Independent Broad Minded Centrist

President Obama's Speech

2011-09-08T17:14:00.000-07:00

I made several notes during tonight's speech. Don't be surprised if I make mistakes. I won't even claim to be Superman. I even have a few quick reactions. Good grief, this is real time blogging. Don't be surprised if I have second, third, even fourth thoughts, especially if I must go out and fight Daleks....

Obama began his speech with some platitudes. Americans used to give their fair share of work and contributions (e.g., taxes, etc.) and get their fair share of rewards. Anybody could make it in America. For some decades now that has changed. That compact has been broken. (Note: Quite a few bright people on the left and right have said similar things. I can agree with those comments.)

Obama then went on to praise small business. He noted they are the ones who create the most jobs. There is, again, significant evidence to support that claim. He advocated cutting taxes on them.

My next note is about Obama's comments on infrastructure. He compares us -- unfavorably -- with China. I will note they are far behind us and have much catching up to do. Some people think they will not be able to, especially given population patterns. He praised private construction companies, saying they will be the ones to do the work rebuilding our infrastructure. He mentions schools as needing rehabilitation. I wonder what he thinks of the people who are starting to pursue "unschooling" as a better way of learning.

Obama condemned earmarks, boondoggles and bridges to nowhere.

Obama cited bipartisan support for measures such as he is proposing in the past. I will note at this time that Speaker Boehner is not smiling, but that VP Biden is.

Obama next addressed financials. He said that debt must be stabilized in the long run. He also noted that Medicare must be reformed to strengthen it. I wonder what analysis has been done on the concept that large amounts of medical spending is useless. Far to much is spent on a person's last few months of life. When Mom had some surgery back in the 1980s, she came home and lived quite healthily and independently for nearly two decades.

Obama then mentions the low taxes on the very rich -- and uses Warren Buffet's observation that his tax rate is lower than his secretary's. Increasing numbers of people are mentioning how the very rich are making out really well at the expense of the middle class. Even some conservatives are calling it a kind of class warfare. On a similar note, he said that the tax code should not favor the best connected but those who serve the country. Again, an interesting variety of people are saying similar things, albeit in different ways.

Obama then commented that we need to out build, out educate, and out innovate all other countries as we have done in the past..

He addressed the outdated patent process. He said it must be easier for individuals and companies to get patent protection for their work.

Obama used the phrase "Made in America" to point to what he and others want to be the future of our country. Even Boehner applauded that comment. Obama said the next generation of manufacturing must take root in America. He mentioned briefly the role that scientists and engineers will take in this work.

My last note has Obama saying it's time to "cut most government spending and cut most government growth." This is clearly reaching out to Republicans.

The talk ended at 7:41 by my watch. After the speech network news switched to reports of a new terror threat that could coincide with 9/11.

That's the end of my quick notes. If it isn't up to my usual writings, please understand. I haven't done this kind of thing much.

Metro Washington Mensa in the Summer

2011-09-08T12:18:00.000-07:00

This is what I wrote for Metro Washington Mensa's newsletter for September. I am posting everything I now write for that publication here as well.

The column follows as it appeared.

I've had an interesting month in Metro Washington Mensa. Between Mensa events and events that I invited our members to, quite a bit has happened of note.

Possibly the most Mensa oriented weekend was the last weekend in July. There was quite a bit on our calendar. I began that weekend by attending, once again, Herb Guggenheim's Salon at La Madeleine. This was, as usual, an occasion for many fascinating conversations on a variety of topics. Herb's practice of having everyone write down a question for discussion helps not only attract thoughtful members, but also sparks a variety of discussions. Even before the “formal” discussion begins, we talk about all sorts of things ranging from culture to politics to management at companies where we have worked. Or, perhaps, I should say mismanagement. Those of us in tech fields are particularly well acquainted with poor management. I've even given talks on the subject at Regional Gatherings, focusing on the mess at NASA. Two, given at Snowball in 2003 and 2004, about the Columbia accident helped set my current course in life. That Friday I do remember, among other things, I remember seeing Stefan and hearing Herb's wife Leslie briefly mention Veterans Administration health care. Since I am a veteran, I took especial note of that. I'm trying to follow up her comments now.

On Saturday I awoke early enough – with the weather pleasant enough – to head out for a six mile run. How many of you are runners – or even get much physical exercise? While our minds are good, we also need to take of our bodies. I look forward to living as long as Mom – who passed on at 93 – and Uncle Don – who made it to 92. Keeping physically active also helps keep one's mind sharp. When I am running alone, I also think about the day ahead – and more. After the run, I had a good breakfast, read some e-mail and got ready to head out.

The big event on Saturday was Dave and Liz Remine's Corn Boil out in Virginia. I first got to know Liz and Dave when I joined Mensa up in New Jersey three decades ago. I remember enjoyable parties at their home. I can also remember the two of them coming to dinner parties I began organizing at local restaurants. My criteria for choosing those restaurants was fairly simple. They had to be good restaurants – and they could not be part of a major chain. Good Time Charlie's qualified. TGIF didn't. One very memorable evening started at a restaurant. We all then then proceeded to see the film Starman at a local theater. I won't discuss this evening more in this column. Just ask me about it the next time we see each other at an event. You will be amused. You will also learn a bit about one incident that pushed my politics in a libertarian direction.

I ran into quite a few interesting people at the Corn Boil. Besides Liz and Dave, there were local leaders such as much of the ExComm, Heather Poirier, her husband, and two people with whom I have another connection – the Hash House Harriers. Possibly the most interesting conversation I had at the Corn Boil, though, was with the people from Roanoke. We talked about photography a bit. They encouraged me to come down to Roanoke and do some serious photography there. I think I will in the not too distant future. I did some photography at the Corn Boil. You can see the results on Flickr at http://www.flickr.com/photos/27233112@N05/sets/72157627319392996/.

That evening I returned to Maryland. I would have liked to attend Herb and Leslie's Saturday evening party, especially since they told us it would be going on into the wee hours of Sunday, but I do need my sleep – and Sunday morning I had another special event to attend.

Sunday morning into afternoon was the annual Fourth of July Crab Feast at St. Mark's. Fourth of July? You need a sense of humor. The service begins with members of the College of Crustaceans processing in, dressed in some Crab outfits and acting rather silly. You can see my photos of this event on Flickr at

The end of the Space Age?

2011-07-14T17:23:00.000-07:00

This started life as a column for the local Mensa newsletter. I happen to be Member at Large for Metro Washington Mensa. Our group covers Washington, DC, the inner suburbs of Maryland and Virginia, but part of the group extends out to West Virginia. Believe it or not, you can reach West Virginia in a few hours of driving. OK, maybe not at rush hour. This column might have some interest for people even in other parts of the world. This column is a response to the leader The end of the Space Age and the articles Into the Sunset and Spooks in orbit.

Here's the column -- unedited.

As I write this column, the space shuttle Atlantis is on not just its final voyage, but the final voyage of any space shuttle. The Economist magazine cover for July 2nd-8th, 2011, has on it a photograph of a shuttle orbiting Earth with the title “The end of the Space Age” on said cover. The Economist makes several interesting points in that issue. Launching humans into space is expensive – and has few benefits, if any. Robots can do the work for such things as communications satellite, weather satellites and exploration of both other planets as well as the rest of the universe.

The Economist points out that human space flight was a consequence of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States. Americans got really interested when the Soviet Union launched the first satellite in October 1957. In 1961 John F. Kennedy set a goal of landing Americans on the Moon before the decade was out. That goal was met in 1969 with the landing of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the Moon on July 20th. How many of you remember that day? I watched them walk on the Moon on a Sunday afternoon into evening while I was living in Palo Alto, California. We were riveted to the TV screen. Apollo 12 lasted from November 14 through November 24th. By that time I had moved to Poughkeepsie, New York and was working as a physicist at IBM. I don't remember Apollo 12. Apollo 13 was the aborted Apollo mission. It lasted from April 11, 1970 through April 17, 1970. My strongest memory of that mission is the film “Apollo 13.” The last Apollo mission happened in December 1972. I don't remember that mission at all. That was my last semester of full time graduate work in physics. I was getting fed up with, I thought, physics. It turned out to be late 20th century academia. I discovered that when I was doing grad work in social psychology in the 1970s.

What got me interested in space again? I read the Gerard K. O'Neill's book “The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space” in 1977. I was fascinated by the idea that humans could be living in space colonies within our lifetimes. I thought I could be one of those humans. I joined a group called the L5 Society which were advocating such colonies. Why would humans want to build such colonies? One idea which had been proposed in the 1960s was to build giant solar power stations in Earth orbit to supply power to the entire Earth cheaply and cleanly. L5's slogan was “L5 by 95.” I did not know at the time how hard that would be. I learned about the difficulties in the 1980s. Still, though, by this time I was clearly committed to a future where humans lived and worked in space in large numbers for the benefit of all of humanity – at least those of us in free, technologically advanced societies.

What of the future? The two shuttle disasters revealed an agency afflicted with major problems. The loss of Columbia in 2003 resulted in an investigation that showed an agency that could not lead anymore. In fact, the agency had become – and had been for a long time – hostile in many ways to new ideas. Not Invented Here had become an acronym – NIH.

We've discovered other problems. First off, humans cannot live in space – at least at the present time. We and the Russians have sent several hundred humans into space for periods that have lasted several months and, in a few cases, more than a year. All of the people who have spent even that short a time in space have come back much weaker, needing years to get back to the normal human strength. These are people who are in excellent condition for most humans. Anyone who takes a multiyear trip to Mars will, most likely, come back in even worse shape. Living there would be impossible.

We can also look at Antartica. Humans first discovered Antartica in 1820. 1820? It took that long for humans to sail that far south. The continent was ignored for the rest of the century. Humans first paid real attention to Antarctica when Scott and Amundsen raced for the South Pole a century ago. Amundsen's team won, reaching the pole on December 14, 1911. Scott's team reached the pole, but died on the return. This could be viewed as the early 20th Century equivalent of the race to the Moon. It cost much less than Apollo. Humans did not really make any strong efforts regarding Antarctica until after World War II. We now have some bases there for research and some adventurous tourists.

The Space Age, then, must be finished – as finished as the Roman Empire. Perhaps it is. Perhaps we will only use the “inner space” of communications satellites, weather satellites and other things connected to the real well being of humans. We may send off a few robots to explore elsewhere and a few orbital observatories to look at the rest of the universe. “Star Trek”, “2001: A Space Odyssey” and more will be viewed as 20th Century myths. Awhile back on Facebook I commented “If you had told a resident of Haight Ashbury in 1969 that none of the space exploration stuff in “2001: A Space Odyssey” would have come true 40 years later but that General Motors would be in bankruptcy and that Lincoln would be selling luxury, high end pickup trucks, they would have told you to cut back on the LSD and go talk to the nice people down at the Free Clinic.” Karen Caron and Jody Carlson liked that quote. A couple of space cadets didn't even get it.

I will say, though, that the First Space Age is finished. With real reform, we may be able to build a real future for humans in space. Open democratic reform, though, is needed. Open democratic societies do a much better job of really advancing human civilization. Such societies are open to new ideas and new people. They are better at creating real progress. They are better are solving problems over the long haul. They respect their people and try to make lives better for all. We all know they fail at this all too often, Still, though, they are the best kinds of societies that humanity has created so far. Winston Churchill once said “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Those solar power satellites are looking increasingly possible. People are struggling for real reform in tech fields. I know – I am one of them.

I will close by comparing three years: 1621, 2011 and 2525. Those of you old enough to remember might remember the song “In the year 2525” back in the 1960s. I have it on a CD. It was look at a future of fantastic myths -- and possibly dark times. It was very different from what we have today. What about 1621? That was the year John Donne became dean of St. Paul's Cathedral in London, England. A few years back I read the book “A Cambridge Companion to John Donne.” Why? I was curious about a man I am descended from. I was stunned about how similar I was to this great man who lived four centuries ago. I'm not is his league, but I was surprised about how we thought and felt about things. Now, let's compare our times. If I could take a time machine back to 1621 and tell Donne about a typical day for me, he would be thoroughly surprised. Listen to stereo? I could even take a small one back to show him. Drive a car? Live in an air conditioned house? Communicate via the Internet? He would learn much about the great accomplishments of humans in the past four centuries – and be surprised at how similar today's humans were to those of the 17th Century. What will 2525 be like? As far ahead of ours as ours is from 1621? Or more like 1621? Our descendants will know.

That's enough for now. Feel free to bring this up at any Mensa event or elsewhere. I try to be open to everyone.

Beer and Me

2011-07-13T06:22:00.000-07:00

I had my first drink at a fraternity party at Rutgers when I was a freshman. It was beer. The upperclassmen played a game. The object of the game was to get freshman drunk. I was the first loser. I got really sick. Friends helped me back to the dormitory. The next morning I phoned my father. Dad normally had lunch at the Rutgers Alumni Faculty Club. He took me there for lunch that day. We had a serious talk about alcohol.

A few weeks later I was in New York City with friends. Back then 18 year olds could drink legally in New York. My friends ordered beer. Remembering both what my father told me and also remembering that my father enjoyed a scotch, I surprised everyone by ordering scotch. I liked the taste. I discovered I enjoyed moderate drinking.

Years later in California I discovered wine. I found out I liked drinking wine with dinner, again moderately.

I kept up my usually moderate consumption of wine and scotch whiskey for years. I did upgrade my taste in whiskey to The Glen Livet when it became available. I also tried and liked other brands. One old girl friend said Langavulin was an aphrodisiac. Guess what we drank when we were alone?

Beer, however, remained off limits to me. That first experience really affected me. I tend toward moderation in most things most of the time. I was that way even in my 20s. One friend of mine -- a part of the flower child scene -- said to me with real respect "You're with us -- but only part way."

Then in 1987 I went to England for the World Science Fiction Convention in Brighton. It was my first trip to England -- but far from my last. My cousins Harry and Anita met me at Gatwick. They are not only relatives of mine, but also friends. On the way up to Nottingham, Harry stopped at a pub. In the pub he asked me if I would like to try one of their beers. Friendly person that I am, I said yes. Harry ordered best bitter all around. I really liked the taste of that beer.

Some months later I threw a party at my home in New Jersey. One woman I was friends with brought a six pack of Sam Adams beer. I was amused by the "Brewer, Patriot" label. When she left, she left behind a couple bottles of Sam Adams. Some days later I tried a bottle. I liked it as well. It was so much better than Budweiser it wasn't funny. I added a beer now and again to my alcohol consumption. I even bought a six pack now and then.

In 1989 I returned to England, this time for a simple trip to see more of the land of my ancestors. I told Harry my beer story at one point. He was very amused.

In the 1990s I worked at Goddard Space Flight Center. I got involved with the running group there. Because once I won a trophy for my performance in a 10K -- time of 45:20 -- I bragged about it in a letter I sent out with my Christmas card. In May of 1993 my cousins invited all the family to a 50th wedding anniversary celebration of their parents wedding. At that party my cousin Don -- a real athlete in high school -- turned to me at one point and said that he could not run a 10K that fast and that he had run 4 marathons. He said with real conviction that I had at least one marathon in me.

In 1996 I did run -- OK, slowly -- the Marine Corps Marathon. I had one strong memory besides finishing that marathon. Around mile 17 I saw a physically attractive woman wearing a T shirt proclaiming her to be a member of the White House Hash House Harriers -- The Drinking Club With a Running Problem. The only reason I did not crack up laughing was because it was only mile 17.

In June of 1998 I ran the Race for the Cure 5K. I wasn't even out of breath. While I was waiting for my friends to catch up, I saw a couple of people wearing Hash T shirts. I walked over and introduced myself and asked about the group. Mother Chalker told me the hash was into exercise and fun. He handed me a paper with contact information on it.

The next Friday, according to the phone announcement, there would be a full Moon run. The announcement said the start would be at My Brother's Place -- a bar/restaurant in DC. The announcement also said to look for the degenerates.

I showed up that Friday. I thought to myself if these people are degenerates, most Americans belong in intensive care. I had a good time. I started making friends. Oh -- I was very amused by the consumption of beer at the closing circle. I became a hasher -- and now a more regular, but almost always moderate, beer drinker. Hashing has definitely improved my life.

For over a decade now I have been involved in St, Mark's Episcopal Church. While the church tends to be more liberal, anyone is welcome to come. St. Mark's also has a tradition called Pub Lunch after the 11:15 service on Sunday. It is a friendly time. We even brew our own beer. Rick Weber, our brewmaster, is even the Bishop's Brewmaster. One of our sayings is "Come for the wine. Stay for the beer."

It has now reached the point where I might be a connoisseur of beer. I like, for instance, a good IPA. Recently I discovered at a Rutgers event the microbrewery Starr Hill's Northern Lights IPA. The physicist/astronomer in me was obviously drawn to the name. The educated beer drinker that I have become has me really liking this IPA better than others. It is a bit scary to now have a favorite even in a specialty brew.

That's all for now. Soon I must leave for a New Jersey State Society event at the Capitol.

Happy Independence Day!

2011-07-04T16:04:00.000-07:00

Today, July 4th, is the 235th anniversary of the day the Continental Congress adopted our Declaration of Independence. There is much more here and here.

In one very interesting way I began being touched when I went to St. Alban's Episcopal Church on Sunday, June 26th. I went because I was invited. People at St. Alban's are involved in all kinds of things -- including the DC art scene. That Sunday they celebrated St. Alban's Day. The service concluded with a hymn sung to honor St. Alban. The music was the Battle Hymn of the Republic. I was especially moved by that. Oh -- that is the artist in me speaking.

I found out about an organ recital -- those words do not begin to convey the wonderful concert I heard about at Washington National Cathedral some days ago. Today I went. The concert began with Copland's "Fanfare for the Common Man" followed by the National Anthem. The concert concluded with Sousa's "The Stars and Stripes Forever." After the concert I wandered through the gift shop and purchased "America the Beautiful" by the Choirs of Washington National Cathedral. I can now actually claim I own a CD of patriotic American music.

For my English cousins, I will now repeat a story I read a number of years ago. An Englishwoman claimed that the English had never lost a war. An American challenged her on that, noting the outcome of the American Revolution. She simply replied "English colonists fighting for English rights against a German king!" I'm still learning history. It's a relatively new interest for me. David Howarth concluded his book "1066: The Year of the Conquest" with this paragraph:

Yet those children, or their children, won a victory in the end. They never became Norman; they remained most stubbornly English, absorbed the invaders and made of the mixture a new kind of Englishness.

The history of 1066 is very depressing. What William the Bastard and his men did to England is unspeakable. Still, though, those words ring true for me, the American who is descended from fine English people on both sides of my family.

Soon I will leave for a concert in Greenbelt. I had planned to spend this evening in DC photographing the fireworks display. The weather currently is less than good. There might be thunderstorms. For obvious reasons I do not want to risk my fancy camera in such weather. I just paid $255 to get it fixed. I don't want to damage the camera. The last repair, I am told, was normal. Modern technology does have its drawbacks.

Some Thoughts About the Bishop Election

2011-06-15T17:19:00.000-07:00

All, I this is the text of an e-mail I sent to Maureen, David and Rick --our representatives in the Episcopal Diocese of Washington convention some days ago. For those of you who read this blog and are not Episcopalians, please try to understand the primary audience for this missive -- and the others on this topic.

Here's the e-mail:

I have been thinking about the upcoming bishop election. We do have five excellent candidates. I will discuss some of my thoughts about each in alphabetical order by last name.

Ronald Abrams has an interesting history. He's a native New Yorker who has spent much of his career in the South -- including one stint where he had significant dealings with the military. I was impressed with the fact that, while he sees value in the new technologies for communications, he thinks that personal contact is more important. You might be surprised, but I agree with him on that. You would not believe what I have read on the Internet -- and from people who don't come off as nuts as soon as you meet them. We are still learning how to communicate decently over electronic devices. Remember in 1811 the fastest way to get a message from New York City to Philadelphia was via men on horseback and an overnight stop in Trenton, N.J. People had more time to think back then. Our communications technologies may have evolved -- but we humans have not. Abrams came off as friendly and quite interested in strengthening our church with some good ideas on how to make this happen. Reaching out to the young especially with things like Theology Pubs has real merit. Getting our youth to think about their futures and our church is also a good idea.

Mariann Budde has had significant experience in Minnesota with turning around parishes that had fallen on hard times. I was very interested when she mentioned that the Episcopal Church does not have any sort of "brand" to the general public. We can change that. She seems aware of the problems with Washington National Cathedral -- possibly the church that is most identified with the Episcopal Church. We need a strong, healthy cathedral Given her interests, knowledge and overall energy, I think she would do well in bringing the cathedral back to health.

Let me interject a note about our lack of public attention at this point. I will cite one recent example here in Maryland. Former Governor William Donald Shaefer died in April. The man was not only respected as a great governor and before that mayor of Baltimore, but the man was positively loved. "He Cared." is on the front cover of the program of the celebration of his life. I am rather well informed about Maryland politics. Besides the Democratic Party, I am on the Episcopal Public Policy Network. When did I learn Shaefer was an Episcopalian? When I read his obituary. That is appalling.

Samuel Candler is a real Southerner -- but a very open minded one. He's led large churches that are doing well in this world. He seems able to communicate well with a wide variety of people. We need people such as him. I was quite impressed that he responded to my request for a joke with one that was funny. Later on we had a chance encounter during which he spoke appreciatively about my request. He recognized what I was getting at by making such an unusual request. In general he seems quite prepared to handle the real challenges of being Bishop of Washington, leading Episcopalians, interacting with politicians and the general public.

Jane Gould is originally from this area. I wonder if, for some reason, she is seeking to return. Boston is a fine area, but she might miss things about DC. I will note, though, that this area and diocese is sufficiently attractive in so many ways I won't hold the fact that she would be returning to the diocese of her youth against her. In some ways that makes her a strong candidate. I was very impressed that she manages to be both the priest that leads a quite multicultural parish and be Episcopal Chaplain at MIT, Tending to the spiritual needs of engineers and scientists who are willing to participate in a religion is quite a challenge.

John Harmon is a priest in our diocese. He. along with Jane Gould, probably understands our diocese best at present. He's also described himself as a product of Episcopalian education. He knows his way around DC politics -- both local and national. While he describes himself as a life long Episcopalian, his accent gave me the idea that he was born outside of the U.S. and spent some time living there. I could be wrong, of course. He is sharp and aware of both the challenges and opportunities we have with our church.

I think St. Mark's will be able to work well with any of these candidates. This is my first time actually paying attention to the internal politics of the Episcopal Church, at least regarding election of a bishop. I may even be able to rank the candidates in my eyes before the election. Yes, in one sense I am a good Episcopalian in that I have been a cradle Episcopalian born to cradle Episcopalians. Now I am starting to pay attention about the way things currently work in our diocese. I think I have much to learn. I also suspect I have much to offer.

Mensa and the Larger World

2011-06-13T12:52:00.000-07:00

A Bit About Myself and the Ways I Think and Act

2011-06-06T11:30:00.000-07:00

Every so often I will post something here that is more about myself than some topic in the larger world. This is one of those posts. I do this to help people understand my perspective on the world on which we live.

Two years ago I wrote a posting titled An Interesting Side Comment by Michael Griffin, The point of that post was to get people -- especially engineers and scientists -- to think about the way they worked and conducted their lives and the impact such things had on their work. It can be hard to convince some people that they will accomplish more and produce better results if they go home and get some rest. Some people want to believe that the person who spends 80 hours/week at work is far more committed and is accomplishing far more than the person who works only 40 hours/week. Yes, for a short stretch, you can put in a great number of hours -- but over the long haul you cannot.

That posting got a few comments on the blog. What is interesting are some of the criticisms I received in person. People told me the piece was more about myself than anything else. I did use myself as an example of an outlier and compared myself to people who were even more outliers than I was to help illustrate the phenomenon. If you read the piece, though, you will note that I cite books that I have read as well as other people describing the situation in various ways. I don't think the piece is about myself. The people who challenged my piece all had some professional commitment to aerospace in general and NASA in particular. Currently I am on the outs with these people. They even sent me a letter banning me from their meetings. I did go to one of their luncheons -- and was given a warm welcome by some of the people there. I wasn't chased away. Perhaps my status has not been communicated to all -- even all in leadership positions.

In some ways I am an advocate of change in society. One change I would particularly like to see is more time for rest. More rest makes learning new things easier. Get a teenager up at 4 AM for ice hockey practice and that teenager will have much greater difficulty learning something like calculus or, even worse, quantum physics. Let's not even consider dating.

People who are under attack of some kind are most interested in getting some peace. One way some people choose is simply to surrender to the people attacking them. That isn't all that healthy, though. What is more likely to happen is said people will become even more entrenched in the ways they think and act. That's why I normally try to establish friendly, respectful relationships with said people. Sometimes that approach works. I'm also willing to change my views sometimes. I don't claim to be some sort of godlike figure who is always right. I've made too many mistakes in my own life.

One way I try to communicate my ideas is by bringing up something surprising in a hopefully friendly way. Telling a conservative Roman Catholic that they share one belief with the most liberal of Episcopalians can get their attention. Telling these people that they, like the most liberal of Episcopalians, approve of men and women getting married and having children, surprises them. Who on earth would disapprove of such a thing? Informing them that work life balance for too many young people in tech fields essentially makes marriage and family nearly impossible gets their attention.

I will say I am under attack in some ways. I have been all my life a member of the American middle class. In recent decades people such as myself have been put under some very severe attacks. 40% -- perhaps more -- of people in their 50s are being fired out of their jobs. Most lose practically everything they have saved up in their lives. I'm not quite as bad off as that, but that is probably because of a more frugal than most lifestyle. Still, though, I can see ways that this strain has shaped me. One way involves religion. I and my family has been Episcopalian or Anglican for centuries. This is an important part of my being. 20 years ago I was friendly to just about anyone, regardless of religious belief. Now I have to watch myself that I do not react negatively to the views of somebody else just based upon religious differences. That;s just one example.

Enough for now. I don't want to bore people too much.

Walkabout for Episcopal Diocese of Washington Bishop Candidates -- Collington

2011-05-26T12:35:00.000-07:00

On Wednesday, May 25th, I attended a walkabout at Collington. The focus of this walkabout was specifically on concerns for seniors and retirees.

The afternoon session began with the question about how the candidates would minister to diversity.

John Harmon spoke first. He expressed the thought that diversity should be more than mere tolerance. There is a need to communicate well. People must live together, not just visit.

Mariann Budde spoke next. She first became really aware of how different people could be when her second son was born. They were -- and are -- very different from one another. She noted that living in tension makes us sicker. We need to embrace our different communities and live into the fullness of our uniqueness.

Jane Gould spoke next. She feels called to be bishop because of diversity. She recognizes she serves a very diverse church. Young people meet elders in her very diverse parish. In her parish there is a need for communications across generations and racial differences. They also have partnerships with other, different congregations.

Ronald Abrams spoke next. He has done congregational work in a black church. He personally loves diversity in all its ways. It must be nurtured. He would create a bishop's lunch to bring together groups of clergy and a wardens' dinner to bring together groups of lay leadership.

Samuel Candler addressed us next. He mentioned that he grew up in a small church where diversity was the rule. The more diverse the church, the more you learn about God. He quoted Mother Teresa when she was asked by a young person what they could do, Mother Terese replied "Smile at the people you live with."

The audience now asked questions. The first was about gays being elected to high positions.

Samuel Candler said he supported same sex unions but also supported the world wide community -- which has members who do not.

Jane Gould spoke next. She signed the vote for Gene Robinson. She noted she served in a diverse community with varying views on this issue. She noted that one church leader in Africa had six wives but was still welcomed into the church. We must struggle with this issue every day.

John Harmon answered next. No one's gift should be denied. We need to connect with those who have different views.

Ronald Abrams spoke next. He was personally mentored ans supported by all kinds of clergy. Our broad and wide commitment to Christ is what brings us together. What we have together is greater than what we have apart.
One questioner asked about the breakdown of respect for divergent points of views.

John Harmon has met with most congregations in this diocese. He noted we must act on the views of the majority, but respect those who differ.

Samuel Candler commented that the antidote to bad behavior is to model right behavior.

Ronald Abrams cited examples of people working together.

Jane Gould observed that we must take moral positions in the larger community while respecting differences. She observed that government and political leaders have lost the sensibility that we have more in common than in difference.

Marian Budde said that is one reason why she wants the church to grow. We can help set the tone.

Financial matters were also the subject of one question. Budde said it was necessary to rebuild some congregations. Gould said that people give to what is most transformative in their lives. Candler said much the same thing. Harmon said people give to enterprises that reach the larger generation. Abrams said people must give out to the community and that is is important to bring out all parts of the community. Budde said it is important to listen to our elders because they have learned much. Harmon noted that it is important to listen to all groups. Candler said this his church had started a retirement home for seniors on low fixed incomes. He added that elders have wisdom. Gould noted that we need to help our elders. Addressing structural problems in our society is important.

I almost certainly missed some things. I will observe, again, that the candidates responded in similar ways to the variety of communities that they met. That, I will add, is quite expected and good. A candidate for bishop should be open and honest with all.

Once again, I did put some photos up on Flickr. You can find them as Bishop Walkabout, Collington.

I hope these notes and photos help people.

There is a good chance I will write my thoughts on this blog in the next few days -- perhaps a week or so. I will comment that all five candidates seem to be personally good people with sharp, open minds. I do expect that those who oppose women in priesthood would be happy to have the two women candidates as members, even lay leaders. I can't be sure of that, though.

Walkabout for Episcopal Diocese of Washington Bishop Candidates -- Washington Episcopal School

2011-05-26T10:54:00.000-07:00

I also attended the walkabout on Tuesday evening, May 24th, for the bishop candidates. this one was held at the Washington Episcopal School. This school seems quite interesting. It runs from kindergarten through 8th grade. Some parents started this school because they thought that the existing offerings -- especially public -- left much to be desired. I did have a pleasant, albeit brief, chat with one man who was on the school's faculty.

Once again, the meeting began with the five candidates being asked one question. The question was "What experiences have you had that equip you to be Bishop of Washington?"

John Harmon was the first to answer. He made some key points:

He is completely the product of Episcopalian education.
He has good leadership skills.
He has a great love of people and God.
He has helped address the HIV problem as a leader of over 100 clergy with concerns.
He has done significant fund raising.

Samuel Candler was the second respondent. Among his points were:

He is a product of small towns.
He has led two major churches in the past 17 years.
He is attuned to both the conservative and liberal versions of Christianity.
He has met challenges by taking risks.
He praised his family. He learned much from listening to his mother.
He commented that we can be a great church for the entire Anglican communion.

Jane Gould spoke next. She made the points that:

She grew up in the DC area and attended college in California.
People have described her as a smart jock.
She is fed by diversity.
She brings people together in communities and encourages their gifts.

Mariann Budde was the fourth speaker. Points she made included:

There are many ways of being Christian. The Episcopal Church is particularly good at that.
She came of age as a young volunteer helping the poor.
She has led her current parish for 18 years, leading them to serve others.
Words are not enough. There must be actions as well.
She loves the Episcopal Church.

Ronald Abrams was the final speaker. He made some strong points:

He is a product of the Episcopal Church.
He grew up in a multicultural environment in New York.
When he was 15 his 20 year old brother died of Hodgkin's. The community helped in so many ways that it led him to commit his life to the church.
He has served in a variety of communities ranging from the Hamptons to Fayetteville to a military community.

We then moved to breakout rooms to question the candidates individually. One difference this evening from St. Mary's was that the groups were larger and more equally divided.

The first candidate in my room was Samuel Candler. He made a number of points in answer to various questions. Among them were:

We must have the support of the community in reaching out to the larger church.
One the topic of same sex unions he favors them greatly. He added, though, that you did not have to agree with him to be a part of the community.
Listening to people is important.
A bishop should learn one distinctive thing about each parish.
The number of parishes is dropping. We need to reverse that trend.
In response to a question about resolving conflict, he mentioned that in 2003 he gave a speech at our general convention favoring same sex unions. When he got home, he engaged his parish with an open, engaging conversation. His parish has 6000 members.
Regarding college ministries he said that the diocese should not duplicate college ministries of parishes but support said ministries.
I asked him to tell a good joke. I found his response funny. I suspect, though, that the people running the session did not completely appreciate what I did because, when I held my hand up to do the same for other candidates, I was politely ignored.

The next candidate we interviewed was Mariann Budde. Among her points were:

She endorses the report made about Washington National Cathedral.
Her parish was failing when she arrived. Her predecessor and lay leaders began its revival. She continued that work. It is important to not define yourself by what you don't have, but by what you do. Her current parish has become a "big sister" to parishes currently struggling.
It is important for the bishop to learn the strengths of various parishes.
When asked about personal strengths, she mentioned her high energy, a great love of the complexity of humans and a lack of fear of other faiths.
She sees a sea change happening in the episcopate. The church is at a critical juncture. Parishes need attention. this is a collective era of renewal.
Raising the profile of the church is important. Most people had no idea about what the Episcopal Church stood for or did. Her diocese began to address this problem by putting up billboards.

Ronald Abrams was the next speaker. He mentioned several important things, including:

New technologies are important and can help, but one on one approach is best.
He has seen breakdowns in communications.
You can't get communion through TV.
He supports same sex unions.
It is important to be collegial in working with staff. Trust must be built. It can't be done through micromanagement. His door is always open.
When someone in his current congregation has a loss, the church community steps forward together to help.

John Harmon was the next candidate to appear. He spoke to similar concerns. He noted that, while he supported same sex unions, it was necessary to work with all, whether they agreed or not.

Jane Gould was the last to speak. She did mention briefly that some deacons had unhealthy work life balances.

You will note that I did not do much note taking for the last two candidates. It was not because of a lack of interest or unwillingness to report. It was, in good part, because the questions the candidates were asked were very similar to the questions asked at St. Mary's with similar responses. In short,I got tired of note taking.

I did do some photographs of this event. You can find them on Flickr as Bishop Walkabout, Washington Episcopal School.

I hope people find this report and the photographs helpful.

Walkabout for Episcopal Diocese of Washington Bishop Candidates -- St. Mary's

2011-05-24T06:18:00.000-07:00

For any readers of this blog who are not familiar with my commitment to the Episcopal Church, let me begin with a few comments. I am what is called a "cradle Episcopalian." My family has been Episcopalian or Anglican for centuries. Culturally the church has influenced me all my life and has helped make me a better person. It also provides a place where I can turn for all kinds of interactions, advice, etc. I truly appreciate the fact that we limit authority in democratic ways -- especially in the United States. That is very important to me because for the past few decades we've seen an assault on democratic freedoms in the United States that troubles me greatly. In the Episcopal Church we do have some rather intense controversies at present -- but even antagonists seem to get along better in the church than antagonists do in the larger world.

I attended the walkabout session for the new Episcopal Diocese of Washington at St. Mary's on Monday evening. All five candidates were there along with enough people to fill St. Mary's nave. I arrived around 6:30 PM, in time to catch the end of the reception in another room. The session began with the five candidates addressing one question. The question was "How might you seek to improve the life of the diocese?"

Marianne Budde was the first to respond. She expressed the thoughts that:

The World and God need us to be as strong as possible.
Health and vitality of churches is important so that other things can be done.
Clergy and lay wellness is important. Some have left leadership positions because of health.
Vision is important. The episcopate must nurture it.
We must share and expand joy.

Samuel Candler was the next to speak. He also spoke about health. Among his thoughts were:

We should pay attention to healthy congregations.
We should use healthy churches as models we can learn from.
Communication is important.
Healthy dioceses need healthy parishes, leaders and communities.
One thing he has seen help is weekly Bible study.

The next speaker was Ronald Abrams. His first main point was that we have sometimes lost people because of issues with various relationships. He favors clergy luncheons, among other things, to build relationships.

John Harmon was the next to speak. He currently serves in this diocese. One important point he made was that we need to work out in the community to make the community healthier. He also notes that Washington has all that is needed for healthy communities

The final speaker was Jane Gould. She is currently a chaplain at MIT. I will try to not let that influence my views too much. In that role she has brought together Episcopalian faculty, staff and students to help them work and live together better. She has also reached out to members of other faiths as well.

After these necessarily brief introductory speeches, we broke up into several groups. I was lucky enough to be assigned to a breakout room with a small number of people. In our room it was easy to ask questions of the candidates. Some members of our group made a point of asking one identical question of each of the candidates. I, as you might expect, varied my question from one candidate to another.

The first candidate in my room was Jane Gould. Among the points I managed to note were:

It is necessary to see what relationships are life giving.
When queried about politics, she observed:
- She respected politicians.
- She understood how politics worked.
- She has stories about real people to help others understand politics.
Magic is necessary to construct strong communities. People need to sacrifice at times.
It is necessary for dioceses to have multiple income streams.
For work with youth at risk, secular funding is available.
She briefly mentioned the Technology Forum. She noted that:
- The people there engaged in talk about people.
- The tech crowd that she knew was more thoughtful and had a deeper faith commitment.
The Walker School was important.

The second candidate to come to our room was Samuel Candler. Among his points were:

He has worked with politicians in South Carolina and Georgia where he now is.
Views in the Episcopal Church are more comprehensive than any one position.
Our identity as a church must go beyond any one position.
We need to keep young people involved. Open weekly sessions would help this.
We need to give. People give to places where they have had a transformative experience.
The church should speak up for the working class.
Priests need to build on community.
Bishops need to understand parishes and priests.

The third candidate was Mariann Budde. Among her points were:

She is involved in politics.
Lay leaders should be built up.
Minnesota has money problems. It is necessary to meet that challenge.
The church needs to reach out to young people on their own terms.
People should be proud of their churches.

The fourth candidate was Ron Abrams. Among his points were:

The primary responsibility of the bishop is to be pastor to the clergy and laity.
He sees the need to strengthen parishes.
A "Theology Pub" is one way he reached out to people.
We need to engage the youth in ministry.
We need to get people to coniser a vocation in church.

The fifth and final candidate was John Harmon of our diocese. Among his points were:

Clergy must called to the position.
There are no incompetent clergy -- just mismatched clergy and churches.
It is important to know what people bring to their churches.
Among other things, he is chaplain to the National Science Foundation
He will invite political leaders to support the mission of the church.
He has worked with the City Council on education.
Congregations should be mission minded.
Churches need to be actively involved in their communities.
Democratic style leadership is important.
Social media is important, but we must be faithful.
It is more important to be faithful than right.

That pretty much concludes what I heard Monday evening. I may follow up with some reactions of my own in a later post. I am writing these blog items to let people know what was discussed at the walkabout meetings. Generally, I will say I am glad these people are involved in the Episcopal Church. I hope even those who disagree with some of their positions as well as the fact that two of them are women will still see the candidates more positively than not. I will note that, when I was growing up in New Jersey, women were welcomed into church leadership, just not as clergy.

An Interesting Weekend

2011-05-22T17:01:00.000-07:00

This weekend has been quite interesting.

Friday evening was taken up by the Philosophical Society of Washington Joseph Henry lecture. The speaker, one Debra Elmegreen of Vassar College and President of the American Astronomical Society, discussed the astronomical decadal survey. It was a most interesting evening.

Saturday's big event was the Metro Washington Mensa's Leadership Development Workshop. I was surprised to discover from Loren Kropat that Roberts' Rules of Order dated to only the end of the 19th Century, when an engineer by the name of Roberts who made a career of the Army (winding up with Brigadier General rank) wrote the rules to help people run meetings. The original book has expanded more than 10 fold in the past century plus.

Sunday was taken up with three events. The day began with Banner Sunday at St. Mark's. I will put in a link to photos later. Lunch time at St. Mark's was given to a terrific celebration of Jan Hoffman's 90th birthday. She does not seem anywhere near 90. We are all happy to have her as a member. I will put in a link to the photos when they are organized as well.

The last event of the day was the Metro Washington Mensa monthly New Members Open House. Donna Campbell hosted a wonderful event that brought together several friends. At one point I offered myself up for adoption to Donna. Hey, I am an orphan.

More later when I am not so busy.

Monday looks like the start of an interesting political week.

DC Art Science Evening Rendezvous, May 19, 2011

2011-05-20T06:23:00.000-07:00

Thursday evening I attended the fourth DC Art Science Evening Rendezvous (DASER) at the Keck Center of the National Academies. I've attended three of the events so far. It's now not only on my calendar for the third Thursday of the month, I have also put the event on the Metro Washington Mensa calendar as a recurring event. I also plan on publicizing this event in other fora where people know me.

When I arrived shortly before 6 PM I was given a name badge, a program and a survey to fill out. Since there were few people around, I took some time to view the exhibition of pieces that connect art and science on display in the halls around the meeting room. The show is quite intriguing. I recommend that people in the DC area make the attempt to see this exhibit. While the Keck Center is normally open only during regular business hours, it is possible to see the show while attending DASER.

The session began with people from the audience who are doing something that brings together science and art in some way. One couple mentioned an interest in astronomy in art. I introduced myself to them at the networking event after the more formal part of the meeting. Mangala Sharma of the Space Telescope Science Institute and Thomas Statler OF NSF are both astronomers and are married to each other. I did mention my Flickr site with the art I think they will find interesting. They were friendly and also know Zoltan Levy whom I met through the Bowie-Crofton Camera Club.

JD Talasek, Director of Cultural Programs, began by showing X rays and art. It was interesting seeing how this technology -- little more than a century old -- has impacted art and vice versa.

The first panel speaker, Harry Abramson of Direct Dimensions, described his company's main business of developing computer models of various technologies. NASA is one big customer. Interaction with artists has definitely affected the company. The different ways that artists approach reality provides a stimulating contrast to engineering views. He spoke at some length about Leonardo's Horse. That sculpture was, apparently, done by the Renaissance great Leonardo da Vinci and copied later by others. Direct Dimension's computer models showed both the similarities (great) and differences among the various sculptures.

The next speaker, Zeev Rosensweig, a chemistry professor, began his comments by noting that the creativity of artists and scientists is similar in many ways. Both groups approach complex systems in interesting ways. The groups, though, will use different words and phrases for the same phenomena.

The next speaker, Michael Chorost, is a science writer. After he became deaf, had hearing restored via a computer implant. He thinks that this is the future of humanity. He has written a book titled "World Wide Mind: The Coming Integration of Humanity, Machines, and the Internet." The book advances the thesis that the Internet will reshape how humanity not only communicates but also works and lives together. He has noted, though, that people are less able to be intimate with one another currently. We are also less able to work with each other.

The final presenter, one Randall Parker, joined with the deaf since birth actor Robin Shannon in a joint effort showing how the two men could communicate and interact with each other. This presentation made me wish I had brought my camera. This presentation was, to me, very visual.

One questioner, Sheila Macdonald, is a lobbyist the Population Strategies Group, who's read Kurzweil's "the Coming Singularity" with some interest. She has seen things get worse in the past 40 years on Capitol Hill. People today are increasingly divided and hostile to one another. Moderation has been abandoned.

All in all it was an interesting evening. I am looking forward to future DASERs. I hope I can interest other people that I know in attending same.

The TV Show Sherlock Holmes

2011-05-20T05:58:00.000-07:00

Yesterday when I was reading the obituary section of the Washington Post, I made an interesting discovery. I am a bit of a fan of the British show Sherlock Holmes. Here in the DC area one may watch said show on the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) station WETA on Thursday evenings at 8 PM. Yesterday the Post reported on the death of Edward Hardwicke, son of Cedric Hardwicke and Helena Pickard. He played Dr. Watson on the show for a number of years. I did not realize the show dated to the 1980s and 1990s. Jeremy Brett, who played Holmes, died in 1995.

This shows that, while I know a good bit about England, I have some interesting blind spots, even about things that attract my attention quite favorably.

You can see the Post obituary on the web.

England and Me

2011-05-11T05:48:00.000-07:00

I've done a good bit of thinking lately about the British Isles -- home to my ancestors on both sides of my family. One of the reasons why I am doing this is a silly Facebook test I took a few months ago. It claimed I would be living in the UK in 5 years time.

Another, more serious, reason is a blog I discovered soon after the Tucson killings involving Gabrielle Giffords back in January. After sending an e-mail to my English cousins Harry and Anita Lawton, I simply Googled "Tucson killings England." I was looking to see how people in England reported on this tragedy and what reactions they had. One blog I did discover this way was Arden Forester's. He describes himself as conservative with a slight libertarian touch. One of the things that really stood out about his blog is his criticism of "covert corporatism." He is quite critical of the corporate elites that take too large salaries for their work and harm the larger community by doing things like Cadbury did -- closing down a profitable factory in England in order to shift production to a factory where they could get higher profits. I've seen the same thing done too often in too many places. The end result of this kind of behavior is weaker communities and, surprisingly, business problems down the road that weaken the businesses that do such things. For example, when a business such as GE fires thousands of engineers in the 1980s, young people in college will turn away from engineering careers in very large numbers, as they did for many years and now seem to be doing again. Who wants to do a large amount of difficult work for no reward? Then there is the Harvard Business School which sent its best graduates to one firm which it wrote up glowingly in its publications. What was the firm? Enron.

I don't know how well Arden Forester and I would get along in we lived a few blocks apart in the same town and ran into each other at a local pub, but my perception of people in England is that even people who disagree strongly about some things still are friendly in others. That's something that has changed for the worse in the U.S., alas, in recent decades. My Eisenhower Republican parents said of Democrats that they were fine people with whom they had some disagreements. Their friends who were Democrats said the same sort of thing about their Republican friends.

There are other reasons why I am increasingly interested in England. I was surprised to find out a few months ago that there is more equality in the UK these days than in the U.S. Our elites have been very busy concentrating more and more wealth and power in their hands. There are less quantifiable things. Via PBS I have been able to see over the decades a good bit of British TV. It's how I discovered Doctor Who back in the 1970s. These days I manage to see things like Sherlock Holmes -- even a newer version -- and Hercule Poirot. I find those shows much more interesting that American crime dramas. One of the shows that started turning me against American crime shows was Kojak back in the 1970s. Kojak was little better than a criminal with a badge. Even some people in the real New York City Police Department said that. Now, of course, I can catch many British shows via BBC America on cable.

I have enjoyed my trips to England over the years. I get to meet friendly relatives. They even once took me to see an English football match. When a radio reporter started talking to one of my cousins, he said to him that he should talk to me. I managed to give a friendly American's reaction to an important match.

I've been to the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. A group is trying to get something similar started here in DC. I still remember catching "Saucy Jack and the Space Vixens" back in 1995. There were some very serious shows as well.

I've also been more than a bit involved in the Hash House Harriers. I discovered this group because a T shirt I saw while running the Marine Corps Marathon back in 1996 amused me. Imagine seeing a T shirt saying "White House Hash House Harriers -- The Drinking Club with a Running Problem" while you and the other runner are at mile 17. It was only after I joined in 1998 that I found out about its British roots and sometimes British sense of humor. (Or should I write "humour?")

Being a life long Episcopalian might also have something to do with my inclinations as well. While our church is currently going through a period of some conflict, we are still managing to do alright. We are also starting to address our challenges and will become stronger and better for it. I see some very interesting possibilities for healthy growth in Diocese of Washington, DC. People in my church are also starting to pay attention to some of the demands on people in general that are quite unreasonable. Working 100 hours/week is not dedication. It is a formula for burnout.

That's enough for now. I most likely will return to this topic in the future.

He Cared -- A Celebration of the Life of William Donald Shaefer

2011-04-29T06:29:00.000-07:00

On Wednesday I attended a service celebrating the life of Governor William Donald Shaefer at Old Saint Paul's in Baltimore. I was deeply moved by this great funeral for a great, good man. He wanted to be remembered by "He cared." He cared deeply for the citizens of Baltimore, of Maryland and, by being active Episcopalian, all the people of the world.

The music was deeply affecting. The Maryland Boy Choir led off with the great "Miserei Mei." From then, through such things as "The Star Spangled Banner", "Amazing Grace" (we all sang along with that one) through the final "Battle Hymn of the Republic" by the Morgan State Singers I was moved to the deepest emotions.

Before the service began I found myself discussing our respective denominations with a Roman Catholic named Rosemary. She mentioned how alike our services were. I agreed -- and then went on to describe some of our differences. I informed her that the Protestant Episcopal Church was organized as a representative, constitutional democracy. I then described our Presiding Biship Katherine Jefferts-Schori. Rosemary commented that she's really smart and that I am not bothered by women priests. I agreed, quite friendlily, noting that I knew some wonderful women priests.

The inclusion of "Amazing Grave" touched me. I heard the song first when Judy Collins sung it. It seemed much more my generation that my parents. Mom and Dad liked my music -- and let me know that. After the funeral I read the credits for "Amazing Grace." It is 19th century. Great music lasts -- and moves good people of many generations.

A number of political leaders were present -- both Democratic and Republican. People from all walks of life respect Governor Shaefer and his accomplishments for both Baltimore and Maryland. I first experienced Baltimore at the 1983 World Science Fiction Convention. I was very impressed -- especially by the Inner Harbor, right next to the convention center. Later on I moved to Maryland in 1990 to work at Goddard Space Flight Center. Before I moved a friend told me to register Democratic. I, being a moderately liberal Republican at the time, expressed surprise. I knew I would almost certainly vote for some Democrats, just as I had in New Jersey and my Eisenhower Republican parents did before me. Then I got to Maryland. Governor Shaefer was running for reelection that year. I investigated both parties and their candidates. Just comparing Governor Shaefer with his Republican opponents led me to register Democratic. The difference was that dramatic -- and that much in favor of the Democratic Party.

Four spoke at the funeral at some length. They were political figures Mrs. Lainy Lebow-Sachs, Senator Barbara Mikulski and former Congressman Kweisi Mfume. Both Mikulski and Mfume noted that they had conflicts with Governor Shaefer at some point in their careers. Both spoke of what they had learned, their great respect for Governor Shaefer and how they had become fast friends and allies of Governor Shaefer. The homily was delivered by a Methodist Reverend Luther Starnes, who worked with Governor Shaefer in Maryland government. He spoke highly of his character and his work for the people of Maryland.

One thing surprised me, though. I had not known that Governor Shaefer was an Episcopalian until I read his obituary the previous week. I knew that Governor O'Malley, Senator Mikulski and several others are Roman Catholic. I knew that Senator Cardin was Jewish. But I did not know about Governor Shaefer and I sharing the same religious faith. Do we Episcopalians keep our religious views too hidden? I think we have much to be proud of. All of us, whether we consider ourselves liberal or conservative in our views, are remarkably open to others -- at least as far as I know. We try to help our fellow humans -- whatever their backgrounds. These are just a few thoughts, brought on not only by this week's service but by other things as well. More later -- when I can discuss such things with friends at St. Mark's and elsewhere.

Evolution of My Libertarian Side

2011-03-16T07:37:00.000-07:00

After the Tucson tragedy, I Googled "Tucson Killings England." I did this in good part wanting to see what people over in England -- besides my cousins -- were saying about Tucson.

I discovered one interesting blog titled A View from Middle England by someone using the pen name Arden Forester. He subtitles his blog "Conservative with a slight libertarian touch. Optimistic supporter of the Coalition Government. Free Enterprise NOT Covert Corporatism."

Our views are clearly different in some ways. He also writes about English political matters about which, while I am better informed than most Americans, I will not claim to be some sort of expert. If I moved there, I probably would become some sort of expert, but I am not one now.

Forester does criticize some people who might be viewed by Americans as conservative. He has criticized the Westboro Baptist Church as fanatics. A fair number of American conservatives say similar things. He's also criticized Sarah Palin thoughtfully. That's something I haven't seen too many American conservatives doing.

Prehaps most importantly, though, is his criticism of corporations and greedy CEOs. He has, I think, recognized one very important fact. Government can be a threat to liberty. Unfortunately, too many corporations are as well. Too many of them abuse ordinary staff. When a company demands so much that people cannot do ordinary human things -- like get married and have children -- that company is demanding too much. When a company shuts down a profitable factory simply because they make a few dollars (or pounds) more elsewhere for a few quarters, that is being shortsighted and harmful to the people who work there.

Quite a few libertarians in the United States always criticize things like people forming unions or turning to government for help. It hasn't registered with them the harm that some corporate management does and that people will turn to the government for help Criticizing such people for violating libertarian theory isn't helpful. I think libertarians need to start working on reforms in business and in school -- especially business school -- to address real problems caused by corporate management. Arden Forester and I seem to have similar views on this topic.

Changing Posting Habits

2010-12-17T12:10:00.000-08:00

I'm going to try posting to this blog at least six times a week. I plan on focusing on cultural change in tech fields. It's something I think I have something to say well beyond what normal people can say.

This week's most important event was the Progressive Maryland Awards Dinner. Senator Barbara Mikulski was the star. Maryland State Senator Paul Pinsky made thoughtful comments about "Liberty and Justice for All." That's a theme that can resound well with libertarians. Libertarians have much to contribute to our society -- and they have some interesting similarities with some conventional liberals.

An Evening With Triple Nine Friends

2010-11-20T06:23:00.000-08:00

The evening of Friday, November 19th was spent with friends from the Triple Nine Society. Some I have known for some time. Some I met Friday evening.

Eric Phan is a bright young man who has taken it upon himself to organize occasional get togethers of local Triple Nine Society members. He announced this event via e-mail, as usual. What made this event different was an event that preceded our usual dinner. We were invited to the Capitol Hill Club to meet with fund manager Bill Matson and Retired Admiral James Carey. Bill was going to discuss the book by him and his partner Mitch Hardy titled Data Driven Investing. Admiral Carey was going to discuss Triple Nine help with the program Government Scholars. This program is intended to interest bright young people in careers of public service.

I did not know what to expect when I arrived at the Capitol Hill Club. For those who are not familiar with Washington, the Capitol Hill Club is the Republican club adjacent to Congress. The Democratic Party has a similar club a few blocks away. I followed the instructions on how to find the Grill Room where we would be meeting. When I entered the Grill Room, I saw quite a few young people. I assumed they were were Republican staffers and workers of various kinds. After a quick search I saw a table where Eric and Katy were seated. The other two people at the table were Admiral Carey and Bill Matson. I introduced myself to Jim and Bill. Everyone seemed quite friendly. I've come to expect that at Triple Nine gatherings.

Bill began our discussions by telling us what he and his partner had learned about investing. It seems that investing in small companies is one key part of their strategy. They also try to figure out what small companies investors are not paying much attention to and when that is not warranted. The book seems quite interesting. I plan on getting a copy and reading it soon. The book is available free to Triple Nine Society members. During the discussion, Bill mentioned the graphical representation of numerical data. I chimed in at this point because that is actually one of my specialties. During our conversation I also mentioned my concern with firms like AIG that actively prevented bad news from even being distributed throughout the firm, much less to the investing public. Bill and others seemed to agree. Bill also let us know that too many people in the field of finance were simply out to maximize their own personal returns. I'd read similar things elsewhere. It was good to hear it in person from an exceptionally intelligent insider of good character.

Our discussion turned to the Washington Scholars Program. Jim Carey and others lead this effort to get young people interested in government service. Some things make this notable. Jim is clearly a conservative. The Washington Scholars Program is aimed at Republicans, Democrats and independents. Students come from across the political spectrum. Early in his description of the program he mentioned placing a student with Nancy Pelosi. I mentioned that I was involved in Maryland politics and knew quite a few people in positions of leadership in the Democratic Party. It might be possible for me to help. During our conversation I mentioned that I had told people in Congressman Steny Hoyer's office about our Triple Nine Society event. Jim, with a friendly smile on his face, said I could now report that Congressman Hoyer's name up during a discussion at the Capitol Hill Club.

During our discussion I described my interest in reforming tech fields, especially NASA. I stated that the Columbia accident investigation had revealed significant problems at NASA. I also reported how young people were turning away from science and engineering careers because of impossible demands on their lives. I made the observation that, when a young woman must choose between a career in science and having a family, that is wrong. I also noted that middle aged geeks with a clear libertarian bent in their politics are starting to complain about abusive treatment at work. One, Eric Raymond, noted that women in computing aren't abused. He reported that everyone in computing was abused.

The conversation at the Capitol Hill Club was, as I expected, thoughtful and interesting. After 7:15 most of us departed for a restaurant in Eastern Market for dinner. We wound up at Fusion, initially because the place was quiet enough for serious discussions. Other restaurants did not meet that criteria. The food was excellent, as was the conversation.

It is interesting to hear Katy discuss home schooling her children and what her life was like. She was a career Navy officer married to a Navy man. One interesting opinion we both hold strongly is that sleep is important. While our life experiences have been different in many ways, it is interesting that we have some quite strongly held views that are similar. During our discussion I brought up two of my running triumphs in October 1996. First, I ran the Goddard Two Mile Fun Run in my best time of 12:53. Then, a few weeks later, I finished the Marine Corps Marathon. I also reported that, if I had run the first two miles of the marathon at my Goddard pace, I would not have finished the marathon -- and I would have been a half mile behind the eventual winners of the marathon.

Near the end of the evening I mentioned that the St. Mark's Players would be presenting Inherit the Wind in January and proposed a performance as a Triple Nine event. Some interest was stirred.

Wow, I have written over 900 words. I'm trying to keep these postings a bit shorter.

What Next For Space

2010-07-26T12:22:00.000-07:00

It was interesting to see that a Doctor Logan brought up at the recently completed NewSpace 2010 conference that humans may not be able to live on the Moon, Mars or any other very different planet from Earth. I've long thought the same thing.

Spreading out into the Solar System -- and eventually farther -- is going to take quite a bit longer than the true space enthusiast seems prepared to admit -- and deal with.

When European explorers began exploring our planet, they met human beings wherever they went. OK, the humans were somewhat different from Europeans, but they were recognizably human. Peoples from different continents could even interbreed. The earlier expansion of humanity from a location in Africa happened before we had reliable histories so it is rather hard to know just how long it took.

Antarctica is about the only example of a land that did not have people when Europeans arrived. It was not even discovered until 1820. It was ignored for the rest of the 19th Century. Amundsen and Scott raced for the South Pole a century ago. We now have some established bases and some adventurous tourists. Remember -- Antartica is a part of Earth. We can breathe the air, the gravity is the same, radiation problems are pretty much the same. It is just a lot colder than, say, Washington, DC. We do not have anything like Zubrin's Martian fantasy or an O'Neill colony even in Antarctica. It is far easier to get people and things to Antarctica than it is to the Moon or Mars.

The voyages of exploration even hundreds of years ago involved large numbers of people away from home for long periods of time. In space the normal time on ISS is six months. A few people have stayed up longer. It hasn't been good for their health.

We have discovered some utility for space regarding communications and remote sensing. We can do that today. The old L5 idea may be a part of our future -- but a distant part, at least on the scale of a human life. With a large base in orbit we will be able to experiment in ways that are now impossible. We need to learn how to do things in space. That's why NASA reform is so important. The agency does need to develop a bottom up, democratic way of working and living. Yes, the old top down approach did put 12 men on the Moon. But that was really in the nature of a political stunt that did no more than hint at possibilities. It is not a very effective way of producing the kind of knowledge and development that moving out into space is going to need.

DC Digital Week

2010-06-07T14:22:00.000-07:00

Next week I will be attending the DC Digital Week and blogging a bit about it. My plan is to cover the events using both photography and writing. Parties will more than likely just be photography.

An Exceptionally Special Day in the Life of Ambassador Chuck

2010-04-25T15:38:00.000-07:00

What is this "Ambassador Chuck" business? People such as the wonderful folk I met Sunday at St. John's Episcopal Church on Lafayette Square in DC might seriously ask that question. For a humorous look at one of my alternative identities, do check out The Vulcan Ambassador Chuck E-mails.

Now I will move on to more serious matters.

I attended St. John's this morning rather than my usual parish, St. Mark's because our Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori would be appearing at a forum and giving the sermon. Life long Episcopalian that I am, I could not miss this opportunity to see and hear a woman about whom I had heard so many good things.

When I walked in the door of St. John's, I perceived that St. John's had some differences with St. Mark's as well as some more important similarities. People were dressed more formally. But everyone welcomed me warmly and openly. Dress matters far less than a warm welcome from good people. I will say, though, I was glad I had worn a suit and tie. I had some friendly chats with members of the congregation. I remember impressing two nice young women with my tale of finishing the Marine Corps Marathon back in 1996.

When I walked into the forum, I met briefly our Presiding Bishop. I asked her why -- in I hope a friendly manner -- why she had switched from being an oceanographer to an Episcopal priest. I handed her a business card at the same time with an invitation on following up in more detail at a later time. She briefly but friendlily replied that she was still working that out. I was impressed that she told a complete stranger that much.

The forum began at 10. One priest had gone around the congregation passing out cards for people to write questions on. The forum took on the following form. First, Katherine delivered a short talk. During the talk she mentioned how others were impressed by Episcopalians. She reported that people said about us "They use their ears. They also use their brains." We Episcopalians think a great deal more than most people. I will say this is one thing that has kept me an active Episcopalian through my life. Katherine also told us how we were warm and welcoming. We are truly open to the other, We are now working -- in multiple ways -- with other denominations. Our Presiding Bishop sees this as the future of our church and, indeed, of Christianity in general. I think along the same sort of line. She made an interesting comment about the Roman Catholic Church. She noted that there was more cooperation between local Episcopalian and Roman Catholic parishes working together on projects of importance to their communities than there was between the leaders of both churches. She recommended continuing in that manner for local Episcopalians. In the past few decades especially our society has grown more authoritarian -- with negative effects in everything from finance to space exploration to education and more. Too often people with a little bit of power over others think "How can we get people to think more like ourselves?" and too little "How can we use our knowledge to help others?" Or -- even more insidiously -- "How we can control others?" There are times when authoritarian control is appropriate. But all too often such control is presented as the best solution. This leads to all sorts of problems -- which said leadership then blames on someone else.

The Episcopal Church is active in many parts of the world. Katherine mentioned Honduras as one place among many where our church is making a real difference. I suspect Marco Caceres of St. Mark's could give us a good look at how our church is helping in Honduras. He has spoken eloquently about how open and welcoming our church is compared with the Roman Catholic.

The service that followed was also warm and welcoming -- if different from St. Mark's. The music was, as I have come to expect, the typical wonderful Episcopalian hymns and more. The last hymn of the day was particularly touching to me. It was a 20th Century hymn -- and about the positive impacts of science and technology upon our world.

After church I joined people from St. John's at their weekly luncheon. It was not only a good meal, but a great opportunity to get to know the people of S. John's better.

All in all, my experience at St. John's was truly wonderful.

What did I do the rest of the day?

First I stopped by St. Mark's. There I had a brief conversation with our brew master, Rick Weber. I shared a bit of the morning's experience with him.

Then I headed off to Paulos' place for the monthly New Members Open House organized by Metro Washington Mensa. This was a truly rare time when I showed up at a Mensa event wearing a suit and tie. I told them about the morning -- and hearing a religious leader speak openly about the importance of the mind. People were happy to hear that. I also mentioned sitting in the President's Pew at St. John's. That, of course, was just a fortunate coincidence. The party was, again, a good time. I enjoyed seeing some old friends.

After that I made the trek back home.

Aerospace Initiative Home Page

2010-03-30T11:39:00.000-07:00

I've created this page to familiarize people with the work the committee on industry collaboration of the Aerospace Industry Initiative of the Governor's Workforce Investment Board in Maryland did in 2006 and 2007 under my leadership.

I attended the Aerospace Summit held by GWIB in January 2006. I heard about this meeting via the Baltimore section of American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. The meeting was interesting. By tossing my business card in a jar I received as a reward Tom Friedman's book "The World Is Flat." While interesting, the book had many flaws.

Later in 2006 I received a message about a followup meeting to be held in June 2006. I went to that meeting and sat in on the industry collaboration committee. To the best of my knowledge, I had never met any of these people before. The same can be said of the larger Aerospace Initiative meeting. Our discussion was interesting and thoughtful. At the end of the meeting Art Taguding, the Maryland government representative, said we needed a chair to continue leading the group in its work. Everyone looked at me. Art asked if I was surprised. Since I had observed how the meeting went, I replied I was not at all surprised. If, however, you had told me at breakfast that morning that I would be leading a group to bring together Maryland aerospace companies to work on common challenges, I would have raised an eyebrow.

I got the group off to a good start -- according to others -- by writing a Statement of Purpose. Don McErlean did some light editing. Our group began having monthly meetings -- sometimes more frequently -- to discuss progress in creating a strawman proposal for an organization tentatively named the Maryland Aerospace Association. Here are the minutes of some of our meetings:

* September 12, 2006
* October 23, 2006
* November 21, 2006
* December 5, 2006
* January 7, 2007

Our meetings petered out after this. Northrop Grumman VP Bob Noble seemed to blow hot and cold on our committee's work. I do not know what other people were saying to him. I did get an occasional e-mail from him about our committee's work. Later, without any discussion with me about what he did not like, he dropped support for our committee's work completely. Later on he proposed a Governor's Advisory Council on Aerospace to be made up of the state's aerospace CEOs. This idea was a complete nonstarter. One wonders what thinking was going on.

Our group did develop a variety of documents in support of our strawman proposal. They are:

* A Vision Statement
* A Charter
* Organization Chart
* Organization Chart Descriptions

E-mail me at chuck dot divine at comcast dot net if you have half a mind to.

Aerospace Initiative Organizational Chart Descriptions

2010-03-30T11:31:00.002-07:00

Maryland Aerospace Partnership

The Maryland Aerospace Partnership is a valued and respected support system for Maryland’s scientific, workforce development and economic development initiatives. It is the recognized authority on Maryland’s Aerospace industry and supports the growth and enhancement of this vital industry. The MAP is an industry-run, state-chartered organization endorsed and supported by private and public stakeholders.

Membership
1.Membership is open to aerospace industry stakeholders—corporate, educational, associations, government, individuals
2.Financial support for the organization will come from:
a.Dues
i.Flat fee tier structure based on relative organizational size (Attachment A)
ii.Reduced fees for educational and/or government agencies where appropriate
b.Other funding
i.Government agency support
ii.Company grants/donations
iii.Grants
iv.Events revenue

Organizational Structure (Attachment B)

Board of Directors
1.The Board of Directors will be appointed at the discretion of the Board Chairperson
2.The Board of Directors will include industry representatives and non-industry representatives, with the balance favoring industry representation
3.The Board Chairperson will be elected by the MAP membership

Executive Committee
1.The Executive Committee is appointed by the Board Chair with input from the Executive Director
2.The Executive Committee is composed of the Executive Director, Executive Champion, Working Committee Chairpersons, and selected Ad Hoc members

Executive Champion
1.This is an unpaid position—volunteer, executive-on-loan
2.The Executive Champion works with stakeholders to insure sustainability and success of MAP and its initiatives
3.This position’s role is one of cheerleader, convener, catalyst, respected industry voice
Staff & Budget

Executive Director
1.Paid position--$75K+
2.Organizational vision and viability
3.Operational leadership, implementation and accountability
4.Equal status with the Executive Champion

Operations Manager
1.Paid position--$60K+
2.Day-to-day operations management and accountability
3.Oversight/coordination of Working Committees

Administrative Assistant
1.Paid position--$40K+
2.General administrative support for the Executive Director and Operations Manager

Operating Expenses
1.$75,000 annually for Years 1-2

Working Committees

1.Working Committees will recommend, review and/or implement initiatives in their respective areas. Typical responsibilities for each committee include:

a.Education & Workforce Development
i.Promote aerospace careers to students, educators, parents, counselors and workers
ii.Assist the aerospace industry to attract and retain a qualified workforce
iii.Improve aerospace educational programs at the high school, community college and 4-year degree level
iv.Provide professional development opportunities for the currently employed scientists, engineers, technicians and managers

b.Economic Development
i.Support efforts to attract new aerospace industries to Maryland
ii.Identify and support efforts to retain and promote the growth of current Maryland aerospace companies
iii. Work collaboratively with local, regional and state economic development agencies and initiatives to grow the aerospace industry presence in Maryland
c.Public Policy & Advocacy
i.Educate government and legislative leaders on key issues impacting Maryland’s aerospace industry
ii.Assist government, legislative, business and education leaders to develop public policies supportive of the aerospace industry in Maryland
iii.Serve as the recognized voice of the aerospace industry in Maryland

d.Membership/ Marketing/ Events
i.Promote the MAP, its initiatives and its services to interested stakeholders and the public
ii.Maintain adequate corporate, government, professional association, educational and individual membership levels
iii.Promote and coordinate MAP events and member services

e.Science & Technology
i.Increase awareness and sharing of science and technology innovations among aerospace stakeholders
ii.Support innovative research and technology transfer initiatives among key aerospace stakeholders
iii.Support the integration of emerging aerospace science and technology in secondary and post-secondary educational programs

2.Chairpersons are unpaid positions appointed by the Executive Director and serve on the Executive Committee

Meetings
1.The MAP and its Board of Directors will meet quarterly
2.Executive and Working Committees will meet as needed during the interim periods

Aerospace Initiative Charter

2010-03-30T11:31:00.001-07:00

The Maryland Aerospace
Partnership/Authority
Charter

General Purpose of Association: The Maryland Aerospace Partnership/Authority will serve as the eyes, ears and voice of the aerospace industry in Maryland, and serve as a valued and respected support system for Maryland’s scientific, workforce development and economic development initiatives.
Generally, the association will look for opportunities for Maryland's aerospace industry to grow through service to the state, the nation and the world. The association will also be on the lookout for problems so that they may be addressed, preferably earlier than later. The association will also listen to both members and outsiders in order gain needed information about opportunities for Maryland's aerospace industry as well as problems that may affect Maryland's aerospace industry. Finally, the association will speak to the public, other industries, other associations and government at all levels about things the industry can do both now and in the future to better help others' in their work and life. The association will also speak about problems that are affecting the aerospace industry and request help from others when appropriate.

Membership of Association: Membership in the association will be open to companies, nonprofit organizations and individuals.

Activities of Association: The association will engage in a number of activities. Most important include:
Seeking opportunities for Maryland's aerospace industry to make substantial contributions toward meeting needs in the state, nation and world. Informing people outside of aerospace about such potential contributions and how they can help them and their organizations.
Listening to outsiders to discover their needs and problems. Assist them in finding aerospace solutions where possible. Forming collaborative efforts at addressing common problems.
Communication and advocacy development. Foster the Maryland Aerospace Association as the voice of, and advocate for, Maryland's aerospace industry.
Holding of meetings and conferences to assist Maryland's aerospace industry.
Holding public events to better inform the citizens of Maryland and elsewhere about the current activities and potential future benefits of Maryland's aerospace industry.
Attending other groups' meetings and conferences to further the goals of the industry.
Working with private sector (e.g., professional associations, civic organizations, political groups) entities outside of aerospace in furtherance of industry goals.
Working with government at the Federal, state and local levels in furtherance of goals.
Working in collaboration with other aerospace groups, both within and outside Maryland, toward mutual ends.

Structure of organization:
There will be an elected board of directors.
Voting will be determined by level of participation.
Parallel organizations may be set up to comply with both relevant laws and member wishes. For example, a political action committee may be formed that will be entirely separate from the Maryland Aerospace Association.

Aerospace Initiative Vision Statement

2010-03-30T11:30:00.000-07:00

The Maryland Aerospace Partnership/Authority
Vision

By 2011(five years hence) we are striving to make the Maryland Aerospace Partnership/Authority a valued and respected support system for Maryland’s scientific, workforce development and economic development initiatives.

Making Maryland the State of Choice
The state of Maryland is recognized internationally by governments, the industry at large and the media as the place to be for conducting aerospace R&D, systems engineering, manufacturing and operations of aerospace systems.
The Maryland Legislature has instituted tax incentives and other policy initiatives resulting in further growth and prosperity of Maryland’s existing aerospace industry plus state-wide relocation incentives attracting new aerospace ventures and the personnel needed to support them. As a result, the state’s tax revenue base from this industry has doubled!

An Informed Maryland Legislature
The Maryland State Legislature is fully-informed about Maryland’s aerospace industry including its economic impact, its strengths and what legislative policy is needed to maintain industry growth and well-being.
The Maryland Aerospace Association is a recognized authority on Maryland’s aerospace industry and its intellectual capital providing comprehensive annual reports that address the state of the industry (i.e. aerospace technology, innovation research, technology transfer plus current and future workforce projections).

Building Bridges of Cooperation
The Maryland Aerospace Association is impacting all aspects of the aerospace community including NASA, defense, other agencies, academia, industry and commercial aerospace.
The Maryland Aerospace Association supports the aerospace industry fiscally and otherwise through industry communication, primary and secondary education programs, internships and scholarships, image promotion, public education and workforce development.
The Maryland Aerospace Association, in collaboration with the Maryland Space Business Roundtable, is a recognized leader in its ability to build partnerships and unification of all the aerospace sectors in Maryland.

Aerospace Initiative January 2007 Minutes

2010-03-30T11:29:00.001-07:00

Industry Collaboration Committee
Minutes of the 01/04/07 Meeting

The meeting convened at 10:00 AM on Thursday January 4, 20076 at the Northrop Grumman facility in Linthicum, MD.

Next Meeting:
Thursday 2/1/07 at 10:00 AM at the Northrop Grumman facility in Linthicum, MD

Attendees: Name / Organization
Rafael Cuebas / GWIB
Dennis Faber / Time Center – CCBC
Carline Cazeau / Altimax Solutions
Jim Polk / Technology Service Corporation
Dave Rosage / NASA / Goddard
Bob Noble / Northrop Grumman Corp
Gene Burnet / Manufacturers’ Alliance of Maryland (MAM)
Connie Finney / APL
Don McErlean / Patuxent Partnership
Jesse Martin / Northrop Grumman Corp

1. Minutes Review
Bob Noble led the meeting which began with a brief review of the previous minutes. The action item list was used as the agenda and a detailed discussion of the action items followed.

2. Discussion Topic: The Vision – Path forward for creating the Association
Bob Noble will update the charter per last month’s discussion (AI#1)
The vision statement should be updated annually. (Rosage)
The group needs to develop a “Strawman” package that summarizes all the work performed to date. This document will be used as a basis for meeting with Mr. Pitts and brief him on the activities and request his support to reach out to the aerospace community.
The strawman package will be distributed to the industry stakeholders.
A workshop would then be held with the aerospace community to discuss the creation of the new association and seek their participation.
The approach is to have Mr. Pitts send out a letter to the stakeholders asking them to come to a meeting (the workshop) to review the goals of the new association. (Noble)
The strawman package should include the names of the CEOs to target as members.
This list is available from the summit.
Two letters should be sent out: a personalized letter inviting the CEOs to the meeting, and another general letter sent to all the aerospace companies inviting them to the same meeting. (McErlean)
It’s not necessary to have everyone in the industry at the first meeting to review the Strawman (Faber)
We don’t need to have every single company in the aerospace industry at the first meeting. If the major companies participate, the others will buy in (Finney)
McErlean disagrees
A discussion followed regarding whether it is best to invite the whole industry to the workshop or target the major companies only. The outcome of the discussion is to have one meeting and invite as many industry participants as possible so that the majority of aerospace stakeholders are part of the creation process for the association.

On the workshop
If we don’t have a strong champion, the organization will fizzle out in the first year. We must identify potential candidates for this role. (Noble)
The successful organizations have paid staff. (McErlean)
There is a concern that having a large workshop with all the aerospace organizations participating will be perceived as a repeat of the Summit. (Cazeau)
Disagrees. The workshop will have a focused agenda of vetting the need for an aerospace association. The goal will be to discuss all the associated issued. If it works right, it will create an new entity. (Noble)
The workshop has a singular focus. To provide a go/no-go on the association. An actual decision. (McErlean)
The letter for the workshop should be issued by Mr. Pitts and the DLLR secretary. If no one (in the industry) responds, that will be a litmus test. (Noble)
It would be good if the new governor signed the letter. (Polk)

3. Discussion Topic: The Name of the Association
A discussion followed on what the name of the association conveys and how that should be used to properly position the entity.
The current name is not powerful. A suggestion was made to call it the “Maryland Aerospace Authority”. (Rosage)
That would help to differentiate us from the other groups. (McErlean)
Does changing from “Association” to “Authority” imply some government support? (Faber)
A general discussion followed on what the term “Authority” might imply. Some felt that it would help to align the organization as a state chartered entity. It was felt very strongly that the association should be run by Industry, but that the link to the GWIB needs to be maintained and the support from the state at the highest level should be apparent. The structure of the GWIB was discussed (strong Industry membership with small amount of government participation). Other entities that use the word “Authority” were discussed, such as the NJ Turnpike Authority.
The term “Partnership” was discussed as an alternative name. Rafael will research the implications of using the word “Authority” in the name.
The current working name for the organization is: The “Maryland Aerospace Partnership” (MAP)

4. Discussion Topic: Membership Fee Structure

The group reviewed the fee structure document provided by Jim Polk (AI#4)
Not sure how realistic the estimate is for the number of participants (used to evaluate association membership) compared to the actual aerospace business base. (Polk)
It would be good to get DBED to put in some seed money, at least during the first year or two. (Noble)
It is easier for government employees to participate if the organization has no fee for government members. Need to add a rule to the fee document that the government does not pay a fee. Other non-profits can be required to pay a fee.

5. Discussion Topic: Review of Organizational Structure

The group reviewed and discussed the organizational structure documens provided by Dennis (AI#5). A discussion followed on the potential activities that the subcommittees will perform.

On the topic of how information is shared among the association participants:
We should share best practices related to educational issues, but not on some other topics. (Finney)
We should eliminate all competition related issues. (Noble)

On the topic of Committee Structures:
The association could hold quarterly meetings.
The Patuxent Partnership – The executive committee meets frequently and works through the working items. The board meets less frequently. (McErlean)
An active company would get a seat on the board, not necessarily on the executive committee. The chairs of the working committees would make up the executive committee. (McErlean).
The Boy Scouts have a structure we could model. The board consists of a long list of people (all the interested stakeholders). There is an executive committee (a smaller subset). The Operational committee does the actual work. (Polk)
The consensus is : we will have an Executive
Committee. Its chair will be the paid executive director, and the membership will be the (volunteer) heads of the subcommittees. It will also include ad hoc appointees.

On the topic of size of the Board: General Discussion
No limit on size is preferable.
We may want to name highly visible individuals to the board.
The board is appointed.
The executive committee runs the organization and is elected by the members.
The board chair is elected by the membership.
It is preferable to leave the ratio of industry/government membership vague for now

We will need some bylaws, but not yet (Noble)
We don’t need the next level of detail at this point (Finney)
The bylaws will have to be set up by whoever runs the “MAP”. (Noble)
We need to complete Phase I to get the letters drafted for the workshop (Noble)
We should set a target date for the workshop. (Cazeau)
April-May, maybe June as a target date for the workshop. (Noble)
The report that Chuck is preparing will have to go to Mr. Pitts. (Noble)

6. Other Miscellaneous Topics
We must separate ourselves from the other associations, which are a group of people with an intent, whereas we are a state chartered group, designed to present option to the legislature. (McErlean)
The AIAA is very strong on education. (Finney)
The AIAA is not focused on Maryland. (McErlean)
Engineer week is coming up in February. Outreach is part of our chart. Connie will compile the relevant info in her meetings with various groups. (Finney)
We should be an industry-run organization that is chartered by the state. (Rosage)
Virginia has a website that discusses the state’s aerospace activities. There are various links for different industry clusters. We need to explore how it is set up and determine if Maryland has something similar. Rafael will follow up with that. The URL is: www.yesvirginia.org. (Polk)
If there is a MD/VA partnership, how does that impact what we’re doing? (Faber)
That partnership refers to a specific facility – Wallops. We should stay out of being facility specific. Our charter has to be defined clearly to remove the ambiguities and potential overlap (with other organizations). (McErlean)
(The charter) should come from DBED. (Burner)
We are first addressing workforce issues (DLLR) not setting policy. (Cuebas)
(The current text of ) the charter does cross the line into policy. (Burner)
We should explore how the California Aerospace Authority is set up. Their building was provided by the government. Should explore what other states have done.
Bob invited someone who had set up an Aerospace organization in Illinois to come speak to our group. Scheduling conflicts prevented her from attending this meeting. Bob will try to have her attend our next meeting. (Noble)

Table of Questions / Action Items - Updates to the Action Item List

The group developed a list of key questions/actions that must be resolved to provide the basis for structuring the association. It was deemed that it was too early to address some of the questions. Those questions are captured in the list but are not assigned for resolution. Those questions are “Parked”.

MAA Development – Action Item List

#
Question / Action
Assigned to
Due Date
Status / Resolution
1
Update the Charter – per the discussion at the meeting
Bob Noble with redlines from all committee members
1/4/07

2
b. Update the Vision per the 1/4/07 discussions.
a. Update the Vision Statement per the discussion at the meeting.
Dave Rosage
2/1/07
Open.
Document provided and discussed at 1/4/07 mtg. New update needed
3
Develop a list of existing aerospace related organization. What does each provide to its members?
Chuck Divine
1/4/07
Closed. Document distributed to team by email.
4
b. Update per 1/4/07 discussions. Add a rule to the fee structure document that the government does not pay a fee. Other non-profits can be required to pay a fee.
a. Evaluate various membership fee structures. Should the fees be different for industry, government, academia. Conduct a survey of association practices and make a recommendation. What is the ROI for the members?
Jim Polk
2/1/07
Open.
Document provided and reviewed and 1/4/07 mtg. New update needed.
5
b. Update organizational structure per the discussions at the 1/4/07 mtg. Add in some key responsibilities under each committee.
a. Develop an organization structure for the MAA. Identify recommended committees
Dennis Faber
2/1/07
Open.
Document provided and reviewed and 1/4/07 mtg. New update needed
6
What is the mechanism for the MAA to interface with the existing aerospace-related groups? Does the MAA merge into one of them? Does the MAA invite the others to become members? The goal is to avoid duplication of purpose and activities.
Parked
TBD

7
Who will officially sponsor the Maryland Aerospace Association (MAA)? Should it be the GWIB or another entity. Should it be a standalone organization or should it be included in an existing organization?
Parked
TBD

8
Compile a “Strawman” package that includes: the vision, the charter, the org chart, fee structure info, what the association plans to accomplish. This package will be used for the meeting to brief with Mr. Pitts.
Rafael Cuebas
2/1/07

9
Provide the list of CEOs and list of Aerospace companies compiled during the Summit preparation
Rafael Cuebas
2/1/07

10
Explore how the Virginia industry cluster website is set up and determine if Maryland has something similar. URL is: www.yesvirginia.org
Rafael Cuebas
2/1/07

11
Explore if there are other state level Aerospace associations
Jim Polk
2/1/07

12
Draft the 2 letters for the workshop. One letter addressed personally to CEOs. One letter to send to the broad aerospace community – all the companies from the Summit
Don McErlean
2./1/07

13
Start a conversation with the new state secretaries – DLLR- to get their support for our work
Rafael Cuebas
2/1/07

14
Complete the report of activities performed to date
Chuck Divine
2/1/07

15
Invite the people who attended the previous presentation to Mr. Pitts to come to the next meeting on 2/1/07, so we can start briefing them on our approach
Rafael Cuebas
2/1/07

16
Explore the implications of using the word “Authority” in the name for the new organization
Rafael Cuebas
2/1/07

Aerospace Initiative December 2006 Minutes

2010-03-30T11:27:00.000-07:00

Industry Collaboration Committee
Minutes of the 12/5/06 Meeting

The meeting convened at 10:00 AM on Tuesday December 5, 2006 at the Northrop Grumman facility in Linthicum, MD.

Next Meeting:
Thursday 1/4/07 at 10:00 AM at the Northrop Grumman facility in Linthicum, MD

Attendees: Name / Organization
Rafael Cuebas / GWIB
Dennis Faber / Time Center – CCBC
Carline Cazeau / Altimax Solutions
Charles Divine / Divine Software Solutions
Jim Polk / Technology Service Corporation
Dave Rosage / NASA / Goddard
Bob Noble / Northrop Grumman Corp
Joe Bish / Northrop Grumman Corp
Gene Burnet / Manufacturers’ Alliance of Maryland (MAM)

1. Documents Reviewed and Discussed
Bob Noble provided an updated charter (Attachment 1) that he developed with his team. Bob Noble will email this document to the team.
Dave Rosage provided an updated Vision statement (Attachment 2).
These two documents were reviewed and referenced throughout the meeting. Specific comments were provided to the text of the documents. The action items for updating these documents are reflected in the table at the end of these minutes.

2. Discussion Topic: What Type of Organization is the new Maryland Aerospace Association (MAA)
Chuck Divine indicated that Lockheed Martin has raised a question, regarding whether the new association would be a lobbying organization
Some general discussion ensued on what constitutes lobbying. The discussion also addressed the following points:
There are two potential focus for the group
As a lobbying group, which would restrict participation to industry only – no government participation
As a 501c6 structured entity, which would allow the group to perform general activities to increase the stature of the aerospace industry in Maryland as well as perform any needed lobbying
This group’s purpose is to collect information that will be provided to all the industry stakeholders.
There are other organization’s that already provide lobbying at the state level. The Manufacturers’ Alliance of Maryland (MAM) is one of those organizations. Some of the companies that are likely members of the new association, are also members of MAM. (Gene Burnet)
MAM could potentially support the Aerospace Association as needed when lobbying is required for specific aerospace related issues. (Gene Burnet)

Decision: At the end of this discussion all the members present reached the consensus that the new association is not a lobbying organization

3. Discussion Topic: Where Should the new Association Reside
Bob Noble raised the issue of whether any existing organizations could provide a home for the new Maryland Aerospace Association. The following discussion ensued:
While the AIAA has a large reach in MD, it may not be the right home. The AIAA works as a resource for professionals. It is a professional association with a goal of serving its members develop professionally. (Chuck Divine)
While we have some common interests with the professional organizations, this group is an “advocacy” group for aerospace in MD, encompassing all the MD aerospace stakeholders. (Jim Polk)
The view for this Association is as a free standing organization. (Chuck Divine)
It’s easier to incorporate a new organization within existing ones that it is to create a stand alone organization. Businesses wrestle with the issue of which organizations to support, as the membership fees continue to increase. (Bob Noble)
We need to connect the Association back to the GWIB to get the state’s support behind it
How will the new administration impact GWIB? It is not clear at this point. Though we are progressing for now, as though there are no changes.
The DOL provided a report that they are very happy with the implementation of the GWIB (in MD) and that it can be used as a model for implementation by other states. (Rafael Cuebas)

4. Discussion Topic: What is the envisioned Organizational Structure for the MAA
The MAA should act as the spokesperson for all the committees that were formed as a result of the Aerospace Summit.
Dennis Faber logged the names of potential operating committees for the MAA. These include the four subcommittees created from the Aerospace Summit and a few additional ones.
We need to determine what makes this group different from the other existing organizations. What Return on Investment (ROI) will it provide to its members? This question generated an action to evaluate fee structures used by other industry associations.
The charter should include a reference to the GWIB and to the other subcommittees formed as a result of the Aerospace Summit.
Is there a process to follow to create a formal charter? Yes, it can be done through the DLLR if we decide to incorporate
Do we want to incorporate? It would probably be premature to incorporate at this point. The issue can be re-evaluated at a later date.

5. Discussion Topic: Operating Structure
Should there be a sliding fee structure?
Fee structure could be based on company size and revenue
The MAM, for example, operates on a flat fee based on tiers (Gene Burner)
Perhaps government and educational institutions should become members at no cost
The most important issue is to find a Champion, someone who is recognized and respected in the industry. Would need a minimum of $75K to attract someone of that stature. (Bob Noble)
Suggested criteria for selecting the champion. The Champion should be someone who is:
Established in the field
Retired
Wants to give something back to the community
Ideas regarding potential Champions:
We could potentially have an unpaid Champion, who is highly recognizable, and staff the organization with a paid executive director to implement the activities
Norm Augustine, was suggested as a potential Champion – or someone else with similar status
Explore an executive-on-loan approach, from one of the member companies, to initially fill the champion role
The association will require a staff to implement its goals. It will also require funding.
Association staffing needs:
An unpaid Champion – a high caliber person
A paid full-time executive director
Support Staff / Administrative
A discussion followed of potential structure for the board
The board could be structured with an Executive level board and a working board, similar to the structure used by the Boy Scouts Council.
As we invite companies to become members of the association, we should also encourage them to engage their employees to participate
The monograph provides good data, but we need to do more research to determine why people are not pursuing the science and engineering fields. (Chuck Divine)
The pipeline education group is planning to discuss these issues at an upcoming meeting at APL on 12/12/06 1-3PM. Those interested in the topic are encouraged to attend. (Rafael Cuebas)

6. Discussion Topic: Meetings
Meetings will be held as needed until the organization is established. Thereafter, quarterly meetings should be sufficient.

7. Table of Questions / Action Items
The group developed a list of key questions/actions that must be resolved to provide the basis for structuring the association. It was deemed that it was too early to address some of the questions. Those questions are captured in the list but are not assigned for resolution. Those questions are “Parked”.

MAA Development – Action Item List
#
Question / Action
Assigned to
Due Date
1
Update the Charter – per the discussion at the meeting
Bob Noble with redlines from all committee members
1/4/07
2
Update the Vision Statement per the discussion at the meeting
Dave Rosage
1/4/07
3
Develop a list of existing aerospace related organization. What does each provide to its members?
Chuck Divine
1/4/07
4
Evaluate various membership fee structures. Should the fees be different for industry, government, academia. Conduct a survey of association practices and make a recommendation. What is the ROI for the members?
Jim Polk
1/4/07
5
Develop an organization structure for the MAA. Identify recommended committees
Dennis Faber
1/4/07
6
What is the mechanism for the MAA to interface with the existing aerospace-related groups? Does the MAA merge into one of them? Does the MAA invite the others to become members? The goal is to avoid duplication of purpose and activities.
Parked
TBD
6
Who will officially sponsor the Maryland Aerospace Association (MAA)? Should it be the GWIB or another entity Should it be a standalone organization or should it be included in an existing organization?
Parked
TBD

Next Meeting:
Thursday 1/4/07 at 10:00 AM at the Northrop Grumman facility in Linthicum, MD
Attachment 2 – Vision Statement
November 29, 2006
The Maryland Aerospace Association
Vision

By 2011(five years hence) we are striving to achieve:

An Informed Maryland Legislature
The Maryland State Legislature is fully-informed about Maryland’s aerospace industry including its economic impact, its strengths and what legislative policy is needed to maintain industry growth and well-being.
The Maryland Aerospace Association is a recognized authority on Maryland’s aerospace industry and its intellectual capital providing comprehensive annual reports that address the state of the industry (i.e. aerospace technology, innovation research, technology transfer plus current and future workforce projections).
Making Maryland the State of Choice
The state of Maryland is recognized internationally by governments, the industry at large and the media as the place to be for conducting aerospace R&D, systems engineering, manufacturing and operations of aerospace systems.
The Maryland Legislature has instituted tax incentives and other policy initiatives resulting in further growth and prosperity of Maryland’s existing aerospace industry plus state-wide relocation incentives attracting new aerospace ventures and the personnel needed to support them. As a result, the state’s tax revenue base from this industry has doubled!
Building Bridges of Cooperation
The Maryland Aerospace Association is impacting all aspects of the aerospace community including NASA, defense, other agencies, academia, industry and commercial aerospace.
The Maryland Aerospace Association supports the aerospace industry fiscally and otherwise through industry communication, primary and secondary education programs, internships and scholarships, image promotion, public education and workforce development.
The Maryland Aerospace Association, in collaboration with the Maryland Space Business Roundtable, is a recognized leader in its ability to build partnerships and unification of all the aerospace sectors in Maryland.

Aerospace Initiative November 2006 Minutes

2010-03-30T11:26:00.000-07:00

Governor's Workforce Investment Board
Aerospace Industry Initiative
Industry Collaboration Committee

Minutes of November 21, 2006 Meeting

By Charles J. Divine

Attendees:

Rafael Cuebas
Charles Divine
Kirsti Dunn
Dennis Faber
Connie Finney
Jesse Martin
Robert Noble
James Polk
David Rosage

The meeting was called to order at 10:10 AM at the Northrup Grumman facility West Quest A at 1580 West Nursery Road in Linthicum, Maryland. R. Noble was the first to speak. He reiterated the a major goal of the proposed organization was to get young people into the aerospace industry. He indicated that he and people he knew would like to get Secretary Fielder to remain under the new O'Malley-Brown administration. Noble informed the group that he was a registered lobbyist for Northrup Grumman. He also brought up other organizations such as the Maryland Manufacturing Alliance and Manufacturing Council. He also noted that the industry was having difficulty in getting employees, especially ones with security clearances.

D. Rosage noted the need for a vision that includes what the industry looks like today and where it is going. Noble said we should take a look at a vision statement that incorporates things like the state of the schools, especially higher education, and overall goals and objectives. The statement should include what we are going to do, how it is going to be done and how to measure success. Rosage said we will need a vision statement that will get people interested.

J. Polk noted that a clear cut goal appeals to the engineer mentality. D. Faber

Aerospace Initiative October 2006 Minutes

2010-03-30T11:25:00.000-07:00

Governor's Workforce Investment Board
Aerospace Industry Initiative
Industry Collaboration Committee

Minutes of September 12, 2006 Meeting

By Charles J. Divine

Attendees:

Carline Cazeau
Rafael Cuebas
Charles Divine
Connie Finney
Jesse Martin
James Polk
David Rosage

The meeting was called to order at 1:05 PM in Room 167B, Building 28, Goddard Space Flight Center.

R. Cuebas reported that Jim Pitts was very excited about creating an umbrella organization that would bring together all the players in Maryland's vital aerospace industry.

Group discussion focused on what the new organization could do to strengthen Maryland's aerospace industry. J. Polk commented that it was necessary to reach to industry, academia and government. He emphasized it was necessary to reach out to small business particularly.

A variety of methods of reaching out were mentioned:
Public Service Announcements
Bringing together the state government and industry
Sending people into schools
Getting a list of activities to support into the state's aerospace companies
Recruiting of volunteers to support various activities

Public initiatives such as tuition reimbursement for people entering needed fields (e.g., education), instructor reimbursement, etc. were mentioned.

The committee mentioned a variety of educational efforts, some pilot projects, some established and well known, that would both improve Marylanders knowledge of the Maryland's aerospace industry and begin introducing young people to the field. Some things that could be done by industry to help include getting volunteers into schools and teachers into companies, for example, by giving them summer jobs.

Action Items:

All: Identify educational groups that will assist in educating youth. Communicate those groups to the team leader, Charles J. Divine

Charles J. Divine, team lead:
Attend Space 2006 in San Jose, California. Learn as much as possible about the California Space Authority, their work and their history. Discuss cooperative efforts with appropriate people.
Request people who have attended the Aerospace Summit in January and expressed interest in industry collaboration to join our committee.
Governor's Workforce Investment Board
Aerospace Industry Initiative
Industry Collaboration Committee

Minutes of October 23, 2006 Meeting

By Charles J. Divine

Attendees:

Rafael Cuebas
Charles Divine
Dennis Faber
Jesse Martin
Donald McErlean
James Polk
David Rosage

The meeting was called to order at 10:10 AM in the conference room of the Patuxent River Partnership. C. Divine opened the discussion with a brief description of what he had learned about the California Space Authority while attending the AIAA Conference Space 2006 held in San Jose, California in September. While there is much that we may learn from CSA, everyone recognizes that we will be an independent organization. Divine reported that CSA looks forward to working cooperatively with other state organizations. One hallmark of the Space 2006 conference was the growing interest in collaboration among various organizations, business, professional and educational.

Divine's report sparked a discussion of where we should go next. All agreed that the aerospace industry in Maryland required a more unified approach to raise the industry's profile. The new association needs authorization and credibility. Next steps to be taken include devising a strawman plan for the new association. Eventually a charter must be developed. We will sponsor a workshop in January to develop the charter and set of goals. The new organization will be made public in March. The event announcing the new organization will be held after the American Astronautical Society's Goddard Memorial Symposium.

A schedule was developed for future work:

Next meeting of the committee will be November 21st. Divine will approach Robert Noble of Northrup Grumman about hosting the meeting at their Maryland headquarters.
A workshop will be scheduled tentatively for January 23rd. Interested parties will be invited.
Roll out of the new Maryland Aerospace Association will occur in March.

Aerospace Initiative September 2006 Minutes

2010-03-30T11:24:00.000-07:00

GWIB Aerospace Initiative Statement of Purpose

2010-03-30T11:22:00.000-07:00

Creating a Maryland Aerospace Organization
by Charles J. Divine and Dr. Donald P. McErlean
for the Industry Collaboration Committee

An organization to represent Maryland's vital aerospace industry is essential for the continued health and future expansion of this important field. Not only are there well known institutions such as Goddard Space Flight Center, Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory and Space Telescope Science Institute, Naval Air Systems Command at Patuxent River and NOAA, there are numerous employers that provide challenging, highly rewarded employment for thousands of Marylanders. A key challenge will be to create an organization that has the potential to become a valued and respected support system for Maryland’s scientific, workforce development and economic development initiatives in the aerospace industry.

At the present time there is no statewide organization to represent the industry to either elected officials of Maryland State Government or the people of Maryland, especially youth and the educators who will prepare them for employment in this industry. One major consequence is that young people are not prepared for work in this dynamic, growing industry. Another major consequence is that the political sphere is neither ready to assist where needed nor to benefit from developments in aerospace. Other states, especially California, Texas, Ohio and Florida are already working to strengthen their existing aerospace industry. Some states, for example New Mexico with its plans to develop space tourism, are seeking to become key future players.

We already have the beginnings of such an organization in our state. Two sections of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the Baltimore Section and the National Capital Section, are active in multiple ways. Politically both sections support Congressional Visits Day, an effort where members come to Washington, DC and present topics of interest to members of Congress and their staffs. They are also active in various educational activities ranging from National Engineers Week to helping with student projects to public lectures. A nationwide volunteer organization, the National Space Society, supports public education activities with two chapters in Maryland. Other organizations that support the aerospace industry include the Maryland Space Business Roundtable, the Maryland Aviation Museum and the Maryland Space Grant Consortium. Major corporations such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman support various educational efforts. The objective of Aerospace Industry Initiative of the Governor's Workforce Investment Board is to bring these various groups together into a unified organization with the directed purpose of strengthening the workforce and educational programs that support aerospace.

By bringing these various groups together we will strengthen the field and address workforce problems. For example, many have observed that young people lose interest in science and technology generally during their high school years. Some have also noted that the preparation students receive in academia does not well meet the needs of industry. Our sector of the Governor’s Workforce Investment Board has noted these lacks and is developing a plan to address them through educational efforts aimed at the young. Still another factor confronting the industry is the problem of housing and, related to that, the cost of living faced by younger, entry level workers. A single, strong voice to advance common positions will provide unified support to these issues.

We have taken the first steps towards bringing the various parts of Maryland's aerospace efforts together. The next step we must take is to organize the representatives from the various sectors to work together to solve our problems and advocate further actions that must be taken by responsible political officials. We will begin by inviting people from the sectors already identified to attend meetings organized by this committee. This will be our initial focus and statement of purpose for the next year.

The Proper Pronunciation of the Word "Business"

2010-02-01T05:20:00.000-08:00

Today in church we heard much significant discussion of church business. Our excellent diocesan convention this past weekend had much to provoke thought. I was glad to attend Friday and do some photography.

But, throughout the discussions this morning, I kept hearing the word "business" pronounced as "bizness." This is a common error that has, seemingly, become universal in at least the past century. I, myself, fell into this error a very long time ago. I failed to pronounce the "i."

A few weeks back I was reading some of the poetry of John Donne. These poems are 400 years old. And what did I see? Not "business" but "Busy Ness." As in "Busy, Busy, Busy." During my years of working in "business" I -- and other people as well -- noticed that some of the busiest people were not really accomplishing much. But they were sure "busy."

Might I suggest using the word "enterprise" instead of "business." There is in our small library downstairs a 1952 Webster dictionary. It defines the word "enterprise" a "that which is undertaken or attempted to be performed; a project attempted; particularly a bold, arduous or hazardous undertaking; an active and enterprising spirit; ready to engage in undertakings of difficulty, risk or danger." Hmm. Perhaps that is why the starship in "Star Trek" was named "Enterprise" rather than "Business."

Now go back to what ever you were doing. And try not to laugh too hard when some pompous fool goes on about "business." Oh -- the people in church this morning using the word "business" were all fine people for whom I have the greatest respect.

The Vulcan Ambassador Chuck E-mails

2010-01-15T10:00:00.000-08:00

A while back I received an e-mail from somebody in Africa named Umogbai Favour.

Spammers and frauds do irritate me. Anyway, I had a few minutes to kill so I decided to reply. But not as Chuck Divine. No, that wouldn't be fun. So I assumed the persona of

Chuck
Vulcan Senator
Ambassador Plenipotentiary to Earth
Federation of Sentient Planets

Anyway, here is my first reply to the delightful umogbai:

umogbai favour wrote:

>Dear Charles Divine
>LETTER OF APPOINTMENT
>
>It's with an unbound joy that I introduce EAGLES
>FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL.
>Eagles Foundation is a network and great of Achievers
>from different part of the globe,
>
Globe?

I'm afraid you've contacted the Vulcan Ambassador to Earth. We've been
keeping our presence here a secret. We try to keep a low profile until
a prospective member world has been invited to join The Federation of
Sentient Worlds.

>with the purpose of
>providing for the unprivileged child: EDUCATION,
>PROTECTION AND SECURITY, We also help in medical&
>Technological research and leadership training,
>especially we are dedicated to the unprivileged child.
>
Good. Although the few humans we've actually had conversations with
usually speak of the "underprivileged" child. Might I suggest you work
on your English? Or speak in your native tongue. We do have
translators. Perhaps you've seen some of our efforts at familiarization
of humanity with Galactic Culture? You know -- "Star Trek." Granted,
there are inaccuracies. Trust me, Vulcans make love more than once
every seven years. More like every 7 hours -- every hour for the more
obsessed.

>
>
>After our just concluded EAGLES SUBMITTE, WITH A
>THEME: The place of the unprivileged child in our
>society.
>We came to a few conclusion, one of which was that,
>every day, our different orphanage homes gets an
>increase of 10%, mostly babies and that the future of
>the orphanage homes are faced with uncertainty and
>poverty.
>

That's tragic.

>
>Our final conclusion is that the rich and the highly
>placed run a deadly risk in their callus neglect of
>the poor and unprivileged child.
>
>Dear friend, you may have once lived and survived by
>the mercy of people, on your way to the top,
>
Actually, Vulcan is a very democratic and free society. We learned
millenia ago that tyranny is not only illogical but counterproductive.
So we really don't have a "top" the way you humans do. You do seem to
be learning though. The delusion known as communism is dying. And the
delusion known as naziism really is dead.

>let's
>return such kindness to the society without a prize.
>In our search for those who have established their
>reputation and standard as the highest
> their different career.
>We have found you of good reputation in high standard
>in your chosen carrier.
>
Thank you! But how did you hear of the Vulcan Embassy? We've been
trying to keep it under wraps -- don't want to frighten humanity. We
think you have real potential.

>
>
>In view of the above, we have decided to appoint you
>as one of our associate member, by this appointment
>you will be committed to serve humanity with your
>skill. Your prayer contribution to the growth of
>EAGLES FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL will be highly
>required.
>
Hmm. Have you heard of our Prime Directive? We're not supposed to
interfere with cultures that haven't achieved warp capability. Even
this e-mail comes perilously close to the edge of interference.

>
>
>Note also that countless of prayers are being made
>every hour that passed by for your success by our
>prayer partners, this is because of your importance to
>this vision.
>
>Always remember that your friendship is too precious
>for us lose, as we await your mail of acceptance.
>

Thank you for your friendship. When you finally achieve warp
capability, we look forward to assisting your entire species. From what
we can tell, Reid Malenfant and Bootstrap Corporation are making
excellent progress. Please support them with all your resources.

>
>
>Thanks for your anticipated co-operation as we
>resuming a purpose and eventful relationship.
>
>
>To your success,
>FAVOUR
>
And to yours!

Remember to contact us when you achieve warp capability. We eagerly
anticipate the commencement of cooperative, profitable endeavours.

Chuck
Vulcan Senator
Ambassador Plenipotentiary to Earth
The Federation of Sentient Worlds

Umogbai replied! I was stunned. Anyway, I managed to get off the following answer:

umogbai favour wrote:

> Mr charles
>
The name's Chuck. We Vulcans don't go in for nicknames. Haven't you
seen any of our efforts to familiarize your species with Galactic
Culture? You know "Star Trek", "Star Trek: The Next Generation", "Star
Trek: Deep Space Nine", "Star Trek: Voyager" and now "Enterprise"? The
characters from Vulcan are named Sarek, Spock, Saavik, Tuvok et alii --
getting the picture?

My surname is entirely too difficult to translate into any human language.

>
> Thanks for your maill
>
Americans and Brits would spell the word as "mail."

> sir, it was a splended
>
splendid?

> one also
>for your corrections,
>
We try to help.

> kindly tell me more about your
>self
>
Well, in your years I was born in 2342 and am now 273 years old -- don't
worry, our species lives to at least 1500 of your years. My parents are
respectively 2417 and 1693 -- and in excellent health, by the way. They
both finished Vulcan's premier megamarathon (2910.003 of your
kilometres) only last October. I'm really proud of them!

Myself -- well, I'm a polymath. I love new challenges -- and new
lovers. I hope to eventually beat my older brother Karnak's record of
43 lovers in a single Vulcan day (OK, our days are longer than yours)
and my older sister Dharmak's megamarathon time of 372:43:16:27:68.92.

My art is not only prized on Vulcan, but Centauri dealers have started
selling it around the galaxy.

Of course I'm really delighted with my recent election to the Vulcan
Academy of Science.

Finally, there's my new wife, Dink. What else can I say about her
except she's utterly brilliant and the most loving woman I've ever met.

> and The Federation of Sentient Worlds, l am
>interested also in what you do
>
Well, our general role is to promote peace and freedom throughout the
galaxy. We occasionally do have to fight off invaders from parallel
universes, though. Like the Vorlons and the Borg. Tell me, are you
familiar with the Copenhagen Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics? Too few humans are. You really should learn some modern
physics -- it's important if humanity is ever to fit into the Galactic
Community.

>,where you are located.
>
At night, go outside and look up at the constellation Sagitarius --
Galactic Center is that way. At Galactic Center there is a massive
black hole that's torn a rip in the space-time continuum known as the
Esty. Our headquarters -- a microworld known as Babylon (didn't you
name one of your ancient cities that?) orbits the Esty.

On this planet we have secret observation posts located at important
locations: Washington, New York, London, Paris, Moscow, Rome, Grover's
Mills, Hollywood, New Delhi, Hobart and others. In the United States
our observation post looks like a portajohn -- it's right across from
the White House. In London we use a police box. We try to keep our
presence inconspicuous.

Oh, by the way, don't panic if you see some Black Helicopters and a few
guys dressed in Black. They're just part of our observation team.

To Logic,

Chuck
Vulcan Senator
Ambassador Plenipotentiary to Earth
Federation of Sentient Planets

Believe it or not, that answer actually got a reply. At that point, though, I got bored and had better things to do.

The next victim of my humor was one MOO ALEXENDER.

I don't normally greet people with a "Moo!!!" I usually reserve that greeting for cows....

Anyway, here is my response to MOO:

Mr.MOO ALEXENDER wrote:

>Mr.MOO ALEXENDER
>
Moo!!!

>
>
>
> URGENT AND EXTREMELY CONFIDENTIAL
>
>Director Friend,
>
I'm not a director.

I'm Chuck, Ambassador Plenipotentiary to Earth, Vulcan Senator, Vulcan
High Command, Diktor of the Security Council of the Federation of
Sentient Planets, you freaking idiot.

>
>
>
>
>
> It is with trust and confidentiality, that I make
>
>this urgent and important business proposal to you.
>

Oh, you want to sell us your damned planet.

You and every half wit in Africa.

>
>
>It gives me so much enthusiasm to write this letter to you. It is all
>
>in a view to soliciting for assistance to enable us execute a venture
>
>of mutual benfit.My name is MOO
>
Moo!

> ALEXENDER A former Central Bank of
>
>Zimbabwe Worker, during the last political disturbuce by the
>
>government held by Robert Mugabe,
>
Oh, you stole some money from that racist murderer, did you?

>I and my other colleagues worked out
>
>over US$20,000,000.00(Twenty million, United States Dollars Only) as
>
>over invoiced and inflated payment.for election materials and the
>
>funds is now flotting
>
Flotting? Don't you mean "floating"?

> in a surspence
>
"Suspense"?

>account ready to be transfered
>
"Transferred?"

>
>
>to the provided account.Now that we are not sure of the future of thi
>
>scountry, due to the cry of sanction by world leader in and around
>
>the world. for the brutal take over of white farm by the
>
>Administration, and the lack of purpose in the Administration, me and
>
>my friends have decided to invest this funds wisely.
>
> The fund is currently in security company in Holland the
>
>netherlands.I have put all the needfull together to ensure a
>
>successful transfer of the funds to a desinated
>
Good grief, can't you even spell, you worthless incompetent?

> account. Acting in
>
>concert with few trusted other officers, we need the assistance of a
>
>foreign company/persons to push this money into their accounts. You
>
>will do very well with what we have in mind. Your share of what ever
>
>we succeed in putting into your account will be giving you the 20% of
>
>the total sum, while 70%will be for us and 10% will be mapped out
>
Hmm, send me 90% in gold pressed latinum and I'll think about it....

> for
>
>any expenses incurred by both parties in the process of the transfer,
>
>we require nothing more from you,except your willingness to assist
>
>us.I will refrain from giving out more operational details, until I
>
>receive your reply. Since time is of the essence to us,
>
Time is not of the essence to us, cretin. We have time travel.

>reply this
>
>letter quickly so as to know what next to do, even if this letter
>
>does not meet your approval, please inform me. There is norisk
>
>involved, as we have done our homework carefully.
>
I can't stop laughing.

Send me all your money -- no strings attached. If there's enough, I
might help out. Then again, maybe I'll just buy beer for the hash.

On On

Chuck
Vulcan Senator
Ambassador Plenipotentiary to Earth
Vulcan High Command

>
>
>
>
> Looking forward to hearing from you.
>
>
>
>Thanks And God Bless.
>
>
>Mr.MOO
>
Moo!!!

> ALEXENDER

I was obviously more irritated with Moo than Favour -- and more pressed for time. Moo never responded. Boo hoo..... Was I perhaps too insulting?

It's now some years later than those exchanges. I had a frustrating week. When one evening's plans got screwed up, I sat at home and saw another one of these spam e-mails. Poor Joyce Zane got the Ambassador Chuck treatment as a result of all this. Here's what I wrote:

On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 16:36, From Ms Joyce wrote:
> Dear,

My....

>
> Good a thing to write you.

How did you discover this address? The Embassy does like to keep this
address a bit quiet. There is a real fear that humans are not quite
ready for contact with galactic civilization.

Oh -- we do like to give a bit of instruction in proper English. The
correct way to write that sentence would, of course, be "It's a good
thing to write to you."

> I have a proposal for you-this however is not mandatory nor will I in any manner compel you to honour against your will.

Um -- you do know you can't compel species that have acheived warp
drive, don't you?

> I am Joyce Zane ,26years old and the only daughter of my late parents Mr.and Mrs.Zane.

Zane? Any relation to Zane Grey?

> My father was a highly reputable business magnate-(a Grandnut

What refreshing honesty. Most people just like to be thought of as just
plain nuts.

> merchant)who operated in the capital City of Senegal during his days.It is sad to say that he passed away mysteriously in France during one of his business trips abroad year 12th.Feb.2003.

On Abraham Lincoln's Birthday? What a tragedy...

> Though his sudden death was linked or rather suspected to have been masterminded by an uncle

Man From Uncle? Ilya Kurakin? Good friends of ours...

> of his whotravelled

Dr. Who? The Time Lord?

> with him at that time. But God knows the truth!

Actually, Cthuthu also knows the truth. But he won't tell unless you
give him a really big bribe...

>
> My mother died when I was just 4 years old,and since then my father took me so special.

Be careful with that kind of kinky stuff. The Embassy is located in the
United States. Maybe you know how they are.

> Before his death on Febuary 12, 2003 he called the secretary who
> accompanied him to the hospital and told her that he had a sum of $4.5million US DOLLARS (Four Million Five Hundred Thousand USA DOLLARS)

Oooooh. What's that in gold pressed latinum? You know -- galactic
currency.

> kept in One trunks box as a vault deposit with a private security company in Europe. He also said that the security company does not know the content of the safe Box.He decleared

decleared? or declared?

> it as family treasure and used my name to Deposit

It's not proper to capitalize a word in the middle of a sentence unless
it's a proper name.

> the money as his first daugther

Daughter?

> for next of kin. He also explained to her that it was because of this wealth that he was poisoned by his business associates,

Any relation to the Borgias?

> that I should seek for a foreign partner in a country of my choice where I will transfer this money to and use it for investment purposes.

Have you considered doing business on Frottage 3? Saucy Jack is quite
well known for his various services.

>
>
> I want you to assist me in re-locating this deposit into your position overseas as a beneficiary,and also use it for our joint ivestment

investment?

> purpose on my behalf.I am just 26 years old

Oh, so young. At that age my species is barely able to read and write.
Of course we do live to at least 3500 of your years.

> and a university undergraduate

Isn't that a bit slow for a human?

> and really don't know what to do.

That must be why you turned -- so wisely I might add -- to the Vulcan
Embassy on Earth.

> This is because I have suffered a lot of set backs as a result of incessant political crisis here in Senegal.

That's too bad...

We Vulcans do wonder when your species is going to achieve greater
maturity. It's really keeping you from entering into galactic culture.

> The death of my father actually brought sorrow to my life coupled with the hardship, I am passing through my only uncle

What? Is he some kind of cannibal?

> who wants me dead because he want to take-over all my late father's wealth.
>
> Dearest one,I am in a sincere desire of your humble assistance in this regards your suggestions and ideas will be highly regarded.

Buy Amalgamated Aluminum Associates. Now.

>
> Now permit me to ask these few questions:-
>
> 1. Can you honestly help me as your daughter?

That would be a bit hard to do. My pointed ears, my greenish skin. You
know.

> 2. Can I completely trust you?

Mais oui, madamoiselle.

> 3. What percentage of the total amount in question will be good for you after the deposit is retrived

retrieved?

> and re-located to your position.

Why don't you just trust us with our matter duplicator to work that one
out?

>
> Please,Consider this and get back to me as soon as possible.
>
> Thank you so much.
>
> My sincere regards,
> Ms Joyce Zane
>

Logically,

Chuck
Vulcan Senator
Ambassador Plenipotentiary to Earth

Joyce hasn't responded as yet. Was I too rough on her?

Rutan Spaceship

2010-01-15T09:58:00.000-08:00

A Song of great social and political significance
(To be sung to the tune of Janis Joplin's Mercedes Benz)
(With both apologies and thanks to Janis)
by Chuck Divine

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Rutan Spaceship?
My friends all fly shuttles
We've got to get hip
Worked hard all my lifetime
No hope for space trip
So Lord, won't you buy me a Rutan Spaceship?

Oh Lord, won't you get me a space apogee?
The X Prize people are trying to fund me
I'll launch every day
Until I put up three
So Lord, won't you get me a space apogee?

Oh Lord, won't you give me a night on the Moon?
I'm counting on you Lord
That's why I wrote this tune
Prove that you love me
And get me there soon
So Lord, won't you give me a night on the Moon?

Everybody!

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Rutan Spaceship?
My friends all fly shuttles
We've got to get hip
Worked hard all my lifetime
No hope for space trip
So Lord, won't you buy me a Rutan Spaceship?

Scientogy, EST, Landmark and Me

2009-12-26T07:36:00.000-08:00

I told Dail Doucette of St. Mark's that I would write this up.

Scientology is a financially successful cult that was started back in the 1950s by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard to make money. To learn more about this, check out the anti Scientology website Operation Clambake. I've never had much interaction with Scientologists. They have, shall we say, a very bad reputation in many circles. In any event, I'm not all that drawn to highly authoritarian groups. Yes, they have their place in our society. They are not, though, my cup of tea. Unless, of course, they step over the bounds of legality and honesty -- as Scientology does.

Werner Erhard -- original name John Rosenberg -- apparently tried out Scientology along with several other offbeat kinds of psychological groups during the 1950s and 1960s. Wikipedia has an article titled Werner Erhard about the man. The accuracy of the article is debatable. Just see the beginning of the article. I first heard about EST through magazine articles in the 1970s. The group made a very bad impression on me. Spending a weekend locked up in a room with people shouting abuse at me and not even being allowed to relieve oneself in a rest room seemed very bad to me. Some people, though, claim to have gotten good things from EST training. In any event, there are websites dedicated to Erhard and his career that are critical of him. The charge that EST is authoritarian -- perhaps in the extreme -- seems reasonable. Googling EST and cult produces a list of webpages that is 1.3 million entries long. A number of people at St. Mark's Episcopal Church have been through EST and swear by it. I've had little discussion with them about EST, though. The people I do know who have been through EST seem like reasonable people for the most part.

An organization called Landmark (or Landmark Forum) apparently succeeded EST. I've heard that it is a kinder, more gentle EST. I do have a few comments about Landmark from personal experience.

I met Gary Oleson through the L5 Society. L5 was a visionary, idealistic group which I joined in the late 1970s while living in New Jersey. Some people clearly went overboard. Perhaps because of the way I was brought up, I did not. After a few years, I learned that space colonies were far in the future and not a realistic possibility in my lifetime. Still, though, I enjoyed my work with the group. I even became a leader because of a successful Space Day event I organized in New Jersey. To learn more about that part of my life, I suggest reading a few of my blog postings:

A Tale of Two Space Days
Background of an L5 Society Activist
When Did I Know. This piece covers my life long interest in space exploration from a variety of viewpoints.

I met Gary Oleson through L5 in the mid 1980s. He seemed like a reasonable guy. I'd say he still is for the most part. Every so often, though, he would invite me to something else, not apparently an L5 activity. There wasn't any real pressure, though, since I lived in New Jersey at the time and could not readily come down to DC for events that did not already have significant interest.

In March 1990 I moved to Maryland to work at Goddard Space Flight Center. At around the same time Gary invited me to a session of what turned out to be a Landmark introduction. I spotted authoritarianism right away. I was also not favorably impressed with what they were teaching. It seemed like some sort of baby psychology -- something I was not interested in because of my extensive background in psychology. In any event, nobody really followed up with me. Perhaps no one saw me as a likely candidate. Perhaps, also, because I started fading from National Space Society activities at the time and did not have much contact with Gary over the next several years. I got back into NSS activities after being fired from Goddard in 1999. To learn more about that, just read Politics and My Technical Career.

In 1998 I did get involved -- at first quite heavily -- in the Hash House Harriers. I did get one surprise relating to Gary after I joined the hash. Since I am pretty open about my life, I told several people in NSS about the hash. Everyone of them told me Gary was a hasher too. That surprised me. He had never mentioned the hash to me. Considering the fact that I am a runner -- and lots of people know about my sense of humor -- it would seem a natural suggestion for me.

In any event, I did get more involved with the space activist crowd again after being driven from Goddard. I started running into Gary more often. Still not a lot, though. I also started running into him occasionally at a hash. Our interactions have been light, though, for the most part. Gary has now started pushing Landmark at me some times, though. So far I have shown essentially no interest. At one point I did ask Gary about finding love in the hash. He replied that I should not bother but should look in the space activist community (not likely) or Landmark (virtually impossible).

I don't know what to make of all this. I'm rather independent and turned off to all sorts of authoritarian groups, not just EST or Landmark or Scientology. I wrote this posting mostly because Dail was interested. He's a good guy. So are the other people I know at St. Mark's.

A Few Basic Training Stories

2009-12-26T06:30:00.000-08:00

Some people know that I was a draftee during the Vietnam War. I was inducted into the Army in August 1967 -- three months after I graduated from Rutgers with a degree in physics. I was very unhappy at this turn of events.

I had grown up in an Eisenhower Republican family. I considered myself in my high school years a similar kind of Republican. I will admit, though, that my curiosity was stimulated by Goldwater's "The Conscience of a Conservative."

By October 1962 I had an idea of what I wanted to do with my life -- pursue a career in physics. That, by the way, was early in my senior year at Steinert High School in Hamilton Township, New Jersey. A frightening event happened that month. We came too close to nuclear war because of the Cuban missile crisis. I went from being a standard issue Republican to a Republican pacifist. An immature decision? Sure -- I was less than month from my 17th birthday. I could think like an adult -- but I was not nearly as mature as I became in succeeding decades.

After that, though, I did not think much about politics. I was majoring in physics at Rutgers. I paid more attention to science than politics -- by a long shot. I had no contact with the opponents of the Vietnam war. While I opposed the war, I considered it of no importance to my life. Physicists were essentially exempt from the draft -- or so I thought.

My first draft notice surprised me. It came the summer after I graduated from Rutgers. I was already working for IBM. They put in a request for an exemption. That failed. I was faced with the choice of fleeing to Canada or accepting induction. Upon everyone's advice, I chose to enter the Army. My backup plan was to apply for a conscientious objector discharge when I was in the Army. I thought the situation would be cleared up quickly. Who on Earth would want a pacifist physicist in the Army? That effort failed. Friends predictions that I would be put into some kind of research outfit eventually proved to be true.

But basic training turned into a kind of hell on Earth for me -- and for my antagonists as well.

This is what they found out about me in my first week.

They discovered I had a degree in physics -- and the highest IQ of anybody at Fort Dix. That latter fact did not surprise me. I knew how well I had done in the GRE exam my senior year at Rutgers. That IQ was sufficient for me to get into both Mensa and the Triple Nine Society.

The physical fitness tests had one major surprise. I had not been at all athletic in high school or college. I thought I was terrible at every sport. The first four tests involved some sort of reasonably coordinated movements. My performance was what I expected. It was possible to get 100 points on each test. In the first four tests I got two 0s, one 17 and one 18. Then came the mile run. I had never run a mile in my life. A little over 6 minutes got me 95 points. I could not figure that out. Neither could the sergeant who became my first victim.

Victim? How could a draftee make a sergeant into a victim?

This story begins with a private who was waiting transfer to his educational group. The powers that be made him an assistant to the sergeant in charge of my basic training platoon. One evening said private gave me an order that I considered ridiculous. I simply told him "Go fuck yourself." He stomped away somewhat angry. A few minutes later he came back and simply said "Come with me." Since that was reasonable, I did as he asked. He led me into a room where the sergeant was sitting with a critical expression on his face. A corporal was standing next to him with a silly smirk. The private looked mildly hostile.

The sergeant began the conversation by asking me "Did you tell Private (name forgotten) to go fuck himself?" I simply replied "Yes." The sergeant then turned to the corporal and said, somewhat relaxedly, "Well, at least he admits it." The sergeant then turned back to me and asked "Why did you tell Private ? to go fuck himself?" I answered quite simply "Because he told me to do something stupid." The sergeant then said "When Private ? is speaking, he is speaking for me!" The sergeant had raised his voice when saying this. I had been on the debate team in high school and college. In responding, I lowered my voice and spoke quite earnestly. I have since learned that is what is called the command voice. I simply said "Then you make sure your stupid pet soldier doesn't tell people to do stupid things." Everybody's mouth dropped open. I was allowed to return to my bed. The private was the only one of the three who ever spoke to me again -- and then it was with real respect.

Remember my comment about being a physicist with the highest IQ at Fort Dix? That played an important factor in my next story.

We were on the rifle range. I had never held a real gun in my life before the Army. I haven't held one since. I had apparently made some sort of mistake on the range. A second lieutenant whom I did not know walked up to me and began, I gather, severely criticizing me. Since I had in ear plugs, I could not hear what he was saying. I finally got one of the ear plugs out. The lieutenant said "By any chance you would not be on the college op plan, would you?" His tone of voice was not respectful. Since I did not know what he was talking about, I simply asked "What's that?" The lieutenant raised his voice and replied with a clear lack of respect "That's a plan where the Army sends deserving, capable soldiers off to college for four years!" I immediately thought "My God, what a straight line!" and "He doesn't know who I am!" I simply replied, projecting my voice as I had learned as both a lay reader in church and in debate, "Oh. I doubt that I would be eligible. You see, I received a degree in physics from Rutgers last May." Everybody within ear shot broke out laughing. OK, not the lieutenant. An angry expression came over his face. He turned very red. He turned around and stalked off.

My eventual duty assignment was what my friends predicted -- with a twist that no one could have predicted. I was assigned to a research group -- at Lawrence Livermore. I was required to wear civilian clothes and live in an apartment. That assignment, though did affect my basic training. I had not learned how to throw a hand grenade. People at Fort Dix delayed my transfer for two months, blaming my lack of ability to throw a hand grenade for the extension of time in basic training. I think the real reason was that the Army had actually lost ground in my case. When I began my stay in the Army, I was a somewhat angry, rebellious physicist. By the end of basic training, I had added being funny and even more independent in my thinking than when I started. That change could have influenced my life in some interesting ways. Since then I have stood up to authority much more than I suspect I would have. I can accept authority -- provided that it is kept within the limits of a free, democratic societies. Too often these days it is not.

Women, Men, Boys, Girls, Equality and Freedom

2009-12-15T11:36:00.000-08:00

Petula Dvorak wrote a column today titled In the push for gender equity, turnabout is not fair play.

Dvorak doesn't discuss how society has changed -- for the worse -- in the past three or four decades. In her column she focuses on equality between men and women and how males are doing in school. She should consider more.

Let's begin by taking a look at schools and boys. She wants boys to buckle down more and work harder. That seems to be the solution to every problem today. Work harder and longer -- not smarter or more imaginatively. Unfortunately, this approach has seemed to many to have reached and exceeded its practical limits. Humans get tired. They perform much less well when tired. Check out Stanley Coren's Sleep Thieves and William Dement's The Promise of Sleep to see the toll that too little sleep is taking on our society.

Schools have changed since I was a child -- and some people think for the worse. When I was young, schools were much smaller and more connected to their communities. This allowed parents to work with teachers much more effectively. School populations were not so large that students and teachers were overwhelmed. Some thinking indicates that humans cannot effectively relate to very large groups of people. That's why in today's mega high schools, students break apart into various subgroupings that too often fuel ugly conflicts. After Columbine, a geek website known as Slashdot posted discussions titled Voices from the Hellmouth. The discussions focused on how miserable school had become for young geeks.

Some people tell us there is an epidemic of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the schools. Others tell us school has become too regimented with too little freedom -- the kind of freedom I and others enjoyed as children. This phenomenon seems particularly bad regarding boys. One Mensa friend tells me half the boys in her sons' schools has been diagnosed with ADD, ADHD or some variant. That allows the people who run the schools to administer Ritalin to said boys to make them quieter and less troublesome. I've met her sons. They seem OK to me -- but then I see them at science fiction conventions where freedom is encouraged.

If our schools were performing well overall, Dvorak might have a stronger point. Unfortunately, too many people -- especially people I know through either professional associations such as the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics or social organizations such as Mensa seem to think our schools are not performing well.

There have been some experiments where schools have been made smaller -- sometimes just be reorganizing the school into several parts in the same building. These experiments seem to work better than today's large high schools. There have also been some experiments where recess -- free time -- has been increased with positive results.

There are two trends in our larger society that cause me quite a bit of concern. First is the growing inequality in our society. The second is loss of personal freedom. They seem intertwined. I wonder if Dvorak has ever worked in a place dominated by a male abusive bully who sometimes promotes women into positions of power -- and then uses them to dominate more independent people. Too many of us have.

While greater equality between men and women is to be desired, let's also think about equality of all persons and the freedom to live their own lives.

Bolden's Talk to WIA and AIAA

2009-12-09T13:12:00.000-08:00

Today, December 9, NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden addressed a joint luncheon organized by Women in Aerospace and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Lori Garver gave a friendly introduction to Bolden noting that he was two star Marine General and a four time astronaut. A friend of Bolden's named Rocky told Lori "You have won the lottery."

Charlie then stepped to the podium. He began by stating that it was an honor to be here. He added that Lori was a key member of his team. The numbers of women in aerospace today is a tribute to the work of WIA in the past two decades. He also acknowledged the presence of AIAA President Dave Thompson.

Moving on to the meat of his talk, Bolden said he was not going to talk about the Augustine committee report.

President Obama has said to Bolden that NASA must inspire future generations of Americans Bolden stated that NASA is vital to national leadership in technology, the economy and STEM.

Bolden added that more than inspiration was needed. Young people needed education and experience as well. NASA is reaching out to teachers directly about STEM. Education needed to be about the real world, not theoretical models. He reported on work that showed that students from poor families can excel in educational achievement.

Bolden said it was important to attract the young to NASA. It will be necessary to attract the best and most diverse young people into tech fields, especially NASA.

Mid career people are looking to advance. WIA and AIAA have multiple career development activities to help such people. Currently eight out of ten NASA centers have mentoring programs to assist young people and mid career people.

Bolden said it was necessary to get the different generations talking to each other.

Bolden said that NASA must be the developers of technologies that drive the economy. It is necessary to work across centers and with private industry.

Bolden said that NASA must do a better job of explaining who we are and what we do.

He made a few comments about Copenhagen. He plugged NASA's Earth system science as vital to helping with the global warming phenomenon and much else.

He noted his vision encompasses much, but one that NASA and the industry can do.

Bolden concluded by saying that change is coming. There will be more international cooperation, some with nontraditional powers (e.g., China).

NASA would do whatever it could to advance this great nation. He observed that the United States, unlike other nations, is diverse in its population. People came here seeking freedom to do new things. We are the leaders of the free world. He once again brought up STEM education.

Bolden took a few questions. One was on the topic of ITAR. Bolden simply replied Google "Gates ITAR." Secretary of Defense Gates is taking strong action to address this problem.

That completes my report. I will have some thoughts of my own in the next few days.

Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge Awards

2009-11-05T13:02:00.000-08:00

Today I attended the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge Awards Ceremony in Washington, DC in the Rayburn House Office Building. I did make a few notes. I also ran into -- or at least saw -- some of the people one usually sees at important space related Washington, DC events.

The event began with Doug Comstock, Director of the Innovative Partnerships Program Office at NASA HQ. He began by recognizing both Masten and Armadillo for their innovative work. He also mentioned, among other things, the green challenge and the astronaut glove challenge that NASA is also sponsoring. He then introduced NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden. Among other NASA HQ people I saw were Deputy Administrator Lori Garver, Chief of Staff George Whitesides and Seth Statler, assistant administrator of NASA's Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs. All had genuine smiles on their faces.

Charlie Bolden said he wanted to be at this event in order to meet the winners. He made several points in his brief, but exciting, talk:

The challenge is not about the money, but the vision and inspiration.
Charlie has known Peter Diamandis for a long time. Peter was also smiling throughout.
The United States can't give up and lose our technology lead.
Prizes work.
He mentioned the Augustine committee's praise of prizes.

The next man to speak was Tom Kalil (spelling?) of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. He said the White House was an advocate of prizes. He went on to praise the X Prize and Peter Diamandis. During his talk he also made several points:

The White House is enthusiastic about prizes.
Prizes pay for performance.
Prizes allow freedom of various approaches.
Prizes serve as a catalyst of private investment.
Prizes involve nontraditional players.
Prizes excite the public.

Georege Nield of the FAA was the next speaker. He said his agency's work was to ensure public safety. He also said the FAA wanted to encourage and promote commercial space transportation. He concluded that his agency was looking forward to working with commerce that would make profits.

Mitch Waldman of Northrop Grumman was the next speaker. He was happy to be part of the team with NASA and the X Prize. He added:

Northrop Grumman was committed everyday to getting the best value for the nation.
Partnership is vital for innovation.
Innovations come from work in many places done in partnership.
Innovations come from individuals.

The next speaker was Peter Diamandis. He said this was a great day for the space community. The twelve teams who participated contributed 100K person hours to this work. The efforts of these teams considerably surpassed DC-X.

Next to speak was Congressman Ralph Hall of Texas. He also stressed that prize money was a very effective means of helping bring about progress. He also praised Armadillo from his home town.

The next speaker was Congressman Adam Schiff of California. He and his staff take science and engineering seriously. He congratulated the winners. He concluded by saying he looked forward hearing about the challenges.

The next speaker was Dave Masten of Masten Space Systems. he began by thanking NASA, Northrop Grumman and the X Prize. He added thanks to the citizens of Mojave, California (where Masten is based) for their support. He noted that there were a number of experimental rocket societies to whom great thanks was owed because of their support. He made an unusually friendly comment about the FAA, saying it was hard to believe that he and others worked with a bureaucracy that was responsive without sacrificing safety. He concluded his brief remarks by saying he was looking for others to participate.

Phil Eaton of Armadillo was the next to speak. He reported than John Carmack was not able to come because of the late term pregnancy of his wife. He really appreciated the opportunity to participate. He also commented:

It was wonderful to find himself among friends.
He wanted to build relationships to move from prizes to profits.
He thanked NASA for its support. He was working to build relationships with NASA.
Armadillo and all involved in this work needed to grow through solid research and development.
He then thanked Northrop Grumman for its support.
Still more development was needed.
Building relationships with customers was essential.

Bolden then presented the prizes to the winners.

All in all, everyone present seemed happy with the event and the outcomes. It was a happy time for the space community -- especially the New Space community.

Now it is off to my next event. This one is about data and art. The speaker is Dan Goods of JPL.

Art for Obama

2009-10-26T07:01:00.000-07:00

Washington Post Staff Writer Philip Kennicott makes an interesting point in his review Campaign hype feels like old glory of the book "Art for Obama." He is very definitely worried about the way the artists portrayed in this book have become so uncritically admiring of Obama and his campaign. He is concerned about artists crossing the line that separates democratic enthusiasm from totalitarian mania.

I, too, worry about this enthusiasm. Too many Democrats have treated Obama as the second coming of FDR. I just hope he doesn't become the second coming of Jimmy Carter. It was relatively easy for me to support Obama in last year's election. I, however, saw his flaws along with his strengths.

Why have some artists become so enthralled with Obama? Six years ago Obama was a relatively unknown state senator in Illinois. I had never heard of him. Most artists labor in obscurity. Every little bit of recognition is powerfully reinforcing. Last June I participated in Artomatic for the second time. As a result of that participation, I was contacted by International Arts and Artists. They struck me as a good group. Others confirmed that view. I joined.

With Obama we have a relative unknown having a meteoric rise from obscurity outside of Illinois to leader of the United States. This will get an artist's attention. It will, to some extent make them think he's like one of us.

Because Obama's rise was so quick, negative information about him will take awhile in coming out. Some ideologues who are affiliated with other branches of politics will seek out such information and try to publicize it. Eventually -- especially when failures mount -- will other people see the negatives and begin to take a more complex view of Obama. That might already be happening to some extent. Today, though, most of the people who see Obama negatively are on the political right. That gives them less creditability than people on the left, at least with artists, who tend to lean more to the left than the right in politics in the current era. To get people to change a political position, you need to get them to see you as at least partly like them.

Why are artists inclined to the left these days? Partly it is because artists are a bit rebellious. We do get into things that most people ignore. That's part of our curious nature. Establishment figures frequently don't like rebels and, sometimes, even more independent people that they meet. They think of such people as dangers to the existing society. While government has risen in importance and power in the past century, most people still see government as responding to other powers in our society. Would FDR have been able to push the New Deal without the Depression? It is unlikely.

I think art critical of Obama will arise during his time in office. Still, though, uncritical enthusiasm among artists of powerful people can be dangerous for the larger society. Kennicott and others who take note of this phenomenon are performing a valuable service.

A Tale of Two Space Days

2009-10-23T13:57:00.000-07:00

In 2004 I volunteered to help out with the Lockheed Martin Space Day at the Udvar-Hazy Center. There were about 150 volunteers. John Glenn was a featured speaker. 1100 school children were bussed in that Thursday.

I spent the day assembling crude models of the SR-71. I tried engaging the children in conversation. Many seemed bored. I can't remember really connecting with any of them.

Early in the day there was an assembly of the students. One boy was brought up onto the stage. He was asked where he would like to explore. He answered some place in Australia. A second boy was then asked. He answered "Mars!"

This is an event that cries out for reorganization. 1100 school children are bussed into one of the world's great aerospace museums -- and they are bored to death.

What do I know about Space Days? Well, I did organize the first successful New Jersey Space Day back in 1984. Did we have corporate backing? Well, RCA AstroElectronics did supply an exhibit and speaker. That was it. The Space Studies Institute in Princeton did likewise. I recruited a day long list of speakers, including J. R. Thompson, then at the Forrestal Research Center. The museum got a speaker with an exhibit from NASA. He was not a famous astronaut.

How did we get people to attend? We publicized the event to newspapers throughout New Jersey and Philadelphia and New York City. The Trenton Times gave us a wonderful three page spread in the Friday Weekend section. The publicity cost us nothing.

What kind of reaction did we get? 2000 people came that first Space Day. The museum director said it was the best summer event they had ever had. The event grew to drawing 3000 people in later years.

If you want to learn more about how I did this, read my blog posting Background of an L5 Society Activist.

Augustine Committee Report

2009-10-22T13:20:00.000-07:00

Today I attended the press conference at which the Augustine Human Space Flight Plans Committee released its report to the general public. It has already been delivered to NASA and the White House.

Augustine began by saying there were no surprises in the final report, but there was much substantiation of the summary. He also said that the committee did work with Bolden and NASA. He thanked both NASA and the Aerospace Corporation for their support.

The premier conclusion of the committee is that currently human spaceflight is on an unsustainable trajectory.

Augustine did report that his committee viewed the current Ares 1 and Orion programs as well managed . They could succeed. Conditions have changed since those programs were started, however. Ares 1 will, at the present pace, not be available until 2017. ISS is currently scheduled to be deorbited before then. There are, though, compelling reasons to keep ISS up longer. This will require more funding -- which may not be available. The shuttle is scheduled to be kept flying through 2010. A more realistic schedule would extend those flights through 2011. That, though, would also require more money.

Mars is a clear goal for human space flight. Other ways of reaching that goal, however, are needed. Alternative proposals for heavy lift are needed. Commercial spaceflight should take over Earth to LEO from NASA. NASA should focus on flight beyond LEO.

Augustine also recommended that the NASA Administrator should be allowed to run the agency the way a CEO manages a company. Currently Congress -- to use one example -- imposes conditions that prevent in some ways effective management.

At this point questions from the audience were permitted.

Seth Brownstein of AP asked if it was now time to kill the Ares 1 program. Dr. Crawley -- another member of the committee -- said there were no technical problems. Brownstein followed up the question should NASA build the Ares 1? Crawley replied that, in 2005, NASA made a correct decision. Today, however, budgetary decisions have impacted that work, leading to a need to reorient the program. Augustine said that today Ares 1 is not the right vehicle going to the right destination.

An Aviation Week reporter asked for alternatives. Crawley indicated that NASA and commercial space should form a partnership. NASA would be the anchor customer for commercial flight to LEO.

Keith Cowing of Nasawatch asked if this was offering NASA a second chance to get it right. Augustine replied that NASA got it right initially but that budget cuts were forcing changes. The question is what is the right approach today.

What has prevented the NASA Administrator from managing NASA? Augustine commented that NASA can't move funds around because Congress passed bills preventing this. There was also a need for flexibility in the workforce. Some times you would need more people in operations. Other times it would be in design and development.

An NPR reporter asked what the role of the committee would now be. Augustine answered that both NASA and the White House were familiar with the work the committee. The committee would be available for informal questioning, but that is all.

A grad student commented that people outside the space community do not favor space spending at all. Augustine answered that why to do this is a fundamental question. Justifying all this work in the name of science or some other activity is not really possible in his view. He expressed the idea that space is a tiny part of a 3.9 trillion Federal budget. It is being funded at an appropriate level.

Crawley raised the inspiration argument. He said that many young people think commercial space is pretty cool.

Crawley also raised the point that no commercial organization could raise the capital needed for development. But with government support, commercial operations could flourish.

Cowing of Nasawatch asked if public engagement was different this time. Augustine replied that it was extremely different. The committee did try for public engagement. Several meetings were open. He added that human space flight was almost like a religion for some people -- but different religions with some conflicts. A new standard of openness was set. Crawley added the additional input was really instructive. Both Augustine and Crawley commented briefly on all the new communication technologies that were used.

Crawley commented that, with the flexible plan, we can leave LEO in the early 2020s.

When Did I Know

2009-10-15T10:00:00.000-07:00

AIAA has been running a campaign to get members to tell when they knew aerospace was the field they wanted to pursue. For most members, this is a simple task. For the past few months, quotes and pictures on the AIAA website have highlighted the Apollo landings on the Moon. Those events were indeed inspiring and, for many people, thought provoking as well. Many people did decide to commit to aerospace because of the Race to the Moon.

My own story is, as people who know me might suspect, rather more complicated. I can say I knew on at least three different occasions, in very different circumstances, led me to a commitment to aerospace. There are days I wonder if I have made a huge mistake. There are days I am really encouraged by events and thoughts of people around me.

The first time I knew was back when I was a child. Adults started turning their thoughts toward space partly because of events in WW II. The German rockets attracted much attention. After the war, some scientists and engineers -- in many countries -- began thinking of doing many things in space, ranging from communications satellites to guided missiles. Some even thought a trip to the Moon was becoming a possibility.

As a bright child growing up in New Jersey, I was exposed to this kind of thinking in school, on TV, in movies and more. I can remember class being stopped so that we could watch things like John Glenn's ride into orbit. There was a different kind of thing as well. I was involved in the Boy Scouts for some years. My stays at Camp Paquarra in northern New Jersey were the first times I went away from home over night without my parents. It was also the first time I remember seeing the night sky without city lights nearby. The view of the Milky Way was awesome. Back home were experiments with a chemistry set. Observing the skies with a telescope. Science and math classes at school showed me I could understand much better than most people -- even most adults when I was still a child. All these things led me embrace science as a future career.

Interestingly enough, though, this commitment faded to almost nothing after Apollo 11. Why? Well, in part, an economic downturn in the 1970s for tech people especially caused many of us to seek different careers. Then, too, some experiences in the world of work -- partly caused by that downturn -- made tech fields less attractive.

I wound up trying to become a social psychologist of all things. During that period was when I knew for the second time space was for me. I hadn't completely lost interest in tech fields. Polymaths rarely lose interest completely in anything. While doing grad work in psychology I stumbled upon Gerry O'Neill's book "The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space." I became fascinated. I saw space development as the solution to so many problems facing the human race. Next thing I knew I had joined the L5 Society and became an advocate of using space resources to solve problems for humans on Earth. To learn more about that phase of my life, let me recommend my blog posting Background of an L5 Society Activist. During this period, a sadder but wiser man, I once again turned to technology to make a living. By picking information technology during the 1980s, I found a way of making a decent living with hope for the future. My life was more happy than not. This could be the second time that I knew. I had an avocational interest in space development along with a technical career that brought some satisfactions. Life had clearly improved from the downturn of the 1970s.

Finally, in 1990, I began work at Goddard Space Flight Center's supercomputer center. I had managed to merge my avocational interest in space with a career move that promised much more than my previous work in IT. Finally, it is reasonable to think, my career was in the phase that most AIAA members would think as reasonable. My path to this place might not have been as direct, but it still led me to a place where I was happy.

When I arrived in March 1990, many people were happy to have a man who not only was good at the technical side, but also demonstrated superior communications skills. The fact that I had not only written technical things, but had also been published in mainstream publications (e.g., Trenton Times) and a few space interest magazines aimed at the general population (e.g., L5 News) impressed more than a few people.

The center, though, was poorly led.

Let me give a few data points. My group was supposed to be in house consultants, helping scientists make better use of the supercomputer center. We were supposed to inform said scientists about the latest and greatest things that were available. I, for example, became the group's graphics expert and taught classes on how to use visualization packages. We were also supposed to listen to the scientists and find out what things they wanted to do that they could not currently do.

I began work there in March 1990. I was told that, because of my writing ability, I would be writing the minutes of the monthly computer user committee meeting. My group was banned from the April meeting because the users wanted to discuss the poor performance of my group. In May I got an easy to describe failure. Until I arrived, they had been writing the minutes in the following way. A company secretary -- who did not understand the matters under discussion -- wrote a first draft. My group went over her draft and corrected her errors. I took one look at her first draft in May and told the company not to send her again. I would write the first draft. Eventually people as far away as NASA HQ contacted me to congratulate me on my fine work. There were other things as well, but this should give you some idea.

My first manager, while not all that good a leader, was still a decent man who tried his best and was decent to his staff. When he burned out, his replacement was truly awful. She had been first brought in as our group's team leader. She did not listen all that well to people. Some group members commented on how controlling she was.

Let me describe a couple of incidents.

Joe was about 40 and had been there 12 years. He was a good employee. At age 40 he finally managed to get it together with a woman who became his wife. This, as you might expect, brought about some changes in Joe's life. Most employers welcome such developments. Our hypercontrolling manager did not. She told Joe "Forget about the marriage. Concentrate on work." Joe was, fortunately, able to get a transfer to another group.

The first time I was hauled on the carpet was with the words "Do you know these computers are for government work only?" I was then led into a room where an older male manager was present -- possibly for backup. The woman manager then slapped down in front of me a piece of paper. On the paper was a spam message from a web pornographer. I simply said "This is spam." People who work in IT should be able to recognize spam when they see it. People who know me at all well should recognize that I wouldn't use government computers to look at porn sites. Good grief, I rarely look at the stuff from home -- and then only when someone points me at it for some reason. It's not something I am particularly interested in in.

In 1999 it was becoming apparent that things were not going well at the supercomputer center. At one general meeting the civil servant in charge -- a real abusive bully who did not listen to people -- stood up and said "Why are people unhappy? This is NASA!" The next person to quit was a quiet civil servant who had a number of certificates on a wall in her office attesting to her accomplishments. After a user committee meeting the chair of the group said to me "I don't need this place."

In June I was effectively told quit or be fired. This was a bit out of the blue. There were people there whom I thought did not really belong -- like the man who told me "You can believe that science stuff if you want, but my belief that the universe is 6000 years old that I learned in church is just as good." He was part of the religious fanatic element at the center. Religious fanatics? Yes. Their authoritarian personalities helped them fit in to the dysfunctional group.

Fortunately I did land a reasonable job in a few weeks. Still, though, I was not happy about what had happened. I began seeking out old haunts -- especially the National Space Society -- to try and alert people to what I saw was a significant problem. Those efforts initially went nowhere.

Then, late in 2002, I got the idea to write a paper for the Princeton Space Manufacturing Conference to be held in the spring of 2003. I got the abstract in by the January deadline.

The space shuttle Columbia burned up during reentry on February 1st. I suspected my paper would not draw much attention. I phoned friends in Central New Jersey Mensa and offered to give a talk on dysfunctional NASA management at their annual convention. They accepted instantly. The talk was a huge hit. People were surprised at what I said. I gave a few more talks to Mensa groups.

A year after my first talk, CNJ Mensa invited me back to address their 2004 convention. I came prepared to substantiate my observations with those from the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. My talk was an even bigger hit. Sitting in the audience was one Steven Yaros -- a career NASA Civil Servant. At the end of my talk, he stood up, told us who he was and agreed with what I had said. He told us NASA was trying to change. Later on he encouraged me to find work at NASA, telling me people like me were needed.

Later that year I joined AIAA -- and found a good group of people with whom I could work. I also got active in Maryland Democratic Party politics. Why? Because my views are more in line with today's Democratic Party and because I thought I could more easily advance my admittedly unusual interests. I've now been at it for five years. People are starting to pay attention to what I am saying.

What can we learn from this personal history?

The first thing is that inspiration, while important, is not enough. The inspiration to get involved with space faded after Apollo. There just wasn't enough work. Other priorities arose. I reconnected with my youthful interest in space when I read a book that raised the possibility that this space stuff could help humanity in other ways. While I did learn that O'Neill colonies were much farther in the future than we originally hoped, O'Neill's book got me and others interested in space as more than a place of excitement. It was the first attempt I saw to try and connect space to the broader mass of humanity.

Getting work at Goddard also drew me in. Being able to work with good scientists doing things that benefited humanity in the present was important. Once again, this was a mature connection to things that are valuable to humans.

Being driven out of Goddard by poor management definitely affected me. But, once again, I eventually found people with whom I could work on addressing important problems. This was also positively reinforcing.

Summing up, while inspiration is important, other things are as well. An initial inspiration won't necessarily carry humans through an entire career -- especially when disappointments mount. People need to be listened to and reinforced as they go through their careers. They need to think they are making a difference.

Being a Polymath

2009-10-02T13:05:00.000-07:00

It's difficult being a polymath in contemporary society. We started going out of fashion in the 19th Century when specialists proved superior at understanding difficult phenomena in depth. Gentlemen scholars could not keep up.

Now, however we are seeing the limits of specialists. "Quants" have really screwed up the economy because their mathematical models failed to account for various factors that were not readily reduced to numbers.

Still, though, one response of failing systems is to ignore -- and even attack -- people who are not in control as being the real cause of the problem.

Obama Health Care Rally September 17, 2009

2009-09-18T05:27:00.000-07:00

First, let me welcome people new to this blog. Like a good number of cyberspace veterans, I have a personal website. I will probably update it this month as I am getting more involved in Metro Washington Mensa. I'm even running for office. If you want to meet some friends of mine, just come to St. Mark's Episcopal Church some Sunday. I am involved in other things as well, but that is a place that is open year round and welcomes outsiders. Artomatic also welcomes everybody, but it is open only for about six weeks.

I got up around 6:30 AM. I had planned for 6:00, but I didn't set the alarm when I went to bed at 10:30 PM. Wednesday evening at St. Mark's was important and good. My attendance at the Obama rally, while a good idea, was hardly a must.

After having breakfast, I checked a few websites and even made a comment on Rand Simberg's. I then got ready to leave. I left home around 8:30 AM. I found a free parking spot about a block from the College Park Metro station. I then caught the shuttle to Comcast Center. I arrived on campus shortly after 9:00 AM. I ran into Igor Eberstein and chatted a bit about NASA. I wandered around campus trying to find the general admission line. I finally found the Comcast Center entrance with no line outside around 9:45. Some people told me that people began arriving around 4:00 AM and formed a line at 5:00. In the Comcast Center I was settled in a seat by 9:51. There appeared to be lots of empty seats at this time in what appears to be general seating -- see photos.

While waiting for the formal rally to start, I gathered a number of impressions:

There appeared to a formal University of Maryland presence with a band and cheerleaders.
Staff told me that at least some of the empty seats were reserved for ticket holders.
At 10:33 the crowd did the "wave." Some chanted "Yes we can."
Some volunteers are now taking empty seats in the section I was told was for ticket holders.
SEIU people begin chanting. One man shouts "What do we want?" The crowd responds "Health care!" The man then shouts "When do we want it?" The crowd responds "Now."
Around 10:45 I was interviewed by a student working for the student newspaper. I gave her the AIAA spiel, commented that the crowd seems enthusiastic and positive and hinted at the complexity of my own political views.
At 10:57 I noted that the seats in the section next to me were now more filled than empty.

At 11:01 the sign says "Cheer and Applause." The rally was apparently beginning in a formal sense. A woman member of the clergy (Episcopalian?) came out and said a prayer. Then there was a pledge of allegiance and the national anthem was sung. The last two were led by students.

At 11:12 the Commerce Secretary Gary Locke gave the first speech. Early on he said it is "time to provide health care for all." He later quoted from the Kennedy letter he wrote shortly before his death. He also made the point that rising health care costs are crushing American business and were making it hard for Americans to sell overseas. He predicted that 10 years from now health care would cost the average American family $25K/year. Rising health care costs would mean fewer workers would be hired and and less pay for those who were hired. He made a significant case for reigning in costs now. He stated that we need health care reform and we need it now. He concluded with the call "President Obama needs your help." I think he concluded his remarks around 11:21.

A lengthy pause then began. I thought to myself that this event was not all that well choreographed -- but I am hardly an expert in such things. I know more about ballet from years of photography than I do know about political rallies.

At 11:44 Rachel Peck strode to the podium and told us her health care story. It was a touching story of being diagnosed with cancer and her extensive treatments. She must continue to be treated for the rest of her life. The story was very touching. She wondered what would happen to her when her parents' policy no longer covered her. She then, rather dramatically, introduced President Obama.

President Obama began his speech by mentioning the elected officials present. Most of the Maryland Congressional delegation was present. Governor O'Malley and Lieutenant Governor Brown were also present, as were a number of other elected officials. Obama stated he ran for president because he wanted a better future for all Americans. He complimented Rachel on her speech. Obama then made a plug for science and technology in our future -- especially mentioning health. He also made mention that the House was taking a major step today that would benefit students by acting on student loan reform.

Obama then got to the topic of health care reform.

Next Obama commented that there were those in Washington who were eager to defend the status quo. He noted that there was some opposition to health care reform.

At this point some protesters in general seating started screaming. I could not make out what they were saying. There was some conflict with other audience members. I thought to myself that this was not an appropriate way to get attention to their views. When you have a very large crowd brought together to support one side in a controversy, you cannot expect much of hearing for opposing views. I think it is better to meet with people you oppose in quieter, smaller settings where real exchanges can take place. Both sides can learn from each other. Eventually someone was escorted out by staff.

Obama said that people gave time to his campaign because they want a better future. He mentioned that Theodore Roosevelt -- a Republican -- was the first President to favor health care reform. He then delivered his famous line "I'm not the first but I will be the last!" I thought to myself that was not likely -- even if he gets his reforms and they do work. Surprises do keep happening to humanity.

Obama said that there was 80% agreement in the proposals now before Congress. He commented favorably on thoughtful criticisms. He said improvement is possible -- partly because of those criticisms. He then went on to say that now is the time for action, now is the time to deliver. He said "You should have the same thing that Congress has." Obama then went on to plug the public option. He compared it to public universities. He said having public universities does prevent private universities but add to the choices people have.

Obama then went on to attack waste and fraud in Medicare. Hmm, I thought, that is a standard line with all kinds of government programs. He also supports looking at malpractice reform. This is a big issue with the medical profession.

Obama then commented "Change is hard." He reviewed briefly the history of things like civil rights, rights for women and social security.

Obama concluded with the story of how "Fired up! Ready to go!" became a campaign slogan. The speech ended at 12:22. As Obama and the crowd left, the band played "Battle Hymn of the Republic."

After the end, I chatted briefly with an African American woman seated behind me. She introduced herself as the pastor of some church. I must apologize to all who are reading this that I did not remember either her name or that of her church. I had stopped taking notes at that time. We both agreed that there also needed to be a focus on healthier living. I shared with her the report of research that compared the health of people in the UK with that of the US who were ethnically similar -- in short, people like my cousin Harry and me. I noted that, in spite of the facts that we spend twice as much on health care and that they drink and smoke more than we do, they are somewhat healthier in middle age and live somewhat longer. I attributed that to an overall healthier lifestyle. I think the woman with whom I chatted agreed with me.

After that, I left the center and took the shuttle back to my car. I was home by about 1:40.

The day was interesting. It was the first time I had seen Obama in person. He had a striking impact on most of the crowd. I expected that, given the fact that it was billed as a rally for supporters of health care reform -- a major issue, particularly on the political left. I wondered to myself how many people would have shown up if the topic had been NASA reform. The turnout would have been far smaller, I think. I will add that my impression of the day was on the positive side as well. The fact that the Commerce secretary noted the negative impact of health care costs on our economic competitiveness and that President Obama spoke in favor of malpractice reform increased my favorable views. Neither needed to mention those things, given the nature of the crowd.

You can find my photos of the event on Flickr.

Steny Hoyer's Town Hall on Health Care

2009-09-02T05:32:00.000-07:00

Now let me say a few good things about Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. I've gotten to know him and his staff slightly, mostly through my leadership of American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Team Maryland. Congressman Hoyer is a strong, thoughtful supporter of aerospace, as is the rest of the Maryland Congressional delegation. I will say one more thing about him and his staff. I have gotten the impression from both reading about them and from personal experience that he and his staff are trying to promote better relationships among members of Congress. He thinks that people in Congress should spend more time together to get to know each other and their views on issues. I can heartedly endorse this kind of cultural change. I know how hard it can be to communicate with other human beings -- especially when the matter of discussion is somewhat difficult or unusual.

Now let me get to what I saw and experienced Tuesday evening at the town hall. I went with the idea of being a thoughtful observer. The only view I planned to bring up was some research that was reported three years ago. Three years ago a study comparing the health of ethnically similar citizens of the United States and the United Kingdom came out. Briefly, they compared people like myself and my English cousins, Harry, his wife Anita, Irene and their families. People in the UK drink more than we do. They smoke more than we do. The UK spends about half as much per capita on health care as we do. The UK does restrict access to some more expensive, newer kinds of health care. So why do people in the UK live slightly longer? Why are they somewhat more healthy at middle age? I suspect it is because their overall lifestyles are healthier.

I arrived at the high school where the town hall was to be held around 4:15. Before getting into line, I had a brief conversation with Lisa -- Hoyer's political director. Mostly it was about where to get into line. I was waiting in the line by 4:30 - 4:45. I did some photographs before getting into line. When I got into line, I heard three middle aged people (two men, one woman) told me what they thought were negatives about the proposed reforms. The only thing I brought up was the US-UK study. The exchanges were reasonably pleasant -- although I will say the other people were both articulate and quite committed to expressing their views. I did chat a bit more with one man who told me he was a electrical engineer who, when younger, had been a member of AIAA and had written a paper for the organization. When I found out about his engineering background, I asked about his views on energy. He's in favor doing everything to make us energy independent -- nuclear, drilling, etc. He even voiced -- I think -- some support for Boone's proposals for wind energy. I did tell him that Congressman Hoyer supported nuclear. He seemed pleased by that. We also discussed our respective mothers. I told him about my mother's declining years and Alzheimer's. I would describe our discussions as pleasant and friendly. At least it was for me.

Also while outside I had a few friendly encounters (very brief -- mostly just a wave of the hand) with some Hoyer people. I especially remember Terry Lierman and Terrance Taylor.

We were allowed into the building at 6 PM for the 7 PM meeting. I did chat briefly with one Hoyer staffer about the US-UK study. She understood what I was getting at.

Inside the meeting hall we were instructed to fill up seats in the middle of rows first. Only people who had taken numbers and were then selected via lottery were allowed to speak and ask questions. They were limited to 2 minutes each. I chose not to take a number. I wanted to merely observe -- and possibly interact with people around me in the audience.

There was a wide range of people in the hall. There were quite vocal supporters and opponents of reform. I even saw one couple wearing "Impeach Obama" T shirts. People sitting on my right were members of the Iron Workers Union. They were very proreform. People on my left were strong opponents of reform. There was a family in back of me who were also strong opponents of reform. They also appeared to be wearing buttons that indicated to me they were Republicans eager to win back both the White House and Congress. I seemed to get a friendly welcome from both sides. I don't know what they thought of me. I did mention a bit of the ways I was different from most people. I tried to be friendly about it.

Congressman Hoyer entered at 7:08 by my watch. Crowd reactions ranged from loud cheers to boos.

Jim Zinnis (spelling?) announced that he would be the moderator. He informed us that questions would be limited to two minutes. He requested that people keep the town hall civil.

Hoyer began a speech in which he laid out the case for reform and what the bills before Congress would actually do. My notes of his speech are incomplete. I am not a stenographer. I did photograph the Powerpoint slides and graphs that were shown on the screen at the front of the hall. I did record a number of points. Hoyer stated that the country currently loses $200B/year because of the lack of health care for some people. He mentioned quotes from:

Truman in 1945
Kennedy in 1962
Nixon in 1974
Republicans McCain, Romney, Thompson, Giuliani in the past few years

all supporting reform.

Hoyer said that if you like your current health care plan, you get to keep it. He spoke in favor of improving Medicare. He said the proposals build on the current system of employer provided health care.

Hoyer did bring up the "death panels" at one point. He said they were not in the legislation. Some people shouted out that they were. There was much booing at this time.

Hoyer mentioned that insurance companies now stood between you and your doctor. Some people cheered. Others booed. There were quite vocal reactions throughout Hoyer's speech.

Next up was a panel of people with varying experiences with today's health care system.

First was a woman with a small furniture business. I think her name was Marilyn McKimm. She spoke of how health insurance problems were affecting her small business. People in the audience started shouting "Get to the questions!"

The next panel member was a Medicare beneficiary, a man who had made a career in the military and was an active Roman Catholic. He praised Democrats for proposing this reform. During his remarks quite a few people shouted out "Read the bill." Some cheered the man. Others booed him. Some people started leaving the hall.

Two more people on the panel spoke. One was a woman pediatrician who spoke of her problems and those of other doctors -- especially with lawsuits and the consequences thereof. The last speaker was an African American retired Lt. Col. by the name of George Forrest. He also favored reform.

The moderator then announced the move to question and answer time. There were loud cheers from the audience.

The first person asked Hoyer if he had read the bill. Hoyer answered that he had now read the bill in full.

The second person asked if members of Congress would get the same health care as the rest of us. Hoyer answered that they would.

The third questioner raised the problem of lawsuits. Hoyer commented that the AMA was addressing that issue.

Many other questions and comments were raised. Some of the ones I noted were:

Cost of health insurance for a son with two children.
Illegal aliens should not be covered. Hoyer tried to respond with a Christian charity comment. People shouted out "That's for our church to decide."
People spoke up in favor of the public option. Hoyer said all three bills had one.
Tort reform was brought up by a doctor. He wanted to know about tort reform in Maryland.

At 8:26 I noted a steady stream of people leaving.

One questioner brought up a Ron Paul bill to audit the Fed. He spoke in favor of the bill. He said the bad economy was the highest priority for most citizens.

One African American woman spoke of her 48 year old sister with breast cancer. Hoyer said this woman should keep her current health insurance.

By this time there was a good deal of shouting from the audience -- on both sides. There was also a steady stream of people leaving. After the couple to my left got up and left I chatted a bit with the people behind me. I also took a photograph of the couple.

One questioner brought up how reform would be paid for. Would taxes go up? Would we run deficits? Hoyer answered neither. He then brought up the fiscal mess Obama inherited from the Bush administration. There was a good bit of shouting from the audience.

Another questioner said the majority of Americans now oppose the bills under consideration. Hoyer tried to discuss the complexity of negotiations among Democrats and Republicans. This did not go over well with critics.

By this time it was 8:45. I had a long drive home -- and I had not had dinner as yet. I told the people around me -- on both sides of the issue -- that it was time for me to leave, saying I needed dinner. On the way out I chatted briefly with another Hoyer staffer.

I now have 74 photos up on my Flickr account as the Hoyer Town Hall on Health Care Reform set.

As I walked out with others, we encountered a Larouche volunteer. I told a couple of women about my first Larouche encounter. I mentioned the article in their newspaper about how Queen Elizabeth -- the one who lives in Buckingham Palace -- was head of a world wide drug ring. Both women laughed heartily.

I got home at nearly 10 PM. I sat down to dinner at 10:19.

OK, what do I think of all this? I've read enough that I think some kinds of reforms are necessary. Where they fit I do not know. For instance, I think doctors should get more sleep. I keep saying to anyone who will listen that we humans are not reprogrammable computers. We can't work all the time. If we try, we screw up badly. I also think Americans need healthier lifestyles. That doesn't mean obeying puritanical dictates necessarily. There does seem solid research that indicates that people who drink alcohol are healthier for a number of reasons than total abstainers. Too many of the total abstainers I know eat too much and get too little exercise.

I was somewhat disappointed by the town hall. I thought what Congressman Hoyer tried was important and worthwhile. We really do need to have civil, wide ranging discussions on health care -- and quite a few other things as well. Getting 1500 people into one room and trying to have a good discussion, though, didn't work out the way I would have liked to see it. I don't know if Congressman Hoyer and his staff could have done any better though. This is a very controversial area with a good bit of public interest. It might pay to get smaller groups together -- possibly with a facilitator or two -- to discuss such issues. My personal interactions with both supporters and opponents of the current reform proposals were generally positive. That could be because I'm generally a friendly person who tries to listen to everybody -- and who also will occasionally put in a thoughtful comment of my own that may show people with varying viewpoints the things that they have in common.

I will make further comments on this and other topics in the future. I should start writing more to this blog. Lots of people say I have important things to say.

Augustine's Comments to the NAC

2009-07-16T14:20:00.000-07:00

Norm Augustine delivered some comments to the NASA Advisory Council today via telephone. I made some notes (via hand writing -- it works better for me than trying to use a laptop perched on my lap). Any errors in this account are mine.

Augustine began with the request that he wants advice from NAC. He noted that his group is only addressing the human part of space exploration. He commented that his group can't give any answers. The group is working hard and diligently.

His group has certain boundaries. They may only give options, not recommendations. The options must be within the budget proposals. The shuttle must stop in 2010.

Negotiations with the White House did produce the possible changes. The budget may exceed current proposals. The shuttle can be operated beyond 2010. An interim report will be delivered at 75 days with the final due at 90 days.

Augustine made several points:

Seven shuttle launches remain.
The gap in American human spaceflight is now five years, possibly more.
ISS is currently supposed to end in 2016. What should its future be?
NASA has budget constraints.
Congress is critical of dependence on Russians for access to ISS.
What should the relationship with other nations be?
What part should the commercial sector play?

The committee has hired the Aerospace Corporation for independent judgment. Getting a second opinion is always a good idea.

Augustine reported that public input was quite varied. No two persons agreed with each other. He said the public website is drawing significant numbers of comments.

Five subcommittees were formed:

Return to the Moon? Mars? Lagrange points?
Low cost LEO?
Shuttle and ISS
Integration committee (international aspects, workforce, etc.)

Sorry, I did not get the fifth.

Space transportation costs are a major driver. Expendable launch vehicles, since every vehicle is new, make the upfront costs high. It is very hard to make a quantum jump in cost to orbit.

Augustine asked for NAC member opinions. Ken Ford also asked for opinions.

General James Abrahamson commented that the current NASA is the best he has ever seen. Whatever the final options are, we have a terrific team to put those options into place. Augustine shares that view.

Colonel Eileen Collins first thanked Augustine and his committee for their work. She also thanked him for talking to the NAC today. She commented that:

NASA employees working with the committee have listened to the discussions.
NASA people are passionate about their work and exploration.
The retirement of the shuttle shocks members of the general public.

Collins thinks that NASA has not lost its direction.

Augustine urged people to e-mail him at norm dot augustine at lmco.com.

Raymond Colladay also complimented Augustine. He raised the question to what extent is the technology base there for further exploration. Augustine replied that the tech base has been neglected.

Jack Burns observed that science was not part of the charter of the commission. He expressed the view that lunar science can play an international role. He asked how the commission was dealing with the science community. Augustine replied that:

Two scientists were members of his committee.
Science is very important.
The nonlunar science community was more vocal than the lunar science committee.

Owen Garriott asked if options would be recommended. He commented that every word would be parsed to find recommendations. Augustine replied that his group's goal to present factually in an unbiased way the options. Individual members would be permitted to say "This is my preference."

Gerry Kucinski raised workforce issues. He observed that attempts to attract the best and brightest had not been successful. He wanted to work more internationally. He also raised the question of taking 60% of advanced degree candidates off the table -- those who came from other countries.

Augustine said those were good questions. He did report one piece of encouraging news. Current economic problems had encouraged interest in science and technology among the student population. He also commented that 20 year projects presented an interesting problem for young people. It was possible that part way through that 20 year project the project could be canceled with major effects on people's careers.

Pat Condon expressed the view that the report would be of the highest quality. He asked who will get the report and choose among the options. Augustine replied that his gut impression would be that the President must choose. ISS must be considered. The three states most affected would be Florida, California and Texas.

Gene Covert asked if minority reports would be allowed.

Augustine expressed the view that minority reports weaken the overall report. Such reports would be tolerated, but not welcome.

Brad Jolliff of the science committee followed up on Jack Burns' comments about why to do science.

Augustine noted that one challenge of human space flight is justifying the program. Science, education, inspiring the young, prestige all figure in.

Tom Jones raised the issue of human space exploration funding is now a significant consideration. Augustine says we must look at the historical record. The commission will have lots to say about NASA being given challenges without adequate financing.

That ends my report on Norm Augustine's telephone address to the NASA Advisory Council. Any errors are mine.

My First Trip to Canada

2009-06-30T11:43:00.000-07:00

I can't remember my first trip to Canada. Here's the back story.

My Dad was badly injured in an accident when he was like 12 or 13 or so. Pop never talked about the accident to me. I did know that, where practically all humans had a bone in their left leg, Pop had a bone -- and a piece of platinum. At least he still had a functioning leg, even if he did walk with a limp. That leg bothered Pop for the rest of his life.

Because of his bum leg, Pop thought he would never find a woman to love him. Let's see, degree in economics from Rutgers in 1935, active in the community -- especially St. James Episcopal Church and the Boy Scouts -- an all around nice man -- thought no woman would be interested in him because of his left leg.

Mom and Dad dated for four years before they got married. Mom eventually convinced him that he was a good man worthy of a good wife.

Pop was, in some ways, very cautious. For instance, after I was born, Mom and Dad went to a movie. I was left with baby sitters. When they got to the theater, Dad wanted to phone the sitters to see if I was alright. Mom opposed that action, reminding Pop that her parents -- my grandparents and now my baby sitters - successfully raised three children to adulthood and could easily handle the grandson that they loved for an entire evening. Pop never made the call.

On the other hand, Pop and Mom too would think of doing things not exactly typical of most Americans back then. Family vacations were not trips to the Jersey shore. OK, we might go down there for an odd day in the summer, but spending even a week there just did not compute. I remember trips as far south as Virginia and as far north as Ontario when I was a child. These were all done by car. Yes, air travel was becoming somewhat common, but we were not rich enough to pile onto an airplane and visit, for example, San Francisco.

Pop's mother was Canadian. Pop had grown up visiting his cousins in Canada. So what did my parents do before I was a year old? That's right -- load me into the family car and drive me to visit my cousins in Canada. Pop was so happy to both be married to a wonderful woman whom he truly loved and who returned his love and to have a baby boy, he wanted to share his good fortune with his cousins. So I was driven to Canada to meet relatives whom I got to know better when I was older. The Hunter family are fine people.

For practically my entire life traveling back and forth to Canada was easy and normal. When I was growing up, the fact that the United States' northern border was undefended was a point of pride for Americans. It showed how open we were to the world and how friendly. Other nations viewed us positively, partly as result of that open, friendly border.

But now we live in the Age of Terror. "Security" -- or at least the appearance of it -- is paramount. The next time I travel to Canada, I will need a passport. An open border I remember for all my life is now closed.

Don't get me wrong. Real security that offers solid protection from real dangers is important. For instance, people who violently assault others belong in jail. Banks should have real defenses to prevent thieves, whether the walk in off the street kind and rob the bank with a gun or the modern cybercriminal who breaks into bank computer networks from afar. Computer network security is quite important -- providing it is carried out by knowledgeable people. But "security theater" that does nothing but impress the ignorant while, in some ways, harming our society needs to be looked at quite carefully. Openness -- such as that symbolized by the formerly open border with Canada

On July 1st, I will attend a Canada Day celebration at the Canadian Embassy in DC. Will I need a passport to get back into the United States?

An Independent Prochoicer's View on the Controversy Concerning Abortion

2009-05-04T14:20:00.000-07:00

This essay started life as a contribution to the Triple Nine Society e-mail list.

I tend to be prochoice. This affects considerably with whom I come into contact. Even in nonpolitical social circles, I know very few people who are strongly on the other side -- at least as far as I know. Here in Maryland I am active in Democratic Party politics. That also limits the opportunities for ongoing dialog with the "prolife" side. Why am I a Democrat? I tend to agree more with most of today's Democrats on most things. There is also the practical matter of the fact that the Democratic Party really does thoroughly dominate the state's politics. I do bring some interesting libertarian perspectives into discussion from time to time, though.

I am also what is currently called a cradle Episcopalian. It clearly fits my cultural background and has shaped my political and social views to some extent.

My family on my mother's side is working class English. My grandparents moved to the United States about a century ago. My maternal grandfather was a bricklayer. Both grandparents had some elementary school education -- but that was about it. My grandparents moved here shortly after they married. After awhile they had a son whom they truly loved -- just as they did their three later children and me, their grandson. That first son, though, caught some sort disease going around at the time. After only a few months of life, he died. While this was not an abortion, it was, in some ways, close to one. How did this affect my family? It was viewed as a great tragedy. Grandmom returned to England for awhile to recover among family and friends. The young couple was sorely tested by this tragedy. Grandmom did return to the United States. The young couple did have three more children, starting with my mother who just died at 93. My mom in her later years told me about this tragedy. My cousins in England wanted to know why grandmom returned to England for a period after she had been living in the United States. We all regard this early family death as a real tragedy. I can think of no one in my extended family who has ever contemplated having an abortion. I think we have all had sex outside of marriage, but we all know how to prevent unwanted pregnancies -- and we take such measures. I think even those of us who are married use contraception so that we can have a healthy sex life without bringing into this world children we can not practically care for.

My contact with Roman Catholics is generally positive and even friendly. We don't, though, discuss these controversial matters. My exposure to the Roman Catholic opposition to abortion therefore comes through the media. It comes off as cold and uncaring. A church that will not even allow married men to become priests is a church that is making a bad mistake in my view. I am unmarried. I do not regard this as a "gift" but a curse. When I am in love with a woman, it makes my life so much better even I have a hard time describing it. My friends see -- and welcome -- such women into my life. A few extremely conservative married Episcopal priests have switched to the Roman Catholic Church. That church has allowed them to stay married. Roman Catholics who have the good fortune to be part of congregations led by such priests recognize and truly value such men. Roman Catholic opposition to abortion and contraception comes across more as authoritarian control of their members and less as "prolife."

What about the Protestant groups that oppose abortion? There is a strain of puritanism in many Protestant groups. While an interesting case can be made for keeping sex within a healthy, loving marriage, it's hard to justify some other puritanical crusades. For instance, some Protestants also take a stand against alcohol consumption. Not public drunkenness etc., just merely consuming it at all. This tends to make an unfavorable impression as well -- and leads me to devalue their other moral stands.

What factors encourage people to view each other and children positively? My family has been open, supportive and reasonably democratic in its worldview and behaviors. Research seems to show that democratic cultures are stronger and produce people who are more moral than authoritarian cultures.

Summing up, I want "prolife" people to make a much stronger impression on me for actually doing things to help people have better lives. I and my friends actually do that. We're not perfect -- and do not claim to be. But we are good people who try to help humanity become as good as it can.

An Interesting Side Comment by Michael Griffin

2009-04-25T07:13:00.000-07:00

I attended the National Space Club Goddard Memorial Dinner at which Michael Griffin was presented with the Goddard Award for his contributions. Griffin then made a speech that touched on many things.

During his speech he talked about working 18 hours/day, 7 days/week. That remark made a significant impression on me. As I have stated before on this weblog, I am a polymath with an unusual background. I began my adult life by getting a degree in physics from Rutgers. During my second year of graduate work in that field, I got really fed up. I thought I was fed up with physics. I was really fed up with late 20th Century academia. In any event, I tried a career switch from physics to social psychology. I actually completed all the course work for a Ph.D. in that field.

Since then, while I have pursued a career in information technology, I have kept up my learning about humans via reading a wide variety of books. Being a part time artist has also, in some ways, strengthened my people skills. I will notice things that other human beings will not. I will also bring perspectives to various phenomena that most people do not. Some tech people with whom I am friendly are full blown libertarians. They tend to see government as an independent actor too often these days working against liberty. Since I am an artist, I will also see government as being a part of a larger culture and not entirely free to act according to the views of the people who dominant this sector of society.

I will begin this short essay by referencing three books:

Sleep Thieves by Stanley Coren
The Promise of Sleep by William Dement and Christopher Vaughan
Peopleware by Tom DeMarco and Timothy Lister

Yes, I have read all three books.

Reading the first two books leads one to the conclusion that normal humans require about 8 hours sleep/day. OK, the range might include as little as 6 or as much as 10 for normal humans. Still, though, claiming one works 18 hours/day leads one the conclusion that such a person is an extreme outlier or is doing something quite unhealthy. Peopleware also shows that such extreme levels of work to be unhealthy not only for the individual but actually dysfunctional for the organization. Some people argue that humans have not evolved to do intellectual work for more than a portion of a week that might be as low as 40 hours. Yes, you can go over that limit, but other things will suffer if you do.

There are some people who are extreme outliers. For instance, in 1996 I ran the Goddard Two Mile Fun Run in 12:53 and finished the Marine Corps Marathon. That 12:53 put me in the top 30 people at Goddard Space Flight Center, at least as far as running ability. When I was running races routinely back in the 1990s, I was typically in the top 15%-20% of people in my age group. That made me a bit of an outlier for a middle aged man. Now let's look at two extreme outliers -- the men who were at the top of the Boston Marathon this year. The winning man, a Deriba Merga of Ethopia, won in 2:08:42. The fastest American man was Ryan Hall in 2:09:40. If I had started my marathon running at the pace I set in the Goddard Two Mile Fun Run, I would have been nearly a mile behind these two people at the two mile mark. Needless to say, I do not compare myself to these people -- and I should not.

Extreme outliers can be valuable members of society. For instance, the British physicist Paul Dirac made significant contributions to society via his work in physics. You would not, though, want him in a position of leadership where he had to deal with the larger world. He simply was not capable of doing that. One late in life passion of his was the singer Cher. If Dirac was still alive and Cher showed up at his home with President Barack Obama in tow, Dirac would ask "Who is your black friend?"

Griffin thus strikes me as either a relatively normal person who has been unduly and unhealthily influenced by workaholism or someone so far from the norm that he doesn't realize how different he is. This is not good for a leader of a major government agency. Griffin's admission suggests a kind of fanaticism. Fanatics are not open to other views and ideas.

Then there is the report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. This is not the rant of some "disgruntled former employee" or disappointed L5 Society member who is angry he is not living in some utopian space colony. This report is the result of a massive investigation by people who can be viewed as "establishment." The fact that the board described NASA as not a learning organization and as one where people low in the hierarchy are not listened to indicates that NASA is, in many ways, an authoritarian organization. Such organizations can be quite hospitable to narrow minded fanatics.

NASA leader Wayne Hale has written in his blog an interesting item titled Stifling Dissent that not much has changed since Columbia. This is a strong criticism of NASA leadership in what seems to me the most important challenge facing the agency.

Since that speech I have had some interesting conversations with people who can be viewed as insiders in aerospace. A few have reported that people at Orbital Sciences (where Griffin once worked) were surprised when he was named NASA Administrator. They did not think him a good candidate for the position.

Griffin does have some interesting credentials. For example, he has racked up a number of academic degrees -- far more than even very bright, committed people. He's still working on more. While this can be viewed as a positive, it also indicates an obsession with academia that comes at an unhealthy cost to other things. Considering the time that such endeavors take, one must wonder what fell by the wayside while he was pursuing his degrees.

Griffin's tenure at NASA was also controversial. Some people clearly do not like the proposals that have been developed to meet the goals of the Vision for Space Exploration. While that can be viewed as normal, the fact that some people have gone as far as developing alternatives causes concern. How often has that happened in the past?

Last summer Women in Aerospace hosted a session titled "Work-Life Balance: How Do They Do It?" Three women and one man spoke on the topic. One woman admitted that she did not have a true work-life balance. Another woman spoke of her 70 hour week and her one hour commute. She mentioned having a family. To what did she attribute her claim to being balanced? There was still time for her church activities. That's not balance. That's someone fooling themselves.

Let's now try to put these things together.

We have an agency that needs to change in fundamental ways. We have one leader who says not much has changed since Columbia. Griffin was administrator for four of those six years. When he started as NASA Administrator he gave a speech in which he expressed anger at what he had read in the Columbia report which he said he had read three times. He also said he did not understand the cultural aspects of the problem because of a lack of knowledge of human psychology. While he has given some evidence that he has sought to rectify that lack, one must wonder how successful he was. Some one who says during the course of a talk before a friendly crowd that he was working 18 hours/day, 7 days/week indicates that he didn't look very much at research on work weeks and what is actually accomplished by working extremely long hours. In short we have a very narrow person who does not even know what he doesn't know.

I won't go into the specifics of the various engineering arguments that have come to the fore in past four years. While I possibly could understand the disputes (I started my adult life as a physicist who supported engineering work), I haven't dug deeply into them. I will say, though, that authoritarian groups are not as open to outsiders as more democratic groups. Democratic groups seem to be better at learning from diverse sources. I must, however, conclude that, as fine a man as Michael Griffin appears to be, he was a poor choice for NASA Administrator given the current circumstances.

A Personal Reaction to Larry Summers' Comments on Women in Science

2008-12-28T10:37:00.000-08:00

Some people are starting to pay attention to Larry Summers' comments on women in science. A few years ago he made the observation that men seemed more suited to the highest ranks in science than women were. He described men as the best of the best and also mentioned their extreme dedication. Quite a few feminists were outraged.

A few weeks ago in the Washington Post Ruth Marcus brought up the subject yet again by reporting on research that showed men more likely to be outliers in terms of mathematical intelligence. She raised the question was Summers right -- even if politically incorrect. The following week a women by the name of Singer who had been a mathematician and professor challenged Marcus by informing us of the hostility she had encountered even though she loved math and teaching it.

When this controversy first arose, I had a somewhat unusual take on things. I am exceptionally intelligent, at least as measured by standardized testing. I show this intelligence in other ways as well. Today I am a member of Mensa and the Triple Nine Society. The latter limits membership to people who have shown on standardized tests that they are in the top 1 in 1000. I've also completed one marathon -- the Marine Corps in 1996.

What caused me to wonder about the people Summers described wasn't their intelligence -- it was their work habits. Besides praising their intelligence, he also said they worked 80 hours per week. That struck me as very unwise at best, if not absolutely crazy. I thought to myself "I can't work that many hours at physics a week and make sense. What makes these people think they can?" Perhaps they are even greater outliers than I am. While my IQ is around what theirs are, in other ways I can be quite normal.

Here's my take on reasonable weeks. Sleep is important. My own experiences regarding some sleep deprivation make me very reluctant to make it a life choice. There is also research that shows humans need about 8 hours of sleep per day. Some can do with less, some need more, but people who can function well on, say, 4 hours sleep per day are extreme outliers themselves. For the sake of argument, let's go with 8 hours sleep per day. That's 56 hours per week -- out of a total of 168 hours. So, just factoring in sleep reduces time available to us humans at 112 hours per week.

Exercise is also important for people who lead sedentary occupations. I spend about 9 hours a week engaged in exercise. We're now down to 103 hours.

Everyone also needs to eat. Yes, you can get a quick bite at your desk while working. That isn't generally healthy enough as an exclusive long term habit. By the time I have prepared, eaten and cleaned up after meals, I will spend about 2 hours a day doing such. That's anothe 14 hours a week. We are now down to only 89 hours a week -- and we haven't done anything but personal maintenance. Yes, some of that time can devoted to other things as well. For instance, meal times can be used for family and social activities.

Let's factor in commuting to work. Yes, a few people work out of their homes, but that is rare in tech fields. Let's say people spend 1 hour/day commuting. That reduces our unscheduled time to 84 hours -- 82 hours for people who work seven days a week.

Let's now look at three kinds of work weeks.

The first is the old standard of 40 hours -- like my father had when he was alive and my mother had when she worked. That 40 hour work week is only 8 hours/day for 5 days. That leaves two full days for things other than work -- family, community, etc. Even on work days there are 3.5 hours of time still unscheduled for family, etc.

Today quite a few people talk about working 60 hours/week. That's six 10 hour days. There is still one full day for other things. On work days, though, there is only 1.5 hours of "free" time. That doesn't seem like enough.

Finally there is the 80 hour week cited by Larry Summers. That leaves only 2 hours/week unscheduled. Something -- probably lots of somethings -- must give. Family? Community? Or something like sleep? Or exercise? Or meals away from work? The 80 hour work week looks, at best, unhealthy for the individual, his family and his community.

What kind of people adopt this lifestyle? Summers doesn't say. I have seen my fair share of people in science and tech fields with significant personal problems. Perhaps they would be that way in any event. But it seems unwise to organize major projects around such people. An Isaac Newton can come up with some kinds of major discoveries -- but you really would not want them trying to lead an organization.

Background of an L5 Society Activist

2008-12-08T07:13:00.000-08:00

I'm writing this blog posting to let people know how I managed to create a successful event for the L5 Society in 1984.

I had returned to New Jersey from grad work in social psychology some years before. Upon my return, I rejoined the church I attended in my youth -- St. James Episcopal in Hamilton Township, New Jersey. I met up with some old friends and made some new ones. The McKenzies were active in Scottish groups and Revolutionary War reenactment groups. They had also started a poetry group. I got a little involved in all three. Through the poetry group I was introduced to a large part of the local arts scene. I eventually became a member of the Trenton Artists Workshop Association.

Shortly after returning to New Jersey, I contacted the Princeton Ballet after reading that they would perform the Nutcracker Ballet locally. While I had done some modern dance photography, I had never photographed a ballet before. The company, after seeing what I had done, made me their primary photographer for the rest of my time in New Jersey. This gave me another link to the local arts scene.

Links to the local arts community interestingly enough also gave me links to political leaders and various parts of state government bureaucracy that normal civil servants (I made my living by doing IT for New Jersey government) did not have. Michelle Mathesius, director of the Center Dancers, was married to the Bill Mathesius, then Mercer County Executive. Molly Merlino, active in TAWA, was married to state Senator Joe Merlino who was also president of the senate when the Democrats were in the majority.

Since I was a third generation Rutgers alum, getting active in Rutgers affairs was also fairly normal. I even did photography of Rutgers sports for a number of years.

Since my family had been active in the Anglican church for centuries, I was also drawn into that culture as more than a regular member. My photographic talent made a difference there as well.

My talents for photography and writing first got me attention in L5. Then, in 1981, I asked why I had never been called on a phone tree alert. I had been a bit active for a few years, knew society leaders somewhat and wondered what was going on. That's when I found out that there was no organization in New Jersey and that my name had come up as a person to organize New Jersey. Soon I had list of about 200 names of New Jersey residents who had volunteered to help out.

Over the next year I spent some time organizing the phone tree. I began calling people when alerts were sent out and simply asked them if they would phone people in their local area. Within a few months I had a functioning phone tree.

In the spring of 1982 I asked my assistants if any of them were amenable to organizing an L5 chapter. We started meeting over the next six months planning a chapter. Our first formal meeting -- announced via the phone tree -- was in August. At that meeting -- held at Bob Werb's apartment complex -- we decided on a course of action. Our first event was doing information tabling at the New Brunswick Octoberfest. I had participated in that event before as an artist.

That fall I approached the New Jersey State Museum about our group participating in Super Science Weekend -- an event to promote science in January. Their reply was illuminating. They said that because they knew me (through art and political connections) they trusted me. If they hadn't, there was a real chance that they would not have allowed our group to participate.

Super Science weekend in 1983 was a success for our group. People came by and chatted. They took literature. The museum director stopped by to check us out. She was favorably impressed. Our group was fairly young but mature. Most of us worked in tech fields. There was a significant contingent from Bell Labs.

That summer I told Dick Peery, the museum's planetarium director, about Spaceweek. I inquired whether our group could organize a Spaceday event at the museum. The museum was amenable.

Over the next year I recruited speakers and exhibits. Since the Space Studies Institute was located in Princeton, they were happy to supply both a speaker and an exhibit. The same was true of RCA Astroelectronics. Through Mensa connections I recruited a history professor from Philadelphia. I hit real paydirt through the Princeton Astronomy Association. In January 1984 they hosted a talk by J. R. Thompson, former chief engineer of the space shuttle main engine project. He was at that time a deputy director of Forrestal Labs. His talk was excellent -- and he was happy to also give the same talk at Spaceday.

Then came Spaceday. Dick Peery and I chatted a bit before the doors opened. He cautioned me to not get my hopes up too high. On a normal July Saturday only about 50-75 people would come through the museum. He told me if we got 500 the museum would call it a success and talk about doing it again. I don't know if Dick saw the three page feature article in the Trenton Times the day before. Our publicist had gotten us a good deal of attention already.

The day went well. The museum director came around in the afternoon. She seemed impressed. All the participants -- including people from the Princeton Astronomy Association and a local rocket club -- were happy that they participated.

The next week Dick phoned me. He was wildly enthusiastic now. He told me 2000 people came. He added that the museum director had said it was the best summer event that they had ever had. Then Dick got a taste of my sense of humor. I laconically asked if he wanted to do it again. There was a pause -- and then Dick realized I was joking.

I told Mark Hopkins of L5 about my success. He was quite impressed. He recruited me as an L5 Spaceweek coordinator.

I'm now going to explicitly state some lessons we can learn from this success.

I would not have been able to do any of these things if I had not already been involved in my local community through many activities. It was a big help having friends who were not connected to space activism. Space activists can be very narrow. Some are not.

The space field also needs artists as more than people to draw in the public. That's important. But artists also need to be involved in leadership as well. Artists are typically much better at communication than techies. There are exceptions, but that tends to be true. Artists listen better than most people. They are also more open minded. These are qualities sadly lacking in too much of contemporary society. The current financial meltdown can be attributed in part to financial leaders who came with schemes that didn't really reflect reality in too many ways. Yes, accounting, numbers and such like are important -- but so are the less quantifiable things.

That's enough for now. I don't want to hit people over the head. I hope I haven't.

Victory Night Party

2008-11-07T08:14:00.000-08:00

I only went to one party Election Night. I spent most of the day doing poll work. Then came dinner. I made it to the party around 9 PM.

The first person I recognized was Terry Lierman, former chair of the
Maryland Democratic Party, now Chief of Staff for Majority Steny Hoyer.
We exchanged a few friendly words. He left for a party in Annapolis.

I wandered around, saw people lined up for free food. Since I had dinner, I skipped the food. I did buy a glass of wine for $4 + $1 tip.
I ran into a few people from the Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt
Democratic Club (Greenbelt). One of them offered to watch my coat and
extraneous camera gear while I went around and took photographs.

The first real conversation I had was with Paul Pinsky. We're both
runners. I mentioned doing the Marine Corps Marathon back in 1996. He
seemed impressed. He's only done 5Ks and 10Ks. I mentioned that was my
usual length for a race. I joked about doing another marathon
eventually. Paul's a very friendly guy. One important thing in
politics for Paul is livable communities. I asked Paul if he was going
up to the big party in Baltimore. He reported that he planned to leave
the Prince George's County party after about an hour and go home and watch the
rest of the returns there.

Every time Obama won another state a cheer went up from the crowd. Lots
of people said this change was a long time coming.

I got into one lengthy (well, lengthy for the setting) conversation with
a middle aged African American man. I brought up the party in Baltimore
with him as well and said both our Senators -- Mikulski and Cardin --
would be at that party. He told me how both of them made frequent
appearances at labor events. I told him how I got involved with the
Mikulski reelection campaign in 2004 because of my interest in space
exploration. I said Senator Mikulski held views similar to mine. She
strongly supports NASA, but speaks up when NASA screws up. I also
mentioned how the report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board showed all sorts of problems that some of us who had worked at NASA had
noticed years before. I did add that Senator Cardin was also proving to
be a thoughtful legislator on science and tech issues. We both
wholeheartedly agreed that both senators were fine people. We hoped
they would stay in office for many more years.

Around 10 PM I decided to forget the Baltimore party. It was 45 minutes
away. Home was only 8 minutes. Staying at the Prince George's County
seemed more sensible. I stayed around awhile longer. Somebody bought
lots of pizza for the crowd. I had a small slice.

Most people were really excited about the results. When it became
evident that Obama was going to win a major victory we all became
excited. When results of various state contests were announced we
cheered every Democratic victory. I really cheered when I found out Kay
Hagan had beat Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina.

I left after 11 PM. I wanted to be home at a decent hour. I saw both
McCain's concession speech and Obama's acceptance speech at home.

It was a truly exciting evening. I'm glad I was able to be a small part
of it.

I've posted all my photos here.

Anxious with Reason Panel at New America Foundation

2008-10-14T13:41:00.000-07:00

This was a most interesting panel discussion featuring Carl Van Horn and Cliff Zukin from the Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University. David Kusnet, author of Love the Work, Hate the Job, also contributed to the discussion. Kusnet's book looks at events in 2000 at four Seattle workplaces. Tech industry is well represented in the book with Boeing and Microsoft.

The conflict at Boeing was between technical people and financial people. Technical people were focused more on quality, financial people more on control. After the conflict company headquarters was shifted from Seattle, where the company is located, to Chicago. I will say this does not appear to be a good move. It isolates top management from the people who do the work and lessens communication between the groups.

Kusnet reported that workers liked the work they were doing, but hated the job. He described a breakdown of the old social contract where loyalty was rewarded with security and commitment to work in return for respect.

Zukin and Van Horn discussed research performed at Rutgers about The Anxious American Worker: New Work Trends Survey of U.S. Workers Reveals Deep-Seated Concern About their Futures.

Some of the things that Zukin stressed included:

On the job training is valued most.
Americans think they need more training for their jobs.
There is lots of dissatisfaction with employment and levels of training.

Van Horn made a number of points as well:

Unemployment is getting longer and longer.
To create a competitive economy we need competitive workers. I will note that this means not workers who will spend lots of time at work, but people who are actually good at what they are doing.
Education and training are misdirected.
College is not for everybody. I think this needs to be stressed today. Van Horn noted that vocational training is of considerable value.
We need more focus on employer based training.
More accountability is needed regarding the educational establishment. I will note that all too often ideas are rolled out and then not checked. Failure is too often blamed on students and parents, not schools or educational doctrine. That might be changing.

Van Horn noted that large company CEOs don't think they have a workforce problem. HR does. Small and medium sized companies see the problems up close.

I will note that we need to see greater connections between those at the top of hierarchies and people at the bottom. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board report on that disaster noted that people further up the hierarchy did not listen to people lower down. This is a classic reason why highly authoritarian organizations fail.

Democracy and Violent Rhetoric

2008-08-01T07:19:00.001-07:00

Yesterday evening Jeffrey Feldman, author of "Outright Barbarous: How the Violent Language of the Right Poisons American Democracy" gave an excellent talk promoting his views and book.

Early in his talk he brought up a tragic incident in Tennesee where a man killed a few people in a Unitarian-Universalist church. Right wing pundits first characterized the attack as an attack on Christianity. Then the real story came out. He was a violent right winger -- somewhat mentally unbalanced -- who hated U-U because it was too left wing. Hmm. I know at least four U-U members. They are all rather intelligent, and tend to be friendly. Normal people -- even conservatives that I know -- respect and like these people.

Feldman says we need civil arguments -- ones in which all participants try to listen to each other and treat each other with respect. Small groups seem to favor such discussions. I will say it is easier to learn from each other and have civil, even friendly, discussions in small groups. He states, quite correctly, that people who engage in violent rhetoric that demeans others frustrate, even end, the kind of discussion we need for a healthy, free, democratic society.

After the talk I raised a question about reasonable, responsible conservatives. I know more than a few via professional and social connections. The way I raised the question was by citing a forum in the National Review titled The War on Drugs is Lost. I mentioned that I have long opposed the war on drugs and welcomed this forum. The National Review people even included at least one liberal Democrat, Kurt Schmoke, then mayor of Baltimore. Other people represented a variety of viewpoints. To me, this forum seems responsible and free of the violent rhetoric that Feldman condemns. The forum even got me to occasionally glance at NRO for a few years. Some of the pieces made my eyes roll. Some also seemed rather thoughtful and informative. I will admit I don't look at NRO much these days. I do think we need a calmer discussion -- and include people of all persuasions in that discussion.

When I got home, I read the preface to Feldman's book. While I generally agree with what he wrote, one essay he mentioned got my eyes to roll when I first read it. After the Virginia Tech rampage, E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post wrote a column in which he asked why can't we be sensible about guns the way we are about airline security. While Dionne's column was indeed moderate and thoughtful in tone, it also displayed the man's ignorance -- at least to those of us who know too much about the TSA. In fact the TSA is a failure. When they test their own security by trying to smuggle guns through, over 90% of the time the guns get through. Last September at a Women in Aerospace program on the state of aviation security today I also learned that there is a college student who has smuggled high explosives onto airplanes just to show he could. This is the kind of information that gets lost in the highly charged rhetoric we hear today.

Burnt Out in DC

2008-07-31T12:29:00.000-07:00

People keep talking about the blunders Presidential candidates make. As is typical, they usually name the candidate opposing theirs.

I wonder how much people around the country know about DC culture -- especially the power elite's.

It's getting increasingly crazy around here. Traffic is extraordinarily bad and getting worse. People weave in and out of traffic, cutting off people who don't follow at less than 20-30 feet. I've lost track of the number of SUV drivers who want to get in front of me, even though I drive a much higher performance automobile.

Then there is workaholism run amok. When Bush's first chief of staff, Andrew Card, resigned people said he looked burned out. The Post reported his schedule. He got up around 4 AM, reported to work a little after 5 AM, worked until 8-9 PM and would take calls after that. I'm surprised he didn't die from that schedule. There are too many stories like that floating around. There are people out there who actually think even 100 hours of work a week is doable in the long term. They like to think of themselves as"tough."

Pot, Kettle

2008-07-29T13:19:00.000-07:00

It can be difficult being independent in the United States today.

Today a man from the academic part of society told me how Goddard Space Flight Center was collegial while Hampton Roads had a more military, top down style of organization. Those of us with some knowledge of social psychology would tend to call the first democratic, the second authoritarian.

When I worked at Goddard I was part of a group dominated by a Ph.D. scientist who was extremely authoritarian. I know some military people through various connections. Some of them can be quite democratic.

What's wrong with this picture?

Politics and My Technical Career

2008-07-02T07:15:00.000-07:00

I started a discussion on two Linux lists by asking how much in demand for Fortran programmers there was today. I received the answer I expected -- that there wasn't much demand for this specialty these days. I also made reference to a political angle. This posting is about the admittedly rather unusual angle.

I am what is called a polymath. I am reasonably good a variety of significant different things. This is because I was brought by parents in a more 19th (and earlier) century manner than most people. My grandfather was Rutgers College class of 1890 -- degree in chemistry. His father was a corporate attorney. His mother is how I am related to John Donne. Educated people back in the 19th century were encouraged -- if not required -- to be more broadly educated than today. That attitude -- plus the necessary skills -- was imparted to me by my parents, my father especially. There are other ways of becoming a polymath. I'm just telling you how I became one.

Other things my parents taught me were to listen to and respect others, stand up for myself and try to do my best to help my fellow humans.

When I was a child I became quite interested in science and technology -- especially space exploration. My parents encouraged this interest. They also encouraged me to read widely. My childhood wasn't all Erector Sets and books about technology. My parents also encouraged me to read classics like "Treasure Island" and "Black Beauty."

Still, though, my initial interest in science and technology carried me through first a degree in physics from Rutgers, some work in the field and some graduate study (somewhat simultaneously). I, of course, picked up Fortran as my first computer language at this time. During my second year in grad school, I became increasingly dissatisfied. I thought I was becoming tired of physics and technology.

When I graduated from Rutgers, my parents gave me a really good 35 mm camera outfit. No one expected me to meet up with some artists and get really into photography, but I did. This definitely exposed me to the world beyond technology.

Because of the artistic influence, and the dissatisfaction with physics as a career, I began a search for a new life. I wound up in social psychology, studying at the grad level at Columbia University. This career path went well for a time, then also soured. I've written an account of why I left that field and academia in my posting Why I Am Not A Social Psychologist. Still, though, I learned a great deal about humans behave, especially in organizational settings.

While doing this grad work, I encountered the book "The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space" by Gerard K. O'Neill. I was fascinated. My interest in technology was reawakened -- this time when I was a mature adult. I joined a couple of groups to promote O'Neill's ideas. By organizing things like New Jersey Spaceday I even became a leader in the L5 Society and later the American Astronautical Society's Space Times. I was hired in March 1990 to work at Goddard Space Flight Center.

The group I joined was a mess. Communications skills were sorely lacking. Management had trouble keeping staff. The larger group was dominated by a civil servant who was sometimes described as a "brilliant scientist" and "tough." In actuality he was an abusive bully who did not listen to people. "Yes" people got ahead. More independent people were kept out of formal leadership positions.

Still, though, I was more happy than not. The work was interesting. Most of my relationships were with people outside our group who used our group's services. I was also part of the larger Goddard community via such things as the Goddard running club and the theater group. The latter group really appreciated my services as a photographer.

The management of our group went from poor to disastrous. A woman manager was brought in who tried to control staff in all sorts of ways. One man -- about 40 and recently married -- was told to forget about his marriage and concentrate on work. I was hauled into a conference room with the accusation of using government computers for personal business. The proof? A piece of spam from a Internet pornographer. What I had actually done was to forget to update a .forward file on a little used computer that was receiving spam.

I started looking for a transfer. One was not forthcoming. I do not know why.

In 1999 I was subjected to extreme disciplinary action. I was told to either fall into line, find another job or be fired. This was after years of generally positive job reviews.

Since IT was still hot in 1999, I was able to quickly find another job. Still, though, I was very unhappy. Compounding that unhappiness was going to a high school reunion the Saturday after I left Goddard -- and finding out that one of the most wonderful women in our class had gotten really screwed up and committed suicide. She had just taken a job as a New York City school teacher the last time I met her.

When I was forced out of Goddard in 1999, I started showing up in old haunts -- the National Space Society, etc. People were happy to see me again, but wondering what had happened to me. I did tell a few people a bit.

Late in 2002 I came up with the idea of writing a paper on what I had seen at Goddard and presenting it at the Princeton Conference on Space Manufacturing. I thought this way I might be able to draw attention to what I considered serious problems.

Then Columbia burned up upon reentry in 2003. People started talking immediately about NASA management. I converted my paper into a lecture which I gave at Central New Jersey Mensa Regional Gathering (think weekend long convention) in March. My talk got top reviews.

The next my friends in CNJ Mensa invited me back to give a follow up now that the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report was out. In the audience was a career NASA civil servant named Steven Yaros. We'd never met. At the end of my talk, he stood up, told us who he was, and endorsed everything I said. He also said people at NASA were reading the report. I was stunned. A new path seemed to open. Steve later on encouraged me to find work in the agency.

Later that year a professional lobbyist gave a talk to the Rutgers Club of DC. During the talk he mentioned that professional lobbyists did volunteer work for campaigns to build relationships with politicians. Another light went on. In August I drove to Mikulski reelection headquarters in Baltimore and volunteered. Senator Mikulski has been known as a strong supporter of NASA -- and willing to say when things had gone wrong. I liked both. By doing this, I gained admittance into mainstream political circles in Maryland. I am glad I did so.

In 2004 I also joined the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. I hit it off well with the people I met. I wound up, among other things, becoming the Baltimore Section's webmaster and public policy officer. I've been leading Team Maryland during the annual Congressional Visits Day and attracting interest to our concerns that way.

Then in January 2006, a notice came to our section that Maryland's Governor's Workforce Investment Board was holding an Aerospace Summit as part of the Aerospace Initiative. I and other section members went and had an interesting day.

In June I received a invitation to a follow up meeting. I went and participated in the Industry Collaboration Committee. There was some talk about starting a Maryland Aerospace Association. At the end of the meeting government representative Art Taguding said we needed a chair to continue leading the group. Everyone looked at me. Art asked if I was surprised. I wasn't, given the way the meeting had gone.

I got our group off to a good start. We put together a proposal for an association over the next several months. Lots of people told me they were impressed with our work.

Then in December 2006 I had an interesting set of encounters via the Maryland Space Business Roundtable with a man who had been an executive at the company for whom I worked at Goddard. He asked me if I would be interested in taking a job with the company he now worked for -- in Hampton Roads, Virginia. This raised my eyebrows a bit. It would mean uprooting my life, leaving behind my community and political connections, etc. -- just for an undescribed job. I did send the man my two resumes -- the tech oriented one and what I call my civic leader one. I heard nothing more from the man.

The plan for a Maryland Aerospace Association failed to gather support. I had no direct contact with the people who did the rejecting. I was told by one man that one person had rejected our proposal without even being aware of what my group had done.

Throughout all this I remained quite active in AIAA affairs. People seem to respect and like me.

I am now telling people I need a more normal career. Taking on bits and pieces of work is neither satisfying intellectually nor economically rewarding enough for me.

People at the company who broached the idea of moving to Virginia have done so a few times since, rather informally. I'm not really interested. They haven't really sold me on what I would be doing there.

A few days ago I casually checked out the company's website. On their careers page, I found advertisements for Fortran programmers -- at Goddard, a few miles from my home. A job like that could get my attention. Technically it would not be ideal, but it would be a big improvement for me at present. I'm wondering why no one has thought of contacting me about this work. A political motivation seems like it might be at work.

Some managers like to refer to people like me as "disgruntled former employees." That really isn't a fair description of me. I am a change agent, seeking to reform practices that have been clearly shown to be dysfunctional. I can actually put on a social scientist hat and recommend changes that are clearly thought out. It's not unreasonable to think that some people who are benefiting from the old status quo don't want me around. These days I am quite active in advocating reform in tech industry. You can get some idea of what I am talking about by reading a few other of my blog postings:

July 10th Justin Ross is holding a fund raiser locally. Governor O'Malley will be attending. I could go and make a fuss. I'm wondering what to do.

New Social Contract

2008-02-29T08:03:00.000-08:00

I'm live blogging a meeting at the New America Foundation meeting on the topic of the new social contract.

CSPAN broadcasting.

Room not really set up for blogging. SFF did much better last July.

Room is packed. Few empty seats.

New era of American politics? Post partisan? Progressive? Comeback conservatism?

Post partisan -- advocated for deficit reduction. Normal partisanship unable to cope with long standing problems. JFK Jr. -- George reference.

Now Schwartzenegger, Bloomberg. Republicans and Democrats working together to bring forth new ideas.

Americans becoming more partisan, not less, according to polls. Partisanship rising among youth as well. Millenials have been formed by exposure to out of control individuals. Parents have emphasized cooperation, prosocial behavior. Open minded, keep focused on big picture. New generation looks for respect, comity, etc.

Rutgers prof Cliff? up. Middle aged, grey beard (literally). Political culture and issues of day quite different.

Issues will be played out in political culture. Core values will underlie.

Core values:

1. Society favors equal opportunity to succeed. Committed to altruism, also self reliance, entrepreneurism, etc.

2. Commitment to public sector, also wary of it. Ambivalence about major institutions.

3. Americans have firm belief in God. 80% see themselves as believers. Religious beliefs shape our politics.

4. We believe we should have aggressive place in world. Opening for space: Charles Elachi.

5. Social security and retirement income. People no longer believe it will be there for them. No trust in government retirement plans.

6. People believe they are overtaxed. Think taxes are unfair, complicated. Replacement could be worse.

7. Health care an important issue. People concerned about cost.

8. Job satisfaction OK. (Didn't ask me.)

9. Environment a second tier issue. Finance and economics can affect.

Good for next social contract. Crisis will produce change. People tired of Bush, war in Iraq. Concern about economy has hit major proportions.

Public ready to put 9/11 behind us.

Cliff stops. Liked working with NAF very much.

Younger people less likely to be interested in politics. More leisure oriented, more entrepreneurial, more cooperative.

Interesting thought -- what about cooperation among individuals? Out of control individuals more a symptom of failed authoritarianism than democratic societies.

Millenials have sense of us, not of they.

11:45.

Mark? Panel of people from whom I have learned the most about Congress. Singularity point in American politics. Does he know of techie "Singularity?"

I'm wearing a suit. Lots of people more casually dressed. Lots of young people. Fair number of middle aged folk. They tend to be more business dress.

Mark thinks we can't go back to governing like we did in 1980s and 1990s. 1994 wiped out Southern Democrats. 2006 wiped out northern Republicans. Democratic Party now the liberal party with base in north and west. Republican party now conservative party with base in south.

Question is now how do we govern the country. Reading liberal encomiums to Buckley. We need a liberalism that can engage with conservativism. Obama has this approach. Mentioned Dionne. Laugher: Dionne once used TSA as an example supporting "sensible" gun control.

K Street project of conservatives. Courts have been shifted. Conservatives have had some policy victories.

Democrats still in Bill Clinton era -- big government is over.

Susan: Republicans have created new agency, Federal intrusion into education, new benefits. Can't happen now -- majority is too thin. Personalities, e.g., Delay, Rove also played role. Shift to Senate led to House style being tried in Senate. Electorate taking control back. McCain would not have been pick of Republican leadership. Hillary according to theory should have been shoe in. People tired of partisanship. Much larger turnout inn 2008.

Susan says demographics driving elections. Hmm. Why do people from NYC move to Nevada?

12:15. Battery at 57% -- 1hr, 45min left.

Powerful communication tools at service of politically active.

12:30. Panel scheduled to start at 12:15.

Savings have been eroded. Housing a problem.

Tax benefits will flow to people with higher incomes, more wealth. Need an inclusive savings policy. Must be life long. Left focuses on opportunity, right on ownership. Universal 401k, savings plans that start at birth.

David Gray -- work and family issues. Under the radar issues: foster care, child care. Work family imbalance. Stress, two earner couples. 81% want better work life balance. People feel stressed at work. Democrats all had work life proposals. Tight labor markets leading business to accommodate desires, needs. States taking a lead. War forcing administration to take a look at work life balance. Lots of stress on family life for military. Back to 18th century? Baby boom retiring. Want to work flexibly. Older people want flexibility in work place. Fiscal crisis will also push flexibility.

Maya: budget issues. Need to update and raise revenues. We need fundamental tax reform. Percent of total economy an important line for many people.

Only a few of us live blogging. Some people taking written notes.

Now switching to dead tree note taking. Keeping the laptop on my lap is not that comfortable.

Here are my dead tree notes:
Len Nichols: Why now? Why optimistic? Cost of doing nothing is very high.

China, India make it impossible to increase prices. (What will happen if China collapses?)

Reality: Need 70 votes in Senate for a proposal to get the 60 you need. (Mikulski does bipartisanship well on aerospace issues.)

Need to buy smarter. (We need discussion of what is possible and what is not.)

Incentives are for much health care.

Political parties.

David Frum: Coalition of 70s and 80s declining. Republicans not doing as well. Movement to Democratic Party real and strong.

Bush aimed at reassembling Republican coalition.

9/11 elevated nationalism.

Lack of success in Iraq has been painful.

Collapse in Republican identification among young.

Open door at end: party shift, not political shift.

Typical voter quote: "If Eisenhower were alive, I'd vote for him." (Susan Eisenhower has endorsed Obama. She's also married to Roald Sagdeyev -- one time head of Soviet civil space program.)

Johnathan Chait: Issues moving to left. People in antigovernment mood. Democrats are shills for home state industry. Left creating an institutions on left to counterbalance ones on right.

I left at 1:47.

Aerospace Workforce Issues

2008-02-25T12:56:00.000-08:00

In September 2007 Claudia Morrell, Executive Director of the Center for Women and Information Technology of the University of Maryland Baltimore County gave a talk to the committee leading the Aerospace Initiative of the Governor's Workforce Investment Board in the State of Maryland. During her talk she emphasized three reasons why young women were not pursuing careers in technology:

They disliked the work-life balance common in technology fields.
They thought the work was boring.
They were familiar with managers in their 30s and 40s who were extraordinarily poor leaders who not only did harm to their groups but also to the careers and lives of young people coming into their fields.

She noted that when these issues were successfully addressed, that young women – as well as young men – were far more likely to choose work in technology.

These findings echo what I have heard in other forums as well. In July at a NewSpace meeting organized by Space Frontier Foundation Loretta Whitesides commented how the generation born after Apollo did not share the memories of older people involved in aerospace. NASA Administrator Michael Griffin might vividly remember John Glenn's orbital flight. Some one born after the last Apollo mission in 1972 will remember the Challenger tragedy instead. She also commented that they were looking for leadership that listened and was open to new ideas. The fact that NASA does not have that reputation any more is a major criticism.

Mary Lynne Dittmar has done extensive research in how the public thinks about NASA. She has delivered papers at conferences such as Space 2006, organized by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and written articles such as Sustaining exploration: communications, relevance, and value (Part 1) and Part 2. In her work she has expressed the view that NASA needs to start listening to people and develop a bottom up as well as a top down method of generating value. Dittmar has noted that younger people are not much interested in sending humans to Mars – one goal of the current Vision for Space Exploration. She does note, though, that young people are much more interested and supportive of things like space tourism – which offers the possibility of real participation – and probes to places such as Mars – which again offers some possibility of participation, if only vicariously.

We also have the findings of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. Among other things, they described NASA as an organization that failed to listen to issues raised by staff more familiar with matters at hand than managers above them. They also described NASA as not a learning organization. This should be viewed as damning criticism of a research and development organization.

We thus see some common threads developing with regard to the aerospace industry. There is a lack of listening, a lack of willingness to try ideas that are developed outside an insiders' club (the “Not Invented Here” syndrome) and problems learning things outside relatively narrow specialties. While this leads to high profile failures in the case of NASA, one can see similar things throughout technological fields. There is also the notion that the culture of aerospace – and indeed much of technological work – needs reform. One interesting observation is made by tech workers in all sorts of fields. We claim that the comic strip Dilbert by Scott Adams is not a comic strip, but a documentary. Adams himself is a former IT professional. Tech workers supply him with many ideas.

There are, however, good examples we can learn from. The SAS Institute has an excellent reputation for the quality of its products as well as the way it treats its employees and the way it operates in the larger community. SAS seems like one company that has learned that “It Takes a Village” to not only bring up healthy citizens but to do all sorts of things – including run a successful business that makes significant contributions to the larger society for over thirty years. In the past few years NASA Ames, under Pete Worden, also seems like a place that is open to the outside and new ideas. They are also doing some pretty interesting things technically. There are also other examples of quality leadership in aerospace. Friends who have worked for Nobel Prize Winner John Mather at Goddard Space Flight Center say all sorts of good things about the man. He is described as a man who listens, who gives credit to others and is, to quote one man, “a real Boy Scout.”

In this short paper I have begun to describe workforce problems in aerospace and, indeed, in much of technological work. What are some solutions that a Clinton administration could pursue to help address these very real problems?

One idea could be fairly simple to implement. There is an office of the ombudsman. It seems to me – someone who worked at Goddard Space Flight Center for 9 years – that this office is fairly low profile. Raising the profile – and extending its mission to include contractors seems to me to be a good idea. Allowing anyone – regardless of employment status – to anonymously bring issues to the attention of this office, especially management issues, would help address problems that I have identified. There are some dirty little secrets that need addressing. People – especially contractor employees – have quit because of “lies and abuse.” Some groups withhold the granting of civil servant status to more independent employees.

A second idea is to begin sending employees – both civil servant and contractor – off for training in people knowledge. At Space 2006 I met a woman involved with an aerospace MBA program at the University of Tennessee. Since she was one of the few people I have ever met with a background in both the “hard” and social sciences, I asked her why so many MBAs had such poor knowledge of how humans behaved. She replied that, while an MBA student could get a solid knowledge of such things, too many avoided such areas. This needs to be changed. When NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, who holds, among other things an MBA degree, can get up in public and, while discussing the Columbia report, say that he doesn't understand cultural issues because of a lack of knowledge of human psychology, that is an admission of inadequacy that needs rectifying.

A third idea is to bring such training to all employees in aerospace. This would mean not just an occasional lecture at a NASA center or contractor facility but serious education programs along the lines that, for example, engineers receive as part of their careers.

A fourth idea is to identify those employees who have already gained experience in some field outside their technical specialty. While at Goddard I participated as a photographer and occasional actor in Goddard's Music and Drama Club. Members of this club – who put on major shows more than once a year – had social skills and knowledge significantly superior to most employees. There are many other ways of identifying employees with broader knowledge.

NASA in this way could become a model for society to emulate. Many scientists decry the lack of knowledge of science by our political leaders. Much less often some scientists observe that scientists lack knowledge of the political sector – and, indeed, almost anything outside their narrow specialty. This needs to change.

This brief paper is meant to spark discussion about an important but not high profile challenge facing our society. I think the challenge can be met with thoughtful, open minded leadership.

A New, Improved Carl Sagan

2008-02-21T12:39:00.000-08:00

I first started paying close attention to Nobel Prize Winner in Physics John Mather after a lecture at the Goddard Memorial Symposium last year. He's a fine public speaker -- especially for a physicist. He also seemed like a friendly guy -- at least on the podium. During his talk he displayed at one point photos of members of his team. I recognized one, Steve Leete, from my time at Goddard. I asked Steve what kind of guy Mather was -- besides being a brilliant physicist. He told me he was a really nice guy who listened to people, freely gave credit where it was due to team members and was a "real Boy Scout."

Many people note several problems with academia today. Undergraduate students are almost an afterthought. Graduate students are all too often treated as close to slave labor. Teaching is held in low regard. Listening to students -- essential for really good teaching -- is all too often neglected. And we wonder why students depart from such difficult fields as physics for more remunerative career paths.

But there are alternative models that seem to work. And John Mather seems to have first benefited from them and could now pass on the things he has learned. Here's a bit of John's biography, along with some comments of my own.

John grew up in a small town in then (possibly still) rural north New Jersey. Newton High School which he attended still has only 901 students according to Wikipedia. Hmm. Many observers now think that the smaller high school does a much better job of listening to students. Administrators and other school leaders get to know their students better. Teachers spend more time teaching and less administering. They also interact with other teachers who are considerably different from themselves. They're more likely to find out what Sally and John are doing in other classes and activities. It's also easier for parents -- especially intelligent parents -- to interact with the school. The school is nearby. The school's staff are people who are part of the larger community.

After high school, John did not attend a large research university. He went to the private Swarthmore College, current student population 1,500. Small schools like Swarthmore and Vassar College where I spent a year emphasize undergraduate education. While research is done by faculty, teaching is given highest priority. People who attend such schools pick up better listening and communication skills. The comments I made about John's high school apply just as well to places like Swarthmore.

By the time John hit the major research establishments of U.C. Berkeley and Columbia University, his character had been formed in major ways. He had picked up skills that students who attended large institutions have much more difficulty learning. Also, by reaching Berkeley when he did, he escaped to some extent the problems that have come to engulf contemporary academia. Weren't there protests at Berkeley in the late 60s? There certainly were. While lots of people blame the students for not respecting authority, some of us note that faculty respect for students had begun to drop earlier -- possibly as a result of the schools becoming too big with too high a focus on research and too little on teaching.

Perhaps it is time for John Mather to become the new Carl Sagan. There's one advantage John might have right off the bat. It would be very hard for people to say he wasn't a real scientist. Since he listens to people, it might be possible for him to use his own life story to instruct others in ways that he developed.

A Few Unorthodox Thoughts About Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth"

2007-10-16T15:15:00.001-07:00

I began this blog posting as an e-mail sent off to a group of St. Mark's Episcopal Church people after seeing the film "An Inconvenient Truth" at St. Mark's in October of 2006. Lots of you know I'm a bit better informed that the average St. Mark's member on issues relating to science and technology. Some of you might know I tend to be in favor of work to solve, or at least mitigate, environmental problems.

Two days after seeing "An Inconvenient Truth" I must say my view of the film is more negative than positive. This kind of film might be what is needed to get people to wake up and take action. Still, though, I find
a number of things disturbing. Here are a few of my reactions:

Gore repeatedly made use of the words "moral imperative."
Believe it or not, that kind of thing resonates negatively with
me. To me, the phrase also says "Shut up and stop thinking.
Here's the problem and what must be done." I'd be much more
impressed if Gore had said "We have a problem. Let's see what
we can do to fix it." That invites participation by all kinds
of people. It's less judgmental. It's more open and creative.
Gore repeatedly referred to "so called skeptics." I'm very
active in tech circles. Referring to opponents and critics as
"so called skeptics" is insulting and derogatory. I know some
people who fit into that category. Believe it or not, the ones
I know (some reasonably prominent) are not pawns of the oil
companies. Some of them have been badly burned by certain
elements of the environmental movement that are perceived, with
some justification, as pushing environmental concerns as a way
of getting various kinds of power.
Gore said the debate is over. That's not true. Yes, the great
majority of people who study the atmosphere are in agreement
that we are experiencing global warming. There is even a
reasonable amount of agreement that humans are becoming an
increasingly big contributor to warming. Where the debate
starts occurring is about how much warming there will be and
what impact it will have on the planet. Personally, I tend to
favor erring on the side that we should take stronger measures
to reduce global warming, but I do know people I respect and
trust who worry that antiwarming measures will do more harm than
good.
Another topic of debate is what to do to reduce human
contributions toward global warming. I -- and quite a few
others -- favor moving toward nuclear and solar power. Both are
environmentally friendlier than carbon based fuels. Thoughtful
conservation can also play a role.
There's a word that keeps popping up with regard to carbon based
fuels, especially coal. The word is "sequester." I think using
that word tends toward the dishonest. In our society the only
other time I've heard that word is with respect to jury trials.
We sequester a jury for a short time to advance the cause of a
fair trial. Such action has little impact on the jurors' lives
and even less on society as a whole -- except, of course, in
promoting fairer, more honest justice. We will not be
"sequestering" carbon dioxide. We will be arranging for the
very long term storage of large amounts of a harmful chemical
compound. It won't be simple or easy. Last week in the Post I
read an article about the subject of global warming and
business. In the article they referred to a pilot project to
store carbon dioxide by pumping it into the ground next to the
plant. If we're talking pilot projects, we're saying that a
solid solution is a ways off. Nuclear and solar are already
here. France, I believe, gets 70% of its electrical power from
nuclear. That's a working reality, not a pilot project. What
about nuclear waste? There's data that suggests that isn't
quite a big a problem as some people claim. There are multiple
proposals out there. One, storing waste at Yucca Mountain,
would be much closer to reality if it weren't for political
controversy.
Gore at one point noted that Chinese cars get twice the gas
mileage as American ones. I'd like to see an in depth look at
why that is. Gore didn't say anything about the "why." Some
people -- even at St. Mark's -- have complained that big trucks
are more common these days because of demands to carry more and
more stuff. When I was a child, I rode in cars without even a
seat belt. Now we demand that children be carried around in car
seats to protect them. We also spend much more time
transporting children to various activities. Perhaps the
Chinese aren't doing such things. I don't know. But I do think
we should look carefully at the two societies instead of making
comparisons with the goal of making Americans feel guilty.

These, believe it or not, are just a few quick reactions. Let me repeat
I think we should take measures to address this problem. But it's quite
important that the actions be well researched and thought out. I
personally think "An Inconvenient Truth" is at least as much a call for
learning and dialog as it is for action.

Since writing this e-mail I have had some other thoughts. Al Gore keeps using the word "moral" to describe the kinds of actions he favors. That might sit well with deeply religious Southern Baptists, but it has some pretty negative connotations for a significant portion of the population. This is especially true when he applies that label to his own actions and of people like himself. Global warming is most definitely, at least in part, an engineering challenge. What if engineers come up with solutions that allow us to live better lives while taking better care of the planet? What if some solutions have unacceptable consequences? We could really reduce the human race's impact on the planet by reducing our numbers to, say, 1 billion or even 100 million. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to contemplate how that could be immoral.

Comparing the United States unfavorably to China looks even worse today than it did a year ago. If Gore had compared us to Britain, France, Germany, Canada or some other free, advanced Western nation, he would have earned far more respect from me. But China? This week the Washington Post has had both an editorial and article on China's severe environmental problems. The Economist also has an interesting leader China, Beware that doesn't exactly portray the country as one we should emulate. Articles and editorials such as these give me -- and most reasonable people -- the idea that China is not worth emulating.

Just what is Al Gore thinking?

A Few Words From Cyberspace Citizen Chuck Divine

2007-09-26T10:17:00.000-07:00

OK, sonny, pour yourself and your great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather Chuck a double of The Glenlivet, sit down and listen to his tales of life as a cybercitizen. Remember, you need some good alcohol to cope when newbies like young Dickie McCormick -- you know, the President of Rutgers -- come barging in without learning how cyberspace operates.

I became a cybercitizen in 1986. At the time I was on the Board (or is that Bored?) of Directors of the L5 Society. Don't know what the L5 Society was? Google it, sonny. Let's just say I was bright enough to understand the technology of orbital space colonies, bright enough to communicate the benefits of same to normal people, bright enough to lead the organization of various events and groups and dumb enough to actually think that by herding tribbles I could help get us into said space colonies in 15 years. What are tribbles? Try Google or Wikipedia, sonny.

Anyway, David Brandt-Erichsen sent out a letter to all board members telling us about a thing called the Byte Information Exchange (BIX for short). Noted SF author Jerry Pournelle had set up a conference on BIX for L5 board members. I used my brand new computer -- an AT&T PC with TWO floppy drives and 256K of memory -- to access BIX via a 1200 baud modem that was the envy of my friends who only had 300 baud modems. Since Jerry was jerryp on BIX, I picked the BIX name chuckd. It was much later that I learned there was a rapper by the name of Chuck D. C'est la vie....

Anyway, BIX was a wonderful place to discuss space politics, space technology, information technology and lots more. When I posted an essay that I wrote that had appeared in the meatspace Trenton Times, my reputation as a thoughtful writer was sealed. OK, some of the people doing the judging were a bit out there. Still, though, my stock rose enormously in cyberspace.

While on BIX, we heard stories of the fabled Internet and Usenet. Back in the 1980s they were operated by the GOVERNMENT. The discussions had to be better and more informed. Well, by the early 90s I was working at Goddard Space Flight Center (another source of funny stories, if you find making fun of the mentally ill funny) and I actually got access to the Internet and Usenet. I decided, just for practice, to take a look at rec.arts.sf.tv. Imagine my surprise when I found ignorant university undergraduates praising the 1970s version of Battlestar (or was it Cattle Car?) Galactica. That show was mediocre at best.

OK, by then I had two identities in cyberspace. There was still chuckd on BIX. There was also xrcjd at Goddard. I got my first spam as xrcjd@dirac.gsfc.gov! I still remember the spams advertising millions and millions of e-mail addresses. The advertisers, though, thoughtfully removed all .edu, .mil and .gov addresses. Hmm, I thought, they weren't using their own product. Once an idiotic, sexually frigid manager accused me of using gummint computers to look at porn based on one such piece of spam. Ah, those were the days.

It was at Goddard in 1995 that I created my first website. It was to support the work of the group of which I was a part. Yes, sonny, I can write HTML at the bare metal level. Woohoo!

Later on I finally bought a more up to date PC for my home. The 1986 machine finally burned out. The new computer became my first Linux box. The machine came with no software. When I checked out the prices of software at a local store, I freaked out. A friend at Goddard, Meg Larko, acquainted me with Linux. It was FREE! And actually pretty good. OK, normal people, like newbie Dickie McCormick, couldn't have used it. But it worked pretty well for an experienced cyberspace citizen like me.

Anyway, I signed up first for Earthlink. I became chuckdivine@earthlink.net. Then a friend told me Earthlink was run by Scientologists. Bye bye, Earthlink, hello att.net. I became chuck.divine@worldnet.att.net. I also upgraded to a 56K modem. Boy, was that fast! I could really zip around the Internet at warp speed now! I could read and post on Slashdot -- with nearly 4 million readers. On Slashdot my identity was ChuckDivine. My karma is still excellent. My posts, especially about space exploration, garnered +5 ratings -- the highest possible. Only Cthulthu knows how many people read that crap. And, as you know, Cthulthu won't tell unless you give him a really big bribe. I don't post nearly as much there as I once did, but I do try to look at Slashdot at least once a week. This week I checked out the comments about the awful TV show "The Big Bang Theory." Slashdotters didn't like it either.

Then I got involved in AIAA. My involvement in the Baltimore Section got me to upgrade to a broadband account with Comcast. Today I'm chuck.divine@comcast.net. I even have my own set of websites -- yes, sonny, websites -- on Comcast. My home page has links to most of them. Be careful, though. A couple of pages are NSFW. Oh, the character Ambassador Chuck is totally fictional. I was really stunned when some 419 actually replied to the good ambassador.

After some years of posting on various blogs like Rand Simberg's and even getting an occasional e-mail posted by Jerry Pournelle, I decided to start this blog myself. I haven't made too many waves yet, but time will tell.

I've heard of things like Facebook and Myspace, but, truthfully, they're a bit simple minded for long time cybercitizens like me. They're fine for newbies, though. Perhaps Dickie McCormick should surf on over and give them a try. I'd be glad to make comments when he does.

------------End of colloquial mode------------------------

OK, all, now I'm going to assume a more serious demeanor. I've been writing like this to give people who aren't as familiar with cyberspace a bit of a look at what the wild, wild Internet is really like. Yes, there are very corporate websites that present established organizations quite well. People do go to them to get honest information about what such organizations are intentionally doing. Rutgers has a pretty good set of websites.

When the new alumni plan, though, talks about connecting with the community via blast e-mails from President McCormick (whom I do highly respect), I wonder what they are thinking. If it's some vitally important piece of information of importance to the entire Rutgers community, that might be the way to go. But that kind of communication doesn't really connect people -- especially alumni -- to Rutgers. What might be a better approach would be to establish web fora much like Slashdot where old friends could reconnect, where former students could connect with faculty, where alumni in various geographic localities could start clubs to connect local grads together, where alumni in various subgroups could connect with each other and where ways of helping alumni from various subgroups connect with people outside their groups. That's a more organic, democratic approach which might strengthen bonds among Rutgers grads and the university.

The new plan also talks about things like a more meaningful Homecoming. Have people thought that through? I attended my first Rutgers football game not as a college student but as a guest of my father, class of 1935. My mom came along. I was just a child. When the original Rutgers Stadium was built, it could accommodate over 20,000 people. Back in 1938 when it opened, that number was a quite sizable part of the entire Rutgers family -- students, faculty, alumni and family members. Today the much larger stadium can accommodate only 40K+ people. The larger Rutgers family easily tops 1 million. What do people have in mind?

I'd be more impressed if, in this past year, the committee that produced the report had spent time contacting alumni and listening to them. I'm webmaster of the Rutgers Club of DC and just took on that role for the class of 1967. I get e-mails from alumni relations and the local clubs as well as some from clubs around the country. Before writing this piece, I searched through my old e-mails over the past year. I didn't find anything about the work of this committee.

Old alums like myself clearly aren't the entire Rutgers community. But just what did this committee do? It's not like some of us are hard to find.

A few token meetings now that the report has come out are not going to help all that much.

What thoughts do you have? Feel free to post comments here.

A Few Observations

2007-09-11T05:24:00.000-07:00

I have mentioned to a few of you that, before I got into information technology as a career, that I did graduate work in physics (no surprise there) and also, later, in social psychology (possibly a few raised eyebrows). While in both fields I also became first an exceptionally good photographer and decent writer. People in the ballet world claim I could have been a successful ballet photographer if I had chosen that path.

I'm going to put on my social psychologist hat now and make a few observations about things I've seen and learned both while working in aerospace and have read before and since full time work in our field.

I will use Mike Griffin as an example. From what I can tell, he is a good man, exceptionally intelligent and accomplished in aerospace. He does have some shortcomings as do we all.

Mike Griffin was born in 1949 according to his NASA biography. When Mike was a little boy back in the 1950s, people were already taking note of the estrangement between scientists,engineers and the general public. Too few people, it was thought, were choosing technical careers. Outsiders viewed technical work as important – think of how technology shaped World War II and other fields in mid century – but viewed technical people as “weird” and “not like normal people.” One response to this mindset was for technical people to draw apart from the societal mainstream. Who wants to associate with people who view you in some ways negatively? Psychologists call this phenomenon negative reinforcement. When you couple it with the positive reinforcement of hanging with people like you who think like you do, you can get a subgroup that interacts with the larger society with increasing difficulty.

Sputnik was launched when Mike was 8. That served as a wake up call to the United States. Scientists and engineers might be “weird” but they did important things for the nation. Technical education was given a boost – a positive reinforcement. Our first attempts to compete with the Russians were failures. If this string of failures had continued, I do not know what would have happened to technical endeavors. Instead, though, initial failure was followed by quick success. Vanguard 1 failed. A few months later, Explorer 1 was a success. Other failures were followed by quick successes. A different model came into play. In 1941 the United States was surprised by Pearl Harbor. There were other defeats early in the war. But these defeats were followed by successes and eventual total victory over particularly negatively viewed opponents. The early years of the space race seemed to replay this scenario.

By the time Mike was 13, the United States had successfully launched men into space. People who did this were praised – another positive reinforcement – and rewarded financially – more positive reinforcement. Programs were expanded. Demand for technically trained people increased. By the time Mike entered college, the space field had heated up to a great extent. The first lunar landing happened while Mike was in college. This, obviously, was still more positive reinforcement to continue in technical fields. There were also some interesting things occurring in fields a bit removed from NASA. The film “2001: A Space Odyssey” came out. It has proved to be an enduring classic. It projected major future triumphs for the space field – space stations, commercial travel to space, passenger vehicles operating between Earth orbit and the Moon, a Moon base, even a manned mission to Jupiter. Technological optimists like Gerard K. O'Neill and Peter Glaser predicted giant cities in space and solar power satellites providing energy to Earth. These things were supposed to happen within our lifetimes.

After Apollo, however, the nation turned its attention to other matters. Budgets were slashed. People in the space field thought it was because outsiders didn't fully understand the tremendous potential of the field. Education and outreach efforts were launched. Some attention was initially paid.

Triumphs, while slowed down because of budget cuts, kept on coming. When Mike was in his twenties, Viking landed on Mars and Voyager began its journey through the Solar System. The discoveries made by these craft excited techies – and some of the public. There we see still more positive reinforcement of pursuit of technical fields.

The launch of Columbia in 1981 happened when Mike was 31. It seemed like the first step to the visions of space stations and regular use of space.

In short, we see Mike – and any number of contemporaries – positively reinforced for pursuing technical careers. The fact that there were setbacks makes the reinforcement only partial. But partial reinforcement can be quite powerful. Just think of gambling. Over the long haul, players lose. But their losses are broken up by wins. Let me note here, though, that gambling has major and critical differences with aerospace. While in one sense we are “playing against the house”, i.e., nature, our wins are lasting and build upon previous wins. The only way “the house” can win is if we slip into a dark age. One must note, though, that even the collapse of the Roman Empire did not lead to a permanent victory for nature. There was just a truly major delay in what we call progress.

Now let's compare Mike – and his contemporaries – to someone who was born in December 1972 after the last manned landing on the Moon. Their contemporaries tended to see techies as weird – and not nearly as important now that the Space Race had been won. While there are a few triumphs while these people are small children, the triumphs are not met with the same applause as the early triumphs in the late 50s and early 60s. In short, the positive reinforcement is less in both amounts and frequency.

Remember how Mike saw stunning triumphs by the age of 13? Shortly after their 13th birthdays, our younger colleagues saw Challenger blow up on television while they were in school watching the “Teacher in Space” take off. Talk about negative reinforcement... Not only was a shuttle lost with a crew, problems with the shuttle program surfaced. Many people stopped viewing the shuttle as a success and a step toward the Pan Am shuttle of 2001. Some people stopped trusting NASA. That's another negative reinforcement.

Hubble was launched in 1990 – with flawed optics because engineers basically screwed up and didn't do appropriate testing. Our first post Apollo generation hits college. Yes, Hubble was eventually fixed, but the initial screwup is vividly imprinted on our post Apollo generation. This is another negative reinforcement.

There was a successful Mars probe – complete with rover – in 1997. This, unfortunately, was followed up by a few real screwups with successors.

Our post Apollo generation hit their 30th birthdays in December of 2002. On February 1st, 2003, Columbia burns up on reentry. That same year a damning report about the failure comes out. Instead of being positively viewed role models, the older generation comes to be seen as dysfunctional and failing.

This can be pretty daunting for members of our younger generation who are enthusiastic about science and technology. Their peers, who are not really interested in science and technology, see those going into science and technology not as “weird, but important” but as just plain “weird” and to be avoided if not dominated and controlled. The failures and scandals serve as justifications for cutting funding for things like aerospace. This constitutes even more negative reinforcement.

There have been other changes since Mike was a little boy growing into a young man. Schools have shifted to a more top down bureaucratic model than existed in the 1950s. High schools have doubled in average size since the early 1970s, from about 1200 to 2400 students. There is some evidence that humans have real difficulty in dealing with large numbers of people. Some people are now advancing the idea that high schools should have only 600 to 900 students. Some experiments which have broken up large high schools into multiple academies – still in the same building – show better learning and healthier behavior in such environments. One way of coping with too many people is to withdraw into a subgroup much like oneself. This can hurt communications with people different from oneself simply because one gets much less practice at it. One way people who administer such schools have changed is that they now emphasize control more than their predecessors did in the 1950s and 1960s. Some people also have raised questions about some other changes in the way we bring up our young. For example, sports have been raised in importance much beyond what was normal in the 1950s and 1960s. One consequence of this phenomenon is that some teenagers are now being roused out of bed as early as 4 AM to participate in sports. This causes significant sleep deprivation which makes high level critical thinking much more difficult.

So far I have emphasized the negative. I have done this to get people's attention. I hope most recipients of this attempt at discussion have read this far. Believe it or not, I am keeping this short.

So – is the aerospace industry doomed to collapse in the United States? No – not at all. Change, though, is needed. Some people are already responding well to change. Some others have weathered the storms of the past decades and can be positive role models for the future. We can learn new things. Even old people – much older than the middle aged people who are most of the recipients of this message – can and do learn new things.

What's the first thing we can do? Believe it or not, admit to failure. This might sound weird, but respect, even esteem, by others increases when people admit to mistakes. In part this happens because it shows a recognition of reality. It also communicates to others a recognition of their own worth. Even a partial agreement says to the other person(s) “You have something to contribute because we don't know it all.”

We can also learn from role models – and praise such role models. One such role model among the people to whom I am sending this little piece of analysis is Jon Malay. Back when he was president of the American Astronautical Society I sent him an e-mail praising a column he had written for Space Times and suggesting an expansion of his ideas. He responded thoughtfully. Simply listening to others when you have a leadership position is positively reinforcing for said others. The fact that Jon agreed with my observations only increased my positive reinforcement. When Jon stood up at the AIAA Regional Leaders Conference in 2005 and said “I'm probably the most right brained person in this room” I had two thoughts. The first was a friendly “I might be able to give you a run for your money on that.” The second was here was a man somewhat like myself who could be a friend and from whom I could learn quite a bit. When I joined AIAA and started showing up at Baltimore Section events and trying to help, Tom Milnes – along with others – was friendly and encouraging. The section welcomed my efforts as webmaster. They followed my lead on Congressional Visits Day activities. They even – to my complete surprise – chose me as Vice Chair for a year. The last was a real surprise in large part because I thought it was too soon. Still, though, even that was positively reinforcing.

Since then I have gotten to know people better in the AIAA, especially the National Capital and Baltimore sections. All of you that I have gotten to know have demonstrated significant leadership ability, including the willingness and ability to listen to others. Can one say such things about everyone in aerospace management? I will not discuss people whom I have had little opportunity to observe. Unfortunately, I have personally witnessed people with extraordinarily poor leadership skills in management – even some with major management responsibilities – who have done significant damage to their organizations. I will not discuss these people in this short note.

There are other people who, if reports are to be believed, are serving as positive role models. One person is Simon “Pete” Worden, currently director of Ames. People who work at Ames praise him. Another is the recent Noble Prize winner John Mather. A few months ago I had the opportunity to discuss Mather with a good man that I personally knew from my time at Goddard who works with Mather. This man had nothing but praise for Mather, describing him as a leader who listened and who gave credit where credit was due. That squares with my own necessarily limited observations.

Why haven't I mentioned Mike Griffin? Mostly because I have had little opportunity to observe the man and because some people with at least some credibility have raised some issues about his leadership. In short, I know too little about him. What little I do know is generally positive.

There are other positive things going on. The younger generation does have a favorable view of the work on space tourism – things like Burt Rutan's Space Ship One. While people in their twenties might not be much interested in watching a handful of astronauts take a many year trip to Mars, the possibility of taking a short excursion into space themselves does attract support. They also are quite interested in the discoveries made by the probes on Mars. They can watch that work and participate at least a little bit. In short, the younger generation is not interested in simply sitting and watching but wants active involvement.

The work that NASA and NOAA are doing with regard to understanding climate change and other environmental concerns also attracts support. Once again, this is selling people things that they can benefit from themselves. The computer industry did not achieve its current success by selling computers to the government on contract but by selling tools that people in all kinds of endeavors could use to make their lives better and help their organizations succeed.

What else can people in AIAA – and, for that matter, our friendly sister organization the American Astronautical Society – do to promote healthy, responsible leadership? One thing people can do is to start learning about a dimension of leadership that draws too little attention these days in many circles. The dimension is the democratic-authoritarian. The two styles are markedly different. In some circumstances, the authoritarian model is entirely appropriate. In others, democratic leadership – leadership which listens and tries to develop consensus and is flexible enough to respond effectively to surprises works better. Oh – democratic leadership does not mean taking a vote on every decision. That is an incorrect perception that some people have.

I will recommend a particularly good book for people to read – DeMarco and Lister's Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams. It is well researched and is consistent with what I learned while in social psychology. People who are considering business school should also consider an emphasis that includes some social science work. The social sciences are not as hard and fast as, for example, aeronautical engineering, but they have made genuine contributions to understanding. At least graduates of such programs will not be completely surprised when something fails because of some human social factor comes into play. They will also be more able to clean up the resulting mess.

I think that is enough for now. I've written over 2600 words.

Energy From Space Luncheon

2007-08-09T13:06:00.000-07:00

On August 8th I attended a luncheon organized by the Marshall Institute. The speakers were Martin Hoffert and John Mankins. Fortunately, the Marshall Institute already has put up the slides used by Marty Hoffert and John Mankins.

Hoffert emphasized a number of points. There is an urgent bipartisan issue in taking a rational, objective look at our technological civilization continuing to burn carbon based fuels for energy. Global warming is one factor. The fact that such fuels are quite limited is another factor.

Hoffert noted that terrestrial wind and solar power are limited by storage. Denmark has the most energy obtained by wind percentage wise of any nation. They are situated quite close to neighboring Norway which uses hyrdoelectric power for its energy. What Denmark does is, when the wind is blowing sufficiently for a surplus to be generated, exports via electricity energy to Norway. Hydroelectric facilities in Norway pump water up into reservoirs. The water is released when Denmark's winds are producing less or even no energy. Hoffert suggested other places could use compressed air for energy storage.

Hoffert made an interesting observation about engineering and accounting. Enron, he said, was all about creative accounting, not creative engineering. Even if they had been honest, they did not advance energy technology. I will add that people in the United States have become more isolated from people different from them in recent decades. One Congressional staffer told me during the AIAA's Congressional Visits Day in April that they needed more people like your typical AIAA member working in Congress full time because people in Congress did not really understand science and technology and how the fields worked. One consequence of this isolation is that, for example, creative accountants can make proposals to increase profits that neglect to consider the downside of their proposals. Yes, you can fire inarticulate engineers but the consequences down the road are likely to be negative. This argues for engineers to learn more than just basic engineering as well.

Hoffert noted that early proposals for solar power satellites depended upon technologies that are far more primitive than ones we have today. For example, back in the 1970s, transmitting antennas required heavy, complex klystron tube based technology. Since then electronics has progressed to the point where much more flexible solid state technology may be used, thus simplifying the transmission. He also noted that the Carter administration invested heavily in SPS. The Reagan administration terminated this effort. At the time the proposal looked wildly expensive because of the limited technology available.

European aerospace engineers have proposed an interesting concept. They advocate a system where there would be laser transmission directly to the Sahara where solar cells would be generating power anyway because of naturally occurring sunlight. Such a system could provide electricity up to one terawatt at a cost of $0.05/kwh.

John Mankins made a number of points:

The world's population is growing with people dissatisfied living below the poverty line.
International competition for energy is becoming a security concern.
There is a growing need for considerable carbon neutral energy.
Keeping a long term scientific and technological society going is a major challenge.
Attention to the energy problem is growing.
In the past, while technically feasible, energy from space was not economically feasible. Early plans would have required $300B to $1T to be spent before the first SPS came online.

Mankins noted that there have been many changes since 1980:

Solar cells are much more efficient.
Solid state transmission is now possible.
Robotics has advanced.
A radically different, modular technology is now possible.
Making synthetic fuels partly dependent on solar is now possible.

A reporter asked if Congress was showing interest. Mankins replied that support was not currently well organized but was persistent. Support was better organized in the past.

Hoffert commented that SPS needs a champion. DOE needs a champion because the department is dominated by chemical and mechanical engineers who do not think of the space option. NASA doesn't think about getting energy from space. I will comment here that, once again, we see engineers sticking to their specialties, not looking at the broader picture and learning to work with people different from themselves. Hoffert added that we are far behind other countries in science and technical education, especially for leaders. Once again we see narrowness triumphing over broader, healthier ways of doing things. He pointed out that the Internet was initially developed for 20 years under DARPA and an additional 10 under the NSF before the Wall Street Journal noticed it.

This was an interesting luncheon. Once again, I saw many of the usual suspects one finds at DC events relating to space. Among them were Paul Werbos, Gary Oleson, Jeff Foust, Anne Ellis and J. P. Stevens of AIA. The last time I saw John Mankins was at a Hillary Clinton issues and policies breakfast. It was interesting seeing him give a talk for the Marshall Institute at the Capitol Hill Club. The club is a Republican bastion right next to Congress.

The energy from space community is getting some attention. It will be interesting to see if it gathers more support than in the past. The fact that a demonstrator project for only $100 M seems to be possible will be a major improvement over the past. Back in the 1970s many ideas (SPS and O'Neill colonies among them) were pushed and attracted some attention. The realities of technology at the time stopped many a dream. One truly limiting factor was the space shuttle. Instead of giving us cheap, reliable access to space, it became an extremely expensive, unreliable vehicle that could only be flown a few times a year rather than weekly.

A Few Thoughts About Michael Moore

2007-07-23T05:44:00.000-07:00

Elin Whitney-Smith posted on the St. Mark's Episcopal Church Yahoo group:

As to the political conversation in this country. It has always seemed to me that Martin Luther King benefited greatly from the existence of the Black Panthers and Malcom X. King was adamantly committed to desegregation and non-violence - the Black Panthers were not so picky about violence and Malcom X talked about Green power - do not shop in their stores do not buy their products.

Reform movements often do better if there is a voice out on the fringe. The voice of moderate reasoned argument can be heard better if people are afraid of the revolution.

I don't see anyone moving the argument much to the left. I do see far right argument which tends to move the center further right (let us not forget that Nixon was more liberal than Clinton).

We need some flaming radical leftists just to keep the conversation from drifting further right.

peace,

elin

I think you've got it backwards.

First, the NAACP, integration of the armed forces, Thurgood Marshall, MLK Jr., Rosa Parks, etc. preceeded the Black Panthers by some time. It's much easier to argue that the Black Panthers et al. benefitted from the civil rights movement that -- at least to the young boy that I was -- seemed more inclined to reach out to all sorts of people, including my -- for that time -- conservative Republican parents.

I will briefly put on my social psychologist hat here. People with authoritarian personalities, especially when they join together in groups of similarly disposed people, think they are tougher, stronger, more realistic, etc. Unfortunately the reality tends to be otherwise. Authoritarian groups get things howlingly wrong. To make it easier for St. Mark's people to understand and accept, just consider creationists -- the people who are firmly convinced in a "theory" that doesn't come close to reality. This is especially true of "young earth" creationists. Democratically led groups are better able to accept a wider variety of views and data than authoritarian groups. That doesn't mean democratically led groups are always superior in all ways. I suspect people who have served in military combat would agree that the authoritarian mode of leadership can be superior in some cases, especially in situations such as Normandy beach on June 6, 1944. That's just one example.

How many people on this list have actually got up in front of a group of people who are not necessarily disposed to their ideas and made a case for their ideas? I have done so. I seem to be more persuasive than others simply because I try to listen to others, connect with them where their minds currently are and try to persuade them to consider my ideas. Other people tell me I am quite good at that. My currently most important topic that I speak on is management reform in the aerospace industry. Yes, there are implications beyond the aerospace industry -- but I don't go all over the map. It's hard enough to do that in an hour or so, let alone get into a more complicated topic such as health care (1/6 of the economy) or global warming.

How many people on this list are familiar with the work of Edward Tufte? He's an emeritus professor at Yale who specializes in communication. I attended one of his seminars several years ago and read two of his books. He made several interesting points at the seminar I went to. He compared, for example, the information density of a major daily newspaper (e.g., New York Times, Washington Post) with a television news broadcast of a half hour (really 22 minutes). The major daily paper has more information above the fold of the first page than the entire TV broadcast. The Washington Post's recent series about Dick Cheney -- a simpler topic than health care -- had more information and analysis than is in Sicko. One can say these things just by noting the differences in the two media. Is TV, film, etc. worthwhile? Of course. It is a different way of considering the world. Drama can plumb reality in different ways than nonfiction writing -- or fiction writing. Last March, for example, I got an interesting look into a different culture -- that of the Tlingit Indian tribe -- via a production of Macbeth that was partly in English and partly in Tlingit. I would predict that our member Christine Peters, a Tlingit Indian, could expound on this far better than I could. When I want to consider health care reform, though, I want as much nonfiction data and analysis as possible. Sicko fails that test. Why? Because it has too little information. It was made by a man who doesn't seem to listen to people different from himself. Even Al Gore -- a man I do respect -- seemed to have a difficult time with that in An Inconvenient Truth.

Back to my psychologist mode. If you want more of something, positively reinforce that behavior -- not one that some people claim makes that behavior easier to do. I don't need the "inspiration" of a Robert Zubrin -- a real nut if you ask me and quite a few others -- to talk about the aerospace industry and how I -- and some others -- think it needs to change. If you want to get more thoughtful analysis and advocacy, positively reinforce those of us who are actually trying to do that. In my case, make out the checks to "Charles J. Divine" and mail them to me at 7059 Palamar Turn, Lanham, Maryland 20706. Yes, I am joking.

Why I Am Not A Social Psychologist

2007-06-15T07:37:00.000-07:00

I told this story last night after a run.

After trying grad work in physics and becoming very frustrated -- lack of employment opportunities after the Ph.D. was a factor -- I switched into social psychology. The program I was accepted into was the one at Teachers College, Columbia University in NYC. Things went OK at first. I was nearly finished with coursework after two plus years. My grades were high, I got along well with fellow students and even, to some extent, with the faculty, although they were more authoritarian than I -- or my fellow students -- liked. One woman cynically remarked "We're very democratic around here. We call the chairman Mort to his face -- and God behind his back." Still, though, I was making progress. Although, once again, the job prospects were starting to look dim for all of us.

The incident, though, that really started turning me against the faculty was the aftermath of a mugging. I'd lived in this converted brownstone for over two years. One Tuesday evening in November as I was returning from the supermarket, a man attacked me at the entrance. Using a knife, he forced me first into the building and then upstairs into my apartment. He ransacked my apartment looking for valuables. He threatened my life. Fortunately I was able to get him to leave without physically harming me. While he had tied me up, I was able to get out into the hallway and scream for help. Some neighbors came immediately, released me and phoned the police. The police came, took testimony, staked out my bank's ATM for awhile with me (the thief had taken my ATM card) and eventually returned me to my apartment. The apartment was a complete mess. The mugger had slashed my waterbed to pieces. Even if he hadn't I would not have wanted to stay another night.

My adviser, one Harvey Hornstein, lived a block away with his wife. Since I was pretty distraught, I phoned Harvey and explained the situation. I asked if I could stay the night with him. Harvey's response was priceless. He asked "Don't you have any friends?" This possibly stunned me more than the mugging. I mean, the man was a psychologist -- not an aerospace engineer or IT geek or physicist or -- you get the picture. With that response in mind, I looked again in my personal directory and phoned fellow student Paul. His response was friendly. I wound up staying the night sleeping on his couch.

The next morning I telephoned a man who's been a long time friend by now. His name is Paul Ambos. He was already married to a wonderful woman named Catherine. I knew Paul because we both went to Rutgers. He was -- and still is -- a corporate attorney. After explaining the situation to Paul, he simply said that I would be spending the night with him and Catherine.

What's wrong with this picture? My adviser -- a social psychologist -- brushes me off. A corporate attorney takes me in. Soon after that I began to question my commitment to psychology. I learned a good bit about humanity those two plus years. I did weigh things again in my mind. People at Columbia were already paying me for math advice and computer programming. Social psychology was starting to look like another unrewarding field. I decided to switch into IT. But, now, I was armed with much more knowledge of how humans behaved, especially in organizations. Whether this has done me more good than harm remains to be seen. Today, seeing what's going in too many high tech organizations, I seem to be back trying to sell myself as some sort of management or political consultant or something else along those lines. We shall see what happens.

Breakfast With Hillary

2007-06-06T13:44:00.000-07:00

Today I attended a breakfast and issues discussion group put on by the Hillary for President campaign. Lori Garver invited me as well as some other people. The breakfast was light -- things like rolls, bagels, fruit, coffee, tea. We were not there for the food. I began by chatting with complete strangers, telling them about my special interests -- science, technology, aerospace, especially space. I chatted a bit with a nice woman named Molly about young people today and perhaps why they weren't as much interested in science and technology as when we were young. I did bring up the C. P. Snow observations about the two cultures. I also mentioned how much more withdrawn and subdivided scientists and engineers were today than even in the not all that distant past. This makes it more and more difficult for most to even discuss their fields with outsiders. Molly noted that young people today who were naturally outgoing were rewarded by our culture while those -- especially young men like her son -- who had a bent for science, mathematics, engineering, etc. were subtly discouraged even to the point of being "learning disabled" simply because they were not interested in some subject in school. I told her about the sons of a Mensa friend in Pennsylvania who fit this profile quite well.

After nearly an hour of this kind of chatting, Hillary made her appearance. She came in bright eyed and bushy tailed, strode to the podium, introduced several members of Congress in attendance and then made some brief remarks. She touched on several topics such as the Iraq war and the general failure of the Bush administration. She did mention some tech oriented topics -- energy independence, global warming, H-1B visas (that surprised me), education. It was a good speech in front of a crowd disposed to be friendly. If there were any press in the room I did not see them. As for Republicans or other natural opponents, they were either very quiet or not in attendance.

Around 9:30 we broke into issues groups. Lori Garver and Glen Mahone -- both of whom worked for NASA in senior positions at some point -- led the discussion. There were a number of people there from Lori's firm, Avascent. I didn't count the number of participants, but I'm pretty sure it was more than 10 and less than 20. I identified myself as one person in the room who had actually done tech work. John Mankins also did so. I briefly commented I could well understand how Mike Griffin managed to say such controversial things with regard to global warming the previous week. Instead of sticking to a tech viewpoint, though, I did bring up -- in a hopefully productive way -- some of the things I noticed about tech culture while working at NASA Goddard. I did point out some positive role models -- Nobel prize winning physicist John Mather, Ames Center Director Pete Worden -- and said a few things about why they should be emulated by other tech people.

Things broke up around 11 AM. I headed back home via Metro.

How I Chose to Name This Blog

2007-05-29T08:23:00.000-07:00

During last year's political campaign in Maryland I received a telephone call from someone purporting to be a poller. She might have actually been one. I must note, though, there were some reliable reports of campaigns using a technique known as push polling to get people to think in certain ways that would lead to support of certain candidates.

Anyway, towards the end of the conversation this woman did ask the question "Do you consider yourself to be a liberal, a moderate or a conservative?" I answered "You forgot libertarian and green!" She repeated her question without modification. This time I answered "Yes!" At this point the woman, a bit of exhaustion in her voice, simply said "Pick one." I, rather disappointedly, simply said "Oh. All right. Put me down as moderate."

I try to listen to everyone. Most people who know me describe me as friendly if a bit shy.

Do I know anybody famous in the world of blogging? Well, last weekend at the International Space Development Conference in Houston, I was sitting around a table in the hotel bar with Glenn Reynolds (of Instapundit fame), Rand Simberg (Transterrestrial Musings) and Dale Amon (Samizdata) discussing blogging of all things. I mentioned I was thinking of taking up blogging rather than just making comments on other people's blogs and places like Slashdot. Glenn did tell me to go to blogger.com and follow the simple directions. That's how I wound up here. Does that conversation mean I'm a part of the same crowd as Glenn, Rand and Dale? No. We all support space exploration and development.

Some of my views tend to be libertarian. Other views are somewhat different. I easily support many positions that one would describe as liberal Democratic. Other views are moderate Democratic or Republican. The only people who truly annoy me are the so called "religious right" and some authoritarian leftists such as Ralph Nader. One moderate Republican friend describes both of us as flaming moderates. So I decided to name my blog "Independent Broad Minded Centrist." I originally thought of using "Flaming Moderate" or "Flaming Centrist" but I thought that perhaps too likely to get into fights. I can and will fight when the circumstances call for it, but I don't go out of my way to pick fights. At least I don't think so.

That's enough for now.