5 Astraea is discovered and on September 23, 1846 the planet Neptune and a mere 17 days later on October 10, 1846, Neptune's moon, Triton. (We now have 1 star, 12 Planets 15 Moons and 1 non-planetary Asteroid.)
The pace of discovery then starts to really hot up. Four more asteroids in nine months: 6 Hebe on July 1, 1847, 7 Iris on August 13, 1847, 8 Flora on October 18, 1847, and 9 Metis April 25, 1848
Then on September 16, 1848 an 8th moon of Saturn called Hyperion is discovered,
Plus a further 6 asteroids are found in just over two years: 10 Hygiea on April 12, 1849, 11 Parthenope on May 11, 1850, 12 Victoria on September 13, 1850, 13 Egeria on November 2, 1850, 14 Irene on May 19, 1851 and 15 Eunomia on July 29, 1851.
And on October 24, 1851 a 3rd and a 4th moon of Uranus: called Ariel and Umbriel were discovered.
So now we had 42 objects: 1 star 12 planets 18 moons and 11 asteroids. If the latest asteroids were all to be regarded as planets, making a total of 23 planets (and 10 Hygiea was bigger than 3 Juno, just like Xena is bigger than Pluto), it was likely to start getting silly (by 1868 the number of asteroids was to rise to 107 and Victorian schoolchildren would have needed a massive 115-word mnemonic to remember all the names).
The unease grew to a crisis, a redefinition was clearly necessary and an inevitable decision was taken to regard all 15 asteroids as a separate category from planets and Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta were kicked out of the planetary club, just like Pluto has been kicked out now.
There are some clear parallels between the situation in the 1850s and the situation now, Four under-sized runts had obtained planetary status, with seemingly more to follow as they were discovered, creating an overwhelming feeling among astronomers that the currency would be devalued if all these further objects were to then be automatically awarded planetary status. So they cried Whoa! And called a halt. And created a new category, Just like the IAU has now done,
SO HOW MANY OBJECTS HAVE WE GOT IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM NOW?
Stars: 1
Planets: 8
Moons: over 80 known moons of the dwarf planets, asteroids and other small solar system bodies.
(The asteroid 87 Sylvia has 2 moons for example as does the Kuiper Belt Object KBO 2003 EL61.)
AND another 162 moons orbiting around planets: Mercury has none, Venus has none, Earth has 1, Mars has 2, Jupiter has 63, Saturn has 56, Uranus has 27, Neptune has 13.
Kuiper Belt Objects: over 800 (all discovered since 1992).
Trans-Neptunian Objects: over 1000 (includes the 800+ KBOs) i,e, there are 200+ in the Scattered Disk and the Oort Cloud.
Asteroids: Hundreds of thousands of asteroids have been discovered within the solar system and the present rate of discovery is about 5000 per month. As of July 23, 2006, from a total of 338,186 registered minor planets, 134,339 have orbits known well enough to be given permanent official numbers. Of these, 13,242 have official names.
Current estimates put the total number of asteroids above 1 km in diameter in the solar system to be between 1.1 and 1.9 million
So you can see
(a) why some definitions are needed and why reclassification is necessary
(b) how totally unaware of the state of scientific knowledge the general public is and how uninformed people are when they get excited at tales of ';3 new planets being discovered'; and wonder if there might perhaps be more where those came from,
Finally, these issues need to be seen in the context of the 205 extra-solar planets we now know to exist and the asteroid belts that have now been detected in some of those stellar systems,
Consistency being a desirable thing to achieve in science, whatever definitions and categories the IAU now adopt, they need to be applicable to every star with other objects in orbit around it, throughout the entire universe, That is the context in which Pluto's status is now being discussed,
SO: Pluto should not be a planet, nor should it be just another TNO or small solar system body, It has been given a status intermediate between these two extremes and that is how it should now be seen.
the international astronomical union defined three terms ';planet';, ';dwarf planet';, and ';small solar system body';. this does not change anything about the solar system or pluto. it just corrects the mistake of classifying pluto as a planet initially
i have been waiting for this since i was about twelve. i feel somewhat satisfied. this was the right thing to do, believe me. i don't understand why so many are having such a problem with this. this happened when astronomers discovered many bodies orbiting the sun between mars and jupiter in the early 1800s.
neptune doesn't really have anything to do with this. neptune and pluto never interact.
because pluto orbits the sun, is round, does not have an isolated orbit (a bunch of other similar bodies have similar orbits.), and is not a satellite it is a dwarf planet.
(1) A ';planet'; is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.
(2) A ';dwarf planet'; is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, (c) has not cleared the neighborhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.
(3) All other objects orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as ';small solar system bodies';.
look here:
http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.or鈥?/a>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt
Neptune dominates Pluto's orbit - for every 3 times Neptune orbits the Sun, Pluto orbits 2 times. So Pluto's orbit would be quite different if Neptune was never there to begin with, but Neptune's orbit wouldn't be changed a bit if Pluto had never been there.
For a well written, in depth explanation of this part of the definition of ';planet'; go here: http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/eight鈥?/a>
It is no longer a planet because it has an elliptical orbit, instead of concentric just like all of the other planets.
Neptune has the stronger orbit and is larger. Pluto is getting smaller and is the size of its moon. Personally, pluto was the best planet... look at mickey's dog... isn't he the best!!
see how easy that is
it all clear to me now
WHAT I THINK THEY MEAN IS THat
NEPTUNE IS GOING TO CLEAR PLUTO AWAY SOME DAY
I WANT PLUTO TO REMAIN A PLANET
BUT I THINK ITS A MOOT POINT
That's the duhhhhfinition so far.
The problem with that definition is that Earth shares its orbit with some 10,000 other objects and Jupiter shares its orbital path with over 100,000 other objects.
By their definition, neither Earth nor Jupiter are planets.
Not to worry. In three years they'll meet again and screw it up some more or fix the definition, whichever comes first.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
With the roads and paths treacherous due to snow, why aren't immigrants and those on benefits out clearing it?
to cold perhapsWith the roads and paths treacherous due to snow, why aren't immigrants and those on benefits out clearing it?
of course it is too cold for anyone who has moved from asia for africa
imagine digging snow in clothes best suited to hot climates.....well that is what most immigrants from asia and africa insist on wearing.....how can you dig out snow in light white cotton shirts and trousers?
in new york unemployed are given casual work clearing snow....last time i was there after a blizzard the going rate was $8With the roads and paths treacherous due to snow, why aren't immigrants and those on benefits out clearing it?
Shovelling snow can actually make it more treacherous unless you put grit down. And you can be sued if someone slips on your garden path after you have shovelled it as it then makes it your responsibility not nature's.
So they probably don't wanna get sued and are leaving the councils to do it.
Perhaps it's because the government has more common sense than you do? I know that's an oxymoron, ';common sense in the house of commons'; but there you have it. Their bureaucratic bumbling hasn't degraded to such a low as the past provincial government of Mike Harris in Canada's Ontario Provincial Legislature. At least not yet.
';A man's gift makes room for him And brings him before great men.'; - Proverbs 18:16
My experience is that one thing leads to another and yes shoveling snow could be someone's start.
Edit: A snow shoveling start could lead to a lot of interesting careers including ski instructor, ski hill groomer, and snowshoe guide. It could also lead to cleaning up the ice at NHL games and even driving the Zamboni.
If the roads and paths are treacherous, how do you propose they get there to clear them?
It is not their responsibility to clear them. The main reason is that they do not have the proper equipment to make it reasonably safe.
Because that would be called slavery...much like forcing doctors to perform services because we've classified it as a ';right';.
Why aren't you? Too lazy perhaps. That's why we need immigration.
of course it is too cold for anyone who has moved from asia for africa
imagine digging snow in clothes best suited to hot climates.....well that is what most immigrants from asia and africa insist on wearing.....how can you dig out snow in light white cotton shirts and trousers?
in new york unemployed are given casual work clearing snow....last time i was there after a blizzard the going rate was $8With the roads and paths treacherous due to snow, why aren't immigrants and those on benefits out clearing it?
Shovelling snow can actually make it more treacherous unless you put grit down. And you can be sued if someone slips on your garden path after you have shovelled it as it then makes it your responsibility not nature's.
So they probably don't wanna get sued and are leaving the councils to do it.
Perhaps it's because the government has more common sense than you do? I know that's an oxymoron, ';common sense in the house of commons'; but there you have it. Their bureaucratic bumbling hasn't degraded to such a low as the past provincial government of Mike Harris in Canada's Ontario Provincial Legislature. At least not yet.
';A man's gift makes room for him And brings him before great men.'; - Proverbs 18:16
My experience is that one thing leads to another and yes shoveling snow could be someone's start.
Edit: A snow shoveling start could lead to a lot of interesting careers including ski instructor, ski hill groomer, and snowshoe guide. It could also lead to cleaning up the ice at NHL games and even driving the Zamboni.
If the roads and paths are treacherous, how do you propose they get there to clear them?
It is not their responsibility to clear them. The main reason is that they do not have the proper equipment to make it reasonably safe.
Because that would be called slavery...much like forcing doctors to perform services because we've classified it as a ';right';.
Why aren't you? Too lazy perhaps. That's why we need immigration.
Do you think more people would believe in evolution if our own evolutionary path was clearer?
If we had evolved as sentient horses then there would probably be little contemptuous neighing at evolution, or stamping of hoofs.
As it happens, we are primates, and our evolutionary path is complex and much disputed between experts. While there is no doubt that we evolved from an ape-like descendent almost certainly from Africa, becoming gradually bipedal and our skulls becoming more voluminous, the genus 'homo-' is not very clearly understood.
One of the problems is the lack of fossils. I read once that the complete fossil evidence of our ancestors would probably fit in the back of a pick-up truck. This is understandable because our reign has been short (as opposed to the dinosaurs, for example, that existed for over 100 million years), and only about 1 bone in a billion is ever fossilised.
Anyway, what do you think?Do you think more people would believe in evolution if our own evolutionary path was clearer?
No, I don't think so. Even without a complete evolutionary path, we do have enough to reasonably conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt that we evolved, and where we evolved from.
Religious people choose not to accept evolution because their ignorant religion tells them not to. Simple as that. And no amount of evidence can change it.Do you think more people would believe in evolution if our own evolutionary path was clearer?
It's amazing we have fossils at all. Especially having near complete ones. And Christians are complaining about it not being ENOUGH? Preposterous.
Also, you can't believe in evolution. You accept it.
People who don't accept it don't do so because of missing or incomplete evidence. It's because of religious indoctrination that supposedly goes against what evolution is about.
doc, that's a funny comment. ^-^
We cannot possibly know every step of an evolutionary path,you do not need all of the fossils and in fact you will never find them all.';Homo'; is simply Human Being and you have 6.8 billion examples of them now on Earth. Evolution is simple common sense, creationism is primitive belief and unscientific
Cassie is right. You can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink; you can lead a fundie to science but can't make him think.
I would never ever believe that i evolved from stupid apes even if science provided evidence as clear as the day. But i can't say the very same for you.
Yes, If we knew who started the evolution process.
Maybe, but most theists would still cling to their bibles.
I think that those for whom evolution doesn't work would reject every single scrap of evidence shown to them no matter how comprehensive it may be.
Most creationists can't embrace evolution because evolution is broadly incompatible with a beliefe in God.
Which is fair enough.
In the end it shouldn't be about winning converts or undermining the belief systems of others. It should be about finding where we, ourselves, belong in terms of belief about how we got here. And granting everybody else the freedom to do their own spirituial thing in peace.
Just as long as they show the same degree of respect and don't interefere with others, of course...
It just shows that there is still no concrete scientific proof in the evolutionary sense of human comes from primate. The fact is that sometimes we wish something in order to satisfy our knowledge perception - whether it is right or wrong.
Despite years of debates of various possibilities to the answer, there is one possibility that not many scientists/biologists would like to consider: that the origin of human species never occur via the current understanding of evolution.
Maybe you would like to say that anti-evolutionism is scientifically ridicolous. But history tells us that many scientific hypothetical answers that were once considered 'heretical' are now being taken seriously.
As it happens, we are primates, and our evolutionary path is complex and much disputed between experts. While there is no doubt that we evolved from an ape-like descendent almost certainly from Africa, becoming gradually bipedal and our skulls becoming more voluminous, the genus 'homo-' is not very clearly understood.
One of the problems is the lack of fossils. I read once that the complete fossil evidence of our ancestors would probably fit in the back of a pick-up truck. This is understandable because our reign has been short (as opposed to the dinosaurs, for example, that existed for over 100 million years), and only about 1 bone in a billion is ever fossilised.
Anyway, what do you think?Do you think more people would believe in evolution if our own evolutionary path was clearer?
No, I don't think so. Even without a complete evolutionary path, we do have enough to reasonably conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt that we evolved, and where we evolved from.
Religious people choose not to accept evolution because their ignorant religion tells them not to. Simple as that. And no amount of evidence can change it.Do you think more people would believe in evolution if our own evolutionary path was clearer?
It's amazing we have fossils at all. Especially having near complete ones. And Christians are complaining about it not being ENOUGH? Preposterous.
Also, you can't believe in evolution. You accept it.
People who don't accept it don't do so because of missing or incomplete evidence. It's because of religious indoctrination that supposedly goes against what evolution is about.
doc, that's a funny comment. ^-^
We cannot possibly know every step of an evolutionary path,you do not need all of the fossils and in fact you will never find them all.';Homo'; is simply Human Being and you have 6.8 billion examples of them now on Earth. Evolution is simple common sense, creationism is primitive belief and unscientific
Cassie is right. You can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink; you can lead a fundie to science but can't make him think.
I would never ever believe that i evolved from stupid apes even if science provided evidence as clear as the day. But i can't say the very same for you.
Yes, If we knew who started the evolution process.
Maybe, but most theists would still cling to their bibles.
I think that those for whom evolution doesn't work would reject every single scrap of evidence shown to them no matter how comprehensive it may be.
Most creationists can't embrace evolution because evolution is broadly incompatible with a beliefe in God.
Which is fair enough.
In the end it shouldn't be about winning converts or undermining the belief systems of others. It should be about finding where we, ourselves, belong in terms of belief about how we got here. And granting everybody else the freedom to do their own spirituial thing in peace.
Just as long as they show the same degree of respect and don't interefere with others, of course...
It just shows that there is still no concrete scientific proof in the evolutionary sense of human comes from primate. The fact is that sometimes we wish something in order to satisfy our knowledge perception - whether it is right or wrong.
Despite years of debates of various possibilities to the answer, there is one possibility that not many scientists/biologists would like to consider: that the origin of human species never occur via the current understanding of evolution.
Maybe you would like to say that anti-evolutionism is scientifically ridicolous. But history tells us that many scientific hypothetical answers that were once considered 'heretical' are now being taken seriously.
Can the path be clearer to you?
Or do you have a good compass to guide you?Can the path be clearer to you?
I have found a steady and true compass.Can the path be clearer to you?
i have trouble finding the damn path.
I need you to clean it.
my orientation skills are low...but even so i don't use a compass...only a broom....i clear it little by little....
The path is not clear to me at all, and im trying to use my instincts and my morals as my compass and just hope i wont get lost....
I have found a steady and true compass.Can the path be clearer to you?
i have trouble finding the damn path.
I need you to clean it.
my orientation skills are low...but even so i don't use a compass...only a broom....i clear it little by little....
The path is not clear to me at all, and im trying to use my instincts and my morals as my compass and just hope i wont get lost....
In your opinion, should the SEIU file a grievance because a boy scout cleared a path in a city park?
Excerpts:
In pursuit of an Eagle Scout badge, Kevin Anderson, 17, has toiled for more than 200 hours hours over several weeks to clear a walking path in an east Allentown park.
Little did the do-gooder know that his altruistic act would put him in the cross hairs of the city's largest municipal union.
Nick Balzano, president of the local Service Employees International Union, told Allentown City Council Tuesday that the union is considering filing a grievance against the city for allowing Anderson to clear a 1,000-foot walking and biking path at Kimmets Lock Park.
';We'll be looking into the Cub Scout or Boy Scout who did the trails,'; Balzano told the council.
http://www.mcall.com/news/all-a8_5scout.鈥?/a>
What are your feelings about this?In your opinion, should the SEIU file a grievance because a boy scout cleared a path in a city park?
**** the SEIU. Worthless bastards would try to intimidate a kid who was doing a public service. One boy spent over 200 hours of his own time. The union ';workers'; would have taken over 1000 man hours.
The citizens of Allentown should get together and volunteer to do all the work that those overpaid union pricks are doing. That would be a great way to save themselves a lot of tax money they're currently paying into that corrupt union.In your opinion, should the SEIU file a grievance because a boy scout cleared a path in a city park?
As all other unions which only cover less than 7% of the American work force they have entirely to much involvement in Obama's government. They are the reason the automobile industry is in trouble. They create problems instead of solving them. At one time they served a good purpose BUT they have over-stayed their good.
this is getting out of hand...we as a country need to find our way back...I am amazed that this isn't all over the news...how dare they say their going to let this one go, as if they have the right to go after a young man trying to do the right thing...these buffoons are of the same mindset as their liberal brothers and sisters who think terrorist should be treated as a victims...
always nosnod
In my opinion, the SEIU is a criminal organization and all of its officials arrested, all of its papers and assets seized. It should be tried under RICO laws.
*
The denial of use of volunteers is stupid, of course. But I can't help wondering how much more the city will pay to contract with outside union workers after laying off the permanent ones. Will it really save them money?
This is complete nonsense. I think it is great that the boy scout was allowed to clear the path. The union just thinks they can strong arm the city for money and that is wrong.
I didn't read the article but I'm guessing by his age he is going for eagle scout, since he did the work for free, I really don't think they have a leg to stand on.
Sure. And it should be widely publicized to show what thugs this administration is working for. Thank God for FOX news, especially Glenn Beck.
The SEIU ought to be disbanded and those thugs placed in mental institutions where their types belong! What a bunch of thugs picking on a boy scout doing a good deed!
Unions destroy everything they touch. Look at Michigan.
Unions and their lawyers CAN be despicable.
Of course.
That's what the SEIU is FOR.
unions have become a breeding place of all kinds of trash
No they should not. It would come from a feeling that they own they park, and they certainly do not. The boy scout did a service and that's just something they have to live with. For their own sake they should not pursue this possessive and arrogant action. Public unions get more slack then private workers do, but not that much.
If the union wants to focus on what is not getting done then they should say what those things are, so that people know what the cost of the layoffs are.
With out even looking, I can see three faults with the Allentown City Council.
1) They depend on revenues other then land taxes. Land taxes are not only more stable but they also help to make the real-estate bubbles smaller. The sales tax base has caused them to have to foolishly whipsaw their labor force.
2) Layoffs during a recession are especially stupid, since it makes the recession deeper.
3) The sure sign of the coming recession was the great rise in land values. The extra monies coming in during that period should have gone to a rainy day fund, so that the damage of layoffs could be avoided.thinning hair
In pursuit of an Eagle Scout badge, Kevin Anderson, 17, has toiled for more than 200 hours hours over several weeks to clear a walking path in an east Allentown park.
Little did the do-gooder know that his altruistic act would put him in the cross hairs of the city's largest municipal union.
Nick Balzano, president of the local Service Employees International Union, told Allentown City Council Tuesday that the union is considering filing a grievance against the city for allowing Anderson to clear a 1,000-foot walking and biking path at Kimmets Lock Park.
';We'll be looking into the Cub Scout or Boy Scout who did the trails,'; Balzano told the council.
http://www.mcall.com/news/all-a8_5scout.鈥?/a>
What are your feelings about this?In your opinion, should the SEIU file a grievance because a boy scout cleared a path in a city park?
**** the SEIU. Worthless bastards would try to intimidate a kid who was doing a public service. One boy spent over 200 hours of his own time. The union ';workers'; would have taken over 1000 man hours.
The citizens of Allentown should get together and volunteer to do all the work that those overpaid union pricks are doing. That would be a great way to save themselves a lot of tax money they're currently paying into that corrupt union.In your opinion, should the SEIU file a grievance because a boy scout cleared a path in a city park?
As all other unions which only cover less than 7% of the American work force they have entirely to much involvement in Obama's government. They are the reason the automobile industry is in trouble. They create problems instead of solving them. At one time they served a good purpose BUT they have over-stayed their good.
this is getting out of hand...we as a country need to find our way back...I am amazed that this isn't all over the news...how dare they say their going to let this one go, as if they have the right to go after a young man trying to do the right thing...these buffoons are of the same mindset as their liberal brothers and sisters who think terrorist should be treated as a victims...
always nosnod
In my opinion, the SEIU is a criminal organization and all of its officials arrested, all of its papers and assets seized. It should be tried under RICO laws.
*
The denial of use of volunteers is stupid, of course. But I can't help wondering how much more the city will pay to contract with outside union workers after laying off the permanent ones. Will it really save them money?
This is complete nonsense. I think it is great that the boy scout was allowed to clear the path. The union just thinks they can strong arm the city for money and that is wrong.
I didn't read the article but I'm guessing by his age he is going for eagle scout, since he did the work for free, I really don't think they have a leg to stand on.
Sure. And it should be widely publicized to show what thugs this administration is working for. Thank God for FOX news, especially Glenn Beck.
The SEIU ought to be disbanded and those thugs placed in mental institutions where their types belong! What a bunch of thugs picking on a boy scout doing a good deed!
Unions destroy everything they touch. Look at Michigan.
Unions and their lawyers CAN be despicable.
Of course.
That's what the SEIU is FOR.
unions have become a breeding place of all kinds of trash
No they should not. It would come from a feeling that they own they park, and they certainly do not. The boy scout did a service and that's just something they have to live with. For their own sake they should not pursue this possessive and arrogant action. Public unions get more slack then private workers do, but not that much.
If the union wants to focus on what is not getting done then they should say what those things are, so that people know what the cost of the layoffs are.
With out even looking, I can see three faults with the Allentown City Council.
1) They depend on revenues other then land taxes. Land taxes are not only more stable but they also help to make the real-estate bubbles smaller. The sales tax base has caused them to have to foolishly whipsaw their labor force.
2) Layoffs during a recession are especially stupid, since it makes the recession deeper.
3) The sure sign of the coming recession was the great rise in land values. The extra monies coming in during that period should have gone to a rainy day fund, so that the damage of layoffs could be avoided.
Is it possible for Star Trek XI to continue in XIII, clearing a path for a TNG finale film in Star Trek XII?
It's what the fans want.
Signatures at the end!
Nemesis basically gave TNG fans a big middle finger.
Picard walking down a corridor on a wrecked Enterprise, smiling. The End.
Shouldn't Paramount give Picard and Riker an Enterprise/Titan wrap-up movie?! Use Q!!!
Bring Data back through B4 and even have DS9 and Voyager tie-ins, walla! there's your fan-favorite perfect Star Trek XII. If XI is so popular go back to it for XIII, in fact it might even be healthy for the franchise to alternate like that back and forth between J.J.'s ongoing ';Kid Kirk'; adventures and random assorted Star Trek tales occurring elsewhere just to keep it fresh. It's ridiculous to continue with Kirk - his time is over, Gene would want the stories moving FORWARD, probably never backward; my point is, J.J.'s franchise vision might flop or be very boring, so do any of you think there is a chance at variation here or not? Will we ever see Star Trek in the future beyond Voyager/The Next Generation era? For the FANSIs it possible for Star Trek XI to continue in XIII, clearing a path for a TNG finale film in Star Trek XII?
Well you know they'll eventually have to skip a century ahead, and wheel out a wrinkly old 24th century cast to boost ratings!
This back in time set back is just an ego boost to build up for a Picard finale and give Leonard Nemoy a paycheck.
Why go straight to the good stuff when paramount can dick around and drag in a few extra million?
Signatures at the end!
Nemesis basically gave TNG fans a big middle finger.
Picard walking down a corridor on a wrecked Enterprise, smiling. The End.
Shouldn't Paramount give Picard and Riker an Enterprise/Titan wrap-up movie?! Use Q!!!
Bring Data back through B4 and even have DS9 and Voyager tie-ins, walla! there's your fan-favorite perfect Star Trek XII. If XI is so popular go back to it for XIII, in fact it might even be healthy for the franchise to alternate like that back and forth between J.J.'s ongoing ';Kid Kirk'; adventures and random assorted Star Trek tales occurring elsewhere just to keep it fresh. It's ridiculous to continue with Kirk - his time is over, Gene would want the stories moving FORWARD, probably never backward; my point is, J.J.'s franchise vision might flop or be very boring, so do any of you think there is a chance at variation here or not? Will we ever see Star Trek in the future beyond Voyager/The Next Generation era? For the FANSIs it possible for Star Trek XI to continue in XIII, clearing a path for a TNG finale film in Star Trek XII?
Well you know they'll eventually have to skip a century ahead, and wheel out a wrinkly old 24th century cast to boost ratings!
This back in time set back is just an ego boost to build up for a Picard finale and give Leonard Nemoy a paycheck.
Why go straight to the good stuff when paramount can dick around and drag in a few extra million?
While at sea or from an aircraft I have often noticed what appear to be paths of clear, unruffled water. Why?
It could be an oil slick (minor) left by a boat. Remember the saying ';pour oil on troubled waters';While at sea or from an aircraft I have often noticed what appear to be paths of clear, unruffled water. Why?
These are usually the result of oil, fuel, etc., left in the wake of passing ships and boats.While at sea or from an aircraft I have often noticed what appear to be paths of clear, unruffled water. Why?
I recall the same when I was at sea; a long time ago. It seems like they were currents in the ocean, like the Gulf stream or other warmer currents. Yes, the ocean does have flowing currents!
strong current streams under the surface
These are usually the result of oil, fuel, etc., left in the wake of passing ships and boats.While at sea or from an aircraft I have often noticed what appear to be paths of clear, unruffled water. Why?
I recall the same when I was at sea; a long time ago. It seems like they were currents in the ocean, like the Gulf stream or other warmer currents. Yes, the ocean does have flowing currents!
strong current streams under the surface
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)