Did you ever wonder why some people become astronomers?  I asked random astronomers at last month's AAS meeting, and in my latest 365DOA podcast, you can find out what each said-- and how each explained their research in 30 seconds or less.  For the big picture, the stories of why ordinary, sane people become astronomers, it turns out we get bit by the astronomy bug early.

Either in elementary school, we've already decided, or in high school, we get inspired.  By the time people hit college, the ones who want to be career astronomers have already decided that's their path.

Marc Cenedella has excavated an old resume of da Vinci, the very definition of 'renaissance man' and  'genius'.  At the time, da Vinci was applying to work for the Duke of Milan.

Wired UK looks at his resume (Was Da Vinci the right man for the job?) and (being Wired) come to exactly the wrong conclusions.

We scientists have a desperate need to make our science interesting to everyone-- including ourselves. Our terminology reflects this. In astronomy, we have the Big Bang. In comp sci, computers Crash. In engienering, "Test to Destruction".

But at some point, usually when I'm in a classroom, my science audience wants me to do something extreme. Mix chemicals until they explode. Shatter a rose in liquid nitrogen. Fire off a rocket. Something 'kinetic', in the sense of lots of fragments of something once whole being rent a'sunder.

As usual, parody best covers the dilemma, as with this week's "The Onion" science headline: Science Channel Refuses To Dumb Down Science Any Further.