Obama Health Care Rally September 17, 2009

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.