The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Chuck Divine:

Part of it is the way some of us were brought into unions. Back in the 1980s I had a New Jersey civil service position. Unions were not exactly all that necessary for civil servants -- at least back then. We had plenty of protections built into the law. We had protection against arbitrary firing. We had real benefits -- including real vacation time. My mother had the same sort of benefits in the 1950s. So why did I have to pay a representation fee to the Communications Workers of America? The generally accepted reason was that some politicians were cosy with the CWA.

Unions became perceived as more important to their leaders than their members.

Today we -- well, some of us -- do note the way the middle class is being screwed over. For example, married couples now average 90+ hours per week of work in the economic workplace. That's arguably 30 more hours than is healthy. Do we have mass protests though? Not as far as I can see. Some workaholics (the last acceptable addiction) actively embrace that lifestyle.

What's the answer? It might help if prounion people got out into society and began listening to people as well as lecturing them. Coalition building is becoming a lost skill in our society.

Xopher, thanks for the correction. Please accept my apologies for my error.

For me it was, if anything, my parents were right because followed by whatever reasoning I could follow. Discussions, not orders. You're absolutely right about the Dobson types not being representative of most Republicans back then. One memory I have of my San Francisco days is more conservative parents wanting their children to be more like Roy Kepler of Kepler's Books in Palo Alto. OK, he was an absolute pacifist. But he was also a pretty nice guy, an independent businessman with a normal family, a house in the suburbs and even a white Ford station wagon. My parents drove a Chevy station wagon.

Lucy, unlike Xopher, I'm not counting foreigners such as Castro, Chavez (possibly) and Mugabe. That's too easy. Yes, they do seem to be on the left and they also are tyrants. Unless an American (or citizen of another free, democratic state) actively embraces them, I consider it somewhat dishonest to tar domestic leftists with that particular brush.

So when I refer to authoritarianism on the left, what am I thinking about? One character I truly dislike is Ralph Nader. He's been known to bully his staff. His general approach to politics seems to favor tight government regulation of people and business rather than compromise and developing better ways of doing things. I'm also pretty disturbed at the way schools are run these days.

Then there is the way some people argue. When something disturbs me, I try to give a clear explanation of what I'm thinking. This is true even if I really dislike the person with whom I am in conflict. For instance, I have very good reason to actively hate some people in the aerospace industry. Do I engage in name calling, though? No. Instead I describe in detail as best as I can what I don't like about them.

Sometimes, as well, people are too narrow in their views. Let me give a concrete example. Early this year I had an interesting conversation with a young woman from Alaska. She's in Maryland doing graduate work in some sort of literature. She gave me an interesting reason to support drilling in ANWR. Some people in Alaska think it better to drill in ANWR, where environmental controls can be implemented, rather than next door in Siberia, where controls, if they existed, would be a joke. I'm not up enough on that particular controversy to say who's right. But, if those Alaskans are even partly right, I think it tends to support my view that, rather than attacking our dependence upon petroleum, we should be developing better energy sources. That's democratic leadership, not authoritarian bullying.

Summing up, what I'm trying to say is that too many on both the left and right automatically dismiss ideas different from their own. You don't see nearly as much of that on this blog as other places, which is one of the reasons I like to read it.

I tend to describe my politics as progressive conservative libertarian socialist pragmatic. One Republican friend just uses the word "eclectic" to characterize me.

Xopher (Christopher Hatton) wrote:

People in general are pretty stupid about their beliefs. The dictatorship of absolutism is what causes that. "If you're absolutely certain, chances are you're also absolutely wrong - or will be soon."

You grew up, I gather, in a home that tended to absolutism. I didn't. Yes, people can be stupid. They can also show remarkable intelligence.

For people curious about my family let me fill in a few details. I'm an only child. I'm also what's called a "cradle Episcopalian." The modern Episcopal church is run as a representative democracy. My family's structure was strongly democratic. Mom and Pop were really equals.

Bruises? Cuts? Boy did I have them -- but only because of my own clumsiness. I lost count of how many times I scared my poor mother half to death.

Xopher (Christopher Hatton) also wrote:

While I agree that authoritarian leftists are as bad as authoritarian rightists, authoritarianism in this decade is much, much more a property of the right than of the left. "Support the troops, not the War" was not a sentiment heard in the Vietnam area, more's the pity. And I'm sorry for what you endured then, by the way, not that I was part of the anti-war movement in any way other than wearing a peace medallion and watching it on TV.

I actually became a part of the peace movement back then because I did encounter some "support the troops" pacifists in San Francisco. Once they got over their shock at my story (how many physicists did you think the Army drafted and then stuck in a civilian laboratory far from any Army base?) they were wonderfully supportive. They were extremely friendly. They were just as supportive of real soldiers. I personally witnessed that. A good bit of the peace movement was like that. I didn't encounter the abusive types until I was finally released from the Army and moved to New York State.

I don't know whether left or right has more authoritarian types today. These bullies are considerably more prominent in American life today than back in the 1960s. It's an issue I raise with all kinds of people. It does seem to me that people on the right and left are more tolerant of authoritarians who claim to be on their side than used to be the case.

I can remember one spanking. By my mom with her hand. Corporal punishment was clearly not a feature of my life. What I remember was a warm, loving family. My parents were a bit shy and reserved with outsiders. I remember books and educational toys. I remember seeing Julie Andrews in "My Fair Lady" on Broadway. I remember trips to Canada and up and down the Eastern seaboard.

What might surprise some people here is that my parents were moderately conservative Republicans.

The first time I encountered real abuse was in the U.S. Army. I was a draftee in 1967. The second time I encountered real abuse was when I ran into some authoritarian leftists who had latched onto the antiVietnam movement.

It's probably those experiences that have led me to think abusive bullies like Dobson et al. aren't tied to any one particular point on the political spectrum. The governing factor seems more like how authoritarian they are.

I don't have any children. If I did, though, I would be tempted to pull them out of the public schools and home school them to protect them from the systematic abuse that seems endemic to our extremely hierarchical, heavily bureaucratic, overly centralized systems currently in place in the United States.

Some things bother me about this discussion.

First, people don't seem to consider why the various "red meat" tactics work. It can be argued that life is, in many important ways, worse for Americans today than it was 40 years ago. How is life worse? Well, I have read recently that disposable income is lower now for most families than it was in 1970. Then there is the whole issue of free time. Back in the 1960s feminists asserted that they wanted to share the burdens of men rather than stay at home and take care of families in the division of labor then popular. What do we have today? Men spending more time at work -- and women spending nearly as much time at work as men. Other life needs are being squeezed badly. Sleep is down -- and hostility is up.

The holier than thou posturing of some liberals and leftists is also a bit much to bear. Liberals and leftists have been active in the world. The left might not be getting its way in everything, but saying the left is totally without responsibility for the current state of affairs is not true in my opinion. For instance, consider Ralph Nader. Anyone want to argue he hasn't had an impact on our society? OK, I don't like Nader. I think he's as much a bully as, for example, many heads of corporations. I've read that, for example, at one point his staff considered forming a union to protect themselves against his unreasonable demands.

I know it runs counter to the opinions of many, but I suspect real listening to others, admitting one's own mistakes and seeking to help others is more likely to lead to positive change than "red meat" tactics.

For what it's worth, I've been known to argue with libertarians in public too. A Republican friend has described my politics as "eclectic." I admit I don't like bullies of any stripe.

Enough for now.

Hmm. I wonder when Texas is going to declare the Episcopal Church not to be a religion but a club that meets on Sunday mornings (usually) to discuss religion. We tend to be pretty open minded about lots of things. Some churches have even elected acknowledged atheists to the vestry (the church's governing board). OK, we call such people "skeptics." Even some Episcopalian conservatives went along with Robinson's election as bishop in New Hampshire. They considered it a states' rights issue (yes, truly).

I'll point to a thread titled "War Crimes" on a blog run by military people (current and former) called Sgt. Stryker's Daily Briefing.

With a very few exceptions, it's a heartening affirmation of our beliefs and values.

Yes, I'm disgusted, too. I'm working very hard at keeping my temper in control. Outrage fogs the mind -- and clear minds are needed to address this kind of stuff.

And, appropos the other link, it's off to do my bit to bring about needed reform of aerospace.

Patrick Nielsen Hayden wrote:

I couldn't agree more. You may or may not be aware that Teresa has moderate-to-severe narcolepsy; it's a major background fact about our lives, and it means we both know a fair amount about sleep.

I have been saying for many years to anyone who will listen that the invention of the electric light has had an effect on human society comparable to what happens when cultures first run into distilled spirits, only bigger and more profound and unsettling. Indeed, we've hardly even begun to adapt to it, and a great deal about our modern consciousness can quite possibly be ascribed to the fact that we've been operating our bodies and brains wildly outside their design specs, where the diurnal cycle is concerned.

I've learned about Teresa's narcolepsy here. You have my sympathies.

I agree with you fully about operating our brains and bodies out of spec. I'm lucky enough to have both a mind and a body that have some exceptional abilities. When I can't do things that some fools think we all should be doing, I can get rather angry. One wonders how many of the problems we see today are a result of failing to acknowledge our human limitations.

Yes, another post.

Should anyone get the idea I'm defending in any way the things that were done to Kos or any of the people who did them, I'm not.

The first encounter I had with this controversy was on Reynolds' site. My opinion of Kos, based on that one data point, was pretty negative, as I hope you can understand.

It was over here that I got a fuller portrait of Kos. Wait a minute, I thought. Kos grew up in El Salvador during the civil war? He's a veteran of the U.S. Army? I understand his outburst much better now.

Using that outburst in a political context like this violates my deepest ethics. Having emotional outbursts is normal human behavior.

People using this kind of tactic in a political setting have got a good bit of explaining to do -- and a lot of work to do to get me to consider their points seriously again. This is especially true of people who have never been really up against it in their lives.

Oh, one more thing. This sort of person does have an invitation to go running with me if we're ever in the same place. I'll be nice. I really will. I'll stop after 5 or 6 miles and have a beer while I wait for them to catch up. And I'll run the second 5 or 6 miles at a slower pace. I'll even call for help if they have a medical emergency. Damn, I guess I'll have to carry my cell phone on these runs.

I've decided to make this a second post rather than simply bundle it with the previous.

One of my activities is running with a "disorganization" known as the Hash House Harriers. We have a number of current, former and retired military in the group, as well as some diplomatic corps people. I think most of the people reading this blog would like my friends in this group. You might not agree with all that they think and say, but but you would respect and like them as people. I'll mention one other thing about these people -- some of them have served in Iraq.

We don't normally discuss politics. This is supposed to be a stress reducing activity. But occasionally politics does come up. I plan on asking my friends what they think about this mercenery stuff that's being discussed.

If something especially interesting comes up, I'll post a followup.

I've been wondering what I should say in this discussion for some time.

Let me begin by comparing three blogs: this one, Jerry Pournelle's and Glenn Reynolds. Electrolite is maintained by Patrick Nielsen-Hayden, a professional editor. Jerry Pournelle's is maintained by Jerry Pournelle, a successful science fiction author who also writes informatively on computer topics. Reynolds's site is his own. He's a law professor. All three have real world work to do. I have no basis on which to judge Reynolds' work. Pournelle's and Nielsen-Hayden's I do. Both strike me as doing good to excellent professional work.

Pournelle and Nielsen-Hayden post much less to their blogs than Reynolds does to his. I also think that Pournelle's and Nielsen-Hayden's postings are much more thoughtful than Reynolds'.

I can't say I really know any of these people all that well. I've encountered Pournelle at L5 Society conferences. I've likewise met Reynolds at some NSS activities. I was active enough in L5 and NSS leadership that people do recognize me in that arena.

These days I'm pretty much on the outs with the dominant factions of NSS. But I still have some knowledge about the people who inhabit that subculture. There does seem to be a tendency for people active in space groups today to be moderately disconnected from reality, lacking in listening skills and obsessed with their vision. Too many of them also work too hard on their activities. This results in harmful things like workaholism and sleep deprivation.

I suspect from postings on his site that Reynolds is burning out. I think he would be well served by getting more rest and stepping back from the cyberspace battles a bit. The same thing can be said for more than one person in this arena.

To give people some idea where I'm coming from on this topic, let me recommend two books. Some years ago I read Stanley Coren's "Sleep Thieves." It's about sleep deprivation in modern society. I'm currently about half way through William Dement's "The Promise of Sleep." The second book is longer and covers more territory. It also stresses how sleep deprived Americans are and explains consequences of this behavior.

In short, I recommend people get enough sleep (6 to 9 hours a night dependent on the person; 7 to 8 is probably a better range to follow for most). Shorting yourself can have all sorts of unpleasant and counterproductive effects.

Some random thoughts:

My first literary thought on 9/11 was Donald Kingsbury's "The Moon Goddess and the Son." In that book Afghan rebels build cruise missiles and launch them against Soviet targets (the old Soviet Union is still occupying Afghanistan). For jollies, they target one on the Kremlin. It actually hits the Kremlin and takes out the Politburo. World War III nearly ensues. I enjoyed the book immensely. But on 9/11 I thought "Damn -- somebody decided to use airplanes as cruise missiles."

Second thought: I don't think Bush is stupid. He is, however, very narrow and incurious. I suspect the same can be said of much of the administration. People in the SF world are quite intelligent and curious and open minded. We tend to think all intelligent people share those attributes. They don't. I find it easier to believe that the Bushies just don't think about the broader consequences of their ideas/policies/actions than they are some sort of Machiavellian geniuses.

Reading BSD's commentary above about Rice does scare me. There is a personality type known as "high functioning" psychotic. Such people can mask some pretty disturbing mental problems. Being intelligent helps in this activity. Choosing a life where clear behavior and thinking patterns are obvious is also a help. Rice is clearly intelligent -- and she's picked a group of people who do pronounce clear standards of behavior and thinking.

It really is time to rename the DHS to American Security Service. Of course the people who for the renamed agency will be known as Homeland Officers for Law Enforcement. You do the acronym.

35 years ago when I was an active pacifist, my fellow pacifists have trouble understanding two things about me: my enthusiasm for the Apollo program and my mistrust of Ralph Nader.

I read "Unsafe at Any Speed" when it came out. I also read the comments of people who had been cited in the book. People who were critical of Detroit were even more critical of Nader. I got the impression that Nader was on some kind of crusade only tangentially related to automobiles or even consumers. Even back then there were rumors that he in fact favored a highly authoritarian society with him and his cronies in control. There was a lot of that going around back then.

One benefit of his run again for President is that a much larger number of people might take a closer look at the man and his work. He makes an even more negative impression on me today than he did in the 1960s.

Oh -- I do wish I had paid closer attention to my friends' doubts about Apollo. These days I'm thinking their thoughts about von Braun et al. were remarkably prescient.

What really disturbs me about this thread is what's been done to the Republican party -- and, by extension, to our nation.

I was brought up (1945-1963) in a solid Republican household. My father was an accountant. My mom stayed at home until I was 14. We went to the local Episcopal church on Sunday. About the only unusual things I can remember was quite a bit more travel than my contemporaries and a lot more reading.

I rebelled some in my late teens and twenties. At one point I was a pacifist anarchist. Since then I've been all over the map (well, nothing totalitarian). Today I've half facetiously described my politics to friends as "democratic libertarianism with a human face."

I can see some fundamental problems with government efforts so cherished by liberals. For instance, I think current data suggest the way we are educating young people (highly centralized bureaucracies) has major problems.

But what can I do about this? The educational establishment is very strong in the Democratic party. Keeping that part of the coalition in the coalition is important for winning elections.

Could I turn to the Republican party? Not this one, I suspect. This party doesn't even seem remotely like my parents' party of Eisenhower and Cliff Case (New Jersey liberal Republican Senator of the past). It doesn't even seem like Barry Goldwater's party either. I gather even Goldwater has expressed negative comments about these "religious right" loons.

So what do I -- and I expect millions of people like me -- do?

All,

I've just posted the URL for this discussion to the St. Mark's Episcopal Church on Capitol Hill e-mail list.

Brief description of St. Mark's: progressive, questioning. Oh -- if you stand on the right street corner you can see both St. Mark's and the U.S. Capitol.

To find out more about St. Mark's, try the church web site.

PNH, Terry, All,

I'm only an occasional visitor on this board. The things I've said so far are things I've addressed to the general public. I'm not surprised to find out there's been discussion I haven't been aware of.

The only name I've seen that I recognize (besides PNH & TNH) is Tim Kyger's. Tim possibly remembers me from old L5 days.

This discussion has been most interesting. I've learned some good things about people here. I'll try to spend more time here -- and speak with more knowledge about the crowd.

Terry,

I'm past looking for a mission to anywhere. While I understand the crowd that thinks an inspiring mission with a proper budget is all that NASA needs to fix what ails it, I tend to disagree.

Personally, I want to see the space field morph into an entity which can easily support multiple ventures by less than national level organizations. I think this requires the reform of the field into one that is more free, open, flexible and democratic. Is such a reform possible? I and others think it is.

I don't know how many of the people who read Electrolite have actually worked in contemporary aerospace. When people ranging from me to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board say things are screwed up, you can trust that we're telling the truth. And, yes, even after the recent successes on Mars, the situation is still really screwed up. Those triumphs happened with inadequate testing and severe stresses on the people who did the work. Around JPL, I have heard, they joked that Spirit and Opportunity should really have been named Divorce and Exhaustion. Looks like some reform is still needed at NASA.

Lydia,

Probably slightly boneheaded this time. I don't hang out all the time on Electrolite. I haven't heard that joke before. Interestingly enough, I have a very well developed sense of humor -- sometimes subtle, sometimes not. If you check out my web site, you will see ample evidence.

Why did I select the Eco quote? Because I've encountered entirely too many people (of a variety of political and nonpolitical persuasions) on the net who are never seized by any sort of doubt. I find them unbearable -- and wrongheaded. When they wind up agreeing with me, I check my arguments again.

It's entirely possible I've become too sensitized to humorless fools -- at least in some contexts.

Next time I see that joke, I'll laugh.

Terry, Natasha,

I personally know Republicans who are quite involved in space politics. They are honest, good people. They are doing good work. Are they above criticism? No. But I do think they are on our side.

NASA has been a dreadful mess for some time. Check out the Columbia report. Or you could come to one of my talks.

So, while I'm all over the place politically (OK, I can't stand either the religious right or Ralph Nader), I can give the Bushies somewhat positive marks in this area. Part of my own political style is to be open, friendly and democratic as much as possible. Yes, I can be quite angry at times. You'll find some of that in some of the serious stuff on my web site. But even when I'm angry, I try to control it and moderate it -- I don't want to be owned by my anger.

PNH writes:

"act without thinking"

Off to the side he quotes:

“They lied to you. The Devil is not the Prince of Matter; the Devil is the arrogance of the spirit, faith without smile, truth that is never seized by doubt. The Devil is grim because he knows where he is going, and, in moving, he always returns whence he came.” (Umberto Eco, The Name of the Rose)

I don't act without thinking. To me that's the road to disaster.

Currently I'm more inclined to support John Kerry than George W. Bush. But, to toss a bit of iconoclasm into the mix, I'll say one good thing about the Bush administration.

A couple of years ago the very bad NASA Administrator Dan Goldin resigned (possibly because it was about to come out how bad he'd been). Goldin was a bipartisan disaster. He was appointed by Bush I and kept on all throughout Clinton's two terms.

The man Bush II picked as Goldin's successor is, by all reliable accounts, an incredible improvement. I'd like to see Kerry pick a Democratic equivalent to Sean O'Keefe if he's elected.

The new Bush space proposal seems like a major improvement as well.

Granted, both of these improvements were, to some degree, forced by events. But at least Bush II managed to make things better, not worse.

Yes, I'm very engaged in how we do science and technology in this country today. I think we're getting it wrong in major ways. I'm not a one issue voter, but I want to see Democrats -- if elected -- imrpove this situation, not make it worse.

That's enough for now.

Comment statistics for Chuck Divine on the Electrolite blog

Total: 33 comments. View all these comments on a single page.