Over the weekend one of the big news stories was the guy who jumped from 25,000' without a parachute and landed in a net. I don't know if we should use the word brave or crazy, especially after learning he has a wife and kid. I don't care how much homework he did, that seems irresponsible given his family responsibilities.
But it got me thinking about terminal velocity, the fastest speed an object can reach in free fall, and that led me to internet research.
If a person falls with arms and legs extended as this guy did the body reaches terminal velocity at about 124 mph. At that point air resistance creates enough friction to prevent falling any faster. It takes a fall of about 165' to reach that speed, or, a building a little over eight stories,
Variables come into play. Go high enough and the air is so thin that resistance is lower, which is why the world record set in 1960 involved a jump by Joseph Kittinger from 102,800' (a metal capsule suspended from a helium ballon). They figure he hit 614 mph before he got into the atmosphere thick enough to slow him to that 124 mph speed.
So, if you want to make it into the news jump off the roof of a 9-story building and land in a net. You'll be going as fast as last weekend's guy. You'll also be just as crazy, but without all the positive press attention. Don't expect to appear on The Today Show, but the police blotter maybe.
The Olympic opening ceremony is this Friday. By that point competition in archery and soccer will have already taken place. Why? This happens every four years and I can't figure out the reason. If they can't fit everything into the space between opening and closing ceremonies change one of those. Just seems weird. And if I were a competitor in one of those sports I'd feel slightly put out.
I heard a story on NPR driving home from the track about a book of essays on being Black in contemporary America. The book's author (compiler?) said we need to continue the conversation re. race relations in the U.S. no matter how difficult or stressful it is, because continued progress depends upon it.
I agree, but having that conversation is more than stressful; it's logistically difficult. What we see on the news and online is not conversation; it's one person yelling their view. Conversation implies civil discourse, respectful exchange. Ideally it happens in very small groups, or even better, one-on-one, but where's a venue for that? Where can I go to talk to a Black person in an open, transparent conversation about our mutual perspectives and experiences? I would genuinely enjoy that and benefit from the opportunity but I can't imagine how it would happen.
Furthermore, in my idealized scenario I'm conversing over coffee with a reasonably articulate critical thinker equally interested in mutual edification, not just aggressively stating a case. Those people are rare enough, regardless of their background. How rare must it be to find someone emotionally objective when the very reason for the conversation is a social injustice that has too often victimized them?
John Naisbitt's Megatrends (pub. 1982) was a VERY good read and still relevant. In one chapter he says trends start from the bottom and work upwards through society whereas fads start at the top and work downward. For that reason trends endure while fads don't. Thus, "fashion trends" proves to be an oxymoron while physical fitness was/is indeed, a trend.
Is it fair to say that improving race relations must be a trend, not a fad. That is, it can't be legislated or brought about at the urging of social and civic leaders. It must happen because the common folk desire it and put in the effort.
If that's the case (cf. the difference between de facto and de jure) then these small setting conversations would seem to be critical.
So figure out a way to make them happen. Methinks that would be a great gift to society.
No comments:
Post a Comment