Relocating

Nope, I'm not leaving Florida again (if I can absolutely help it). I am, however, moving my unsorted personal opinions to a new domain so as to take advantage of the marvels of personal branding on the Internet. I can now be found on http://bartleahy.com/

If you find something worth reading on this page, feel free to comment. However, if you want to see my latest thoughts, check out the new site. The visuals will be better but the opinions could be more watered down. It happens.

Thank you for reading.

Conservatism as a Disposition

"A conservative is someone who stands athwart history yelling Stop."
--William F. Buckley

I'm really not writing today about politics in this entry, but feel free to make a political interpretation if you like. What I'd like to take some time to explain is how the conservative temperament operates, and maybe from there you can see how that leads to a political disposition. It runs something like this: some folks are not comfortable with change. Some of this discomfort is based on fear or mistrust, true; however, some resist change because the lifestyle, rules, or processes they grew up with work, or they have experienced negative consequences from making sudden or unplanned change.

A conservative seeks stability and comfort. Going with the flow--i.e., the rules received from parents, grandparents, ancestors, etc.--is the path of most comfort and least resistance. Said conservative accepts the guidelines laid down before they were born with the assumption that a) authority figures know what they're doing or b) there had to be good reasons for why the rules exist. The more inquiring will ask why things are the way they are. If living with the rules becomes more problematic than not doing so, then they'll consider changing their behavior or the rules.

I had a friend in high school who had no interest in traveling more than five miles from our home town. Moving beyond the Western Suburbs of Chicago was just not something that made her comfortable. Perhaps that's an extreme example, but I'm certain she was not unusual.

When people in the West lived in villages in ancient and medieval times, aside from occasional raids by bandits or neighboring countries, they accepted that the ebb and flow of life was more or less static and cyclical. The disruptive influences of the Renaissance were merchants, who dared to challenge the wealth of the Crown and the authority of the Church. Merchants--budding capitalists--believed that the world could be improved and changed, that people could become wealthier, wiser, and more knowledgeable than their ancestors. The Crown and the Church pushed back, but change happened anyway. And while Western Civilization faced several setbacks--the Napoleonic Wars, World War I, and World War II--that philosophy of affluence, scientific inquiry, and technological advance has continued up to the present.

Some people are still not comfortable with all this change. One typical conservative sentiment is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." That could apply to anything from manners to business processes to technology. In fact, I butted heads with a gung-ho fellow cast member when I worked at Disney because she was trying to push through a bunch of changes to how our department was conducting business. I finally had to draw her aside and say, "Look, I know you have a lot of great ideas, but you have to understand that not everyone wants to change. You need to provide them reasons for why they should do things your way."

Conservatives--again, speaking of people with a conservative temperament, not necessarily a conservative political affiliation--are not just anti-change or pro-comfort to be difficult or selfish. There are times when change IS disruptive and DOES have harmful side-effects. There are financial, personal, and resource costs to change. Example: "Hey, why don't you move to Washington, DC? You'll make more money. You'll be closer to me, and others." I hear this one occasionally. However, I moved there before and didn't like it. I didn't fit in with the "political" culture, as I found it focused on manipulating and gaining power over others--I'm not interested in either. That's a social and personal cost. My bills were much higher in DC/Northern Virginia, and I don't have a bunch of money to pay for another move. Those are financial costs. I could put myself into further debt or I could stay where I am in Orlando, warm and happy. Or there's my pal who suggested we run in the Disney Half-Marathon next year. Could I do that? Possibly. Might I get into better shape? Probably, but will there be costs? Yes: the entry fee, for one. But more importantly there would be a physical cost to me because I have bad knees.

If there's one mistake that people who have a more change-oriented disposition make when dealing with personal conservatives, it's their dismissal of the real costs of change, whatever they might be. They always have an answer to any objection, assuming that the conservative wants to change but they just haven't thought through the details yet. Much like extroverts who think that introverts really want to go out and socialize in large groups, they just haven't been invited to the right group yet. Sorry, no. It doesn't work that way. Sometimes a conservative says no for a good reason. They have thought things through and have decided that the costs of some change in their life are not worth the advertised benefits. And if they don't say yes to a particular change, the result will turn out just fine.

Thinking Like a Bully

I was contemplating a story a while back (not written, but that's another story) in which the viewpoint character was a bully, from childhood on up to adulthood. The problem is, I never understood them as a kid. I understand them a bit better now. What follows are my observations and educated guesses about how and why they operate as they do.

The central motivation in a bully's life seems to be obtaining power over others. This desire could arise naturally--some people are just born to want to be "the boss" in an aggressive fashion (as opposed to leaders, who have the same ability to get others to follow them but usually have more benign intentions). Others develop the desire to push others around in response to their childhood experiences. Either they were pushed around by parents or siblings or they saw one parent dominate the other one, usually with threats or use of physical force. Perhaps there are other explanations, but those are the ones that occur to me.

What's interesting and disturbing is to see how bullying plays out in the adult world. Just because you grow up in an abusive or threatening household doesn't mean you want to or have to emulate that in your own life. I'd like to think some don't. My home life while growing up was benign; my interactions with my peers, not always. I took a lot of teasing personally and mostly just wanted to get along and be left alone: "If you don't have anything nice to say..." The desire to control, boss around, or manipulate others just isn't a huge motivator in my life. I come at life with a notion of live and let live.

A bully doesn't think that way. A bully is paranoid, believing that everyone is out to get him/her, and the only way to deal with someone is to strike back at some perceived slight or to strike first before someone else gets the better of you. A bully "controls" his/her environment by fear--intimidating others through aggressiveness to prevent others from even desiring to "cross" them. Paradoxically, that effort to control through fear is born from the bully's own fears--sense a threat, attack it before it hurts you! It's a sad way to go through life.

Sometimes bullying takes different forms: back-stabbing, ostracism, gossiping, peer pressure, or "political" pressure, all of which are subtle ways of bending the will of the individual to the group: do things our way or you'll be sorry! Bullying works on individuals and groups. An individual with a group behind him/her is stronger and has more resources than a single person alone. A bully tries to get into the head of the victim and get them to imagine what will happen to his/her own skin, reputation, etc., if left standing alone. These dynamics are the same whether one is talking about a cult leader or a romantic partner who seeks to isolate and control another. Gangs, for example, usually don't jump other gangs or even groups of people, they usually assault a single individual and outnumber them.

"There's strength in numbers," the saying goes, and it's perfectly true. The converse of that is,  "There's weakness in isolation." Bullies play on those fears. They also tend to prey on the small, the weak, and the loner. These types of targets are unlikely to cause damage to the bully, are less able to defend themselves, or are less able to call upon others to help them in the event of personal danger. Bullies note those dynamics, too: they're opportunists, preferring targets of opportunity and seeking to dominate only those most easily dominated. Bullies are not exactly cowards, but they only push where they think they will get away with their intimidating behavior.

Some bullies operate on a broader scale and have a larger stage from which to work: crime bosses, armed gangs, even heads of governments. Again, the dynamics apply: isolate individuals, attack the weak, do as much as possible within what seems allowable. Sometimes they hit outside their weight to prove their toughness to others. Sometimes they do it because they sense that a stronger power will let them get away with bad actions. They will keep pushing the limits until they're forced to fight.

What is one to do with adult bullies? In the end, the choices haven't changed for thousands of years: you can either submit to their wishes, ignore them, or stand up to them. However, it's important to know that the first two options have consequences.

Appeasement or capitulation breeds reactive cowardice in the victim and leads to a situation where you lose control of your freedom of thought and movement. A bully, sensing surrender, will get MORE, not LESS aggressive because they now see someone who is not just weak but confessing weakness. Building on that, the bully will double down on their demands and misbehavior, figuring that if they push hard enough they'll get even more for their efforts. Appeasing a bully triggers a "reward" response, where they want and get more by acting in an aggressive fashion.

Ignoring bullies--regardless of the size--might or might not work. If they think you're an easy target, they will keep coming because they think they can get away with bad behavior or maybe they'll lose interest.

Usually a bully only backs off when they are confronted at a level that makes it clear their behavior will not be tolerated. You might yell, you might complain to HR, you might call the police, you might arm yourself, you might have to go out and take down the bully with all the resources you and your fellows have available to you. In the end, though, a bully is only stopped by another bully or by an honorable person with enough strength to make them stop. Such is human nature. I wish that it were otherwise.

Which Universe Do You Live In?

For a multitude of reasons, I have friends and Facebook and follow people on Twitter who have philosophical views drastically different from my own. What's baffling to me--a person who occasionally can be overwhelmed by too much or too much conflicting data--is how all of these folks live in the same universe. If I believe all the opinions and "facts" put out by conservatives, the world is going to heck in a handcart under Obama. If I believe everything liberals say, they are the source of all that's good and right in the world and conservatives are gravely mistaken about everything. If I believe the folks who lean libertarian, the conservatives and the liberals are both screwed up and need to have their political power taken down several notches (no two libertarians, however, can agree on a method for such a scenario). And so forth. What's interesting is that all of them use "facts" to back up their claims.

One example will suffice: unemployment. Right now, official government figures have the unemployment rate at ~6%, which is well-nigh decent, and a big improvement over the 8-10% we had in 2008. However, if you take a different view of "the numbers," the unemployment rate is actually much higher because the labor participation rate (i.e., the number of people eligible for work who are not employed or not looking for work) had dropped to historic lows because people have simply "given up" trying to find a job. Then there's the contrarian view that a lot more jobs could be created if government regulations were drastically trimmed. And so forth.

Who do you believe?

What's at the root of all these opinions--and gosh knows I can only spend so much time reading political rants before I feel the urge to do something else, like laundry or cleaning the tub--is reality itself. Different groups operate from different assumptions and so interpret the "facts" of the world accordingly.

Do you believe humanity is basically good or, at worst, neutral? Do you believe that individuals are a product of societal forces and the specific circumstances into which they are born (nationality, wealth, race)? Do you believe that the "American Dream" (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) is admirable but unrealistic due to societal forces working to suppress minorities? Do you believe that human beings can be improved, either through individual effort or wise leadership from enlightened "right thinking" people? Do you believe that history is one of never-ending progress with occasional downturns? Do you believe that government's most important role is to ensure the social and economic equality of all? Do you believe that all moral systems are inherently equal because they're all aiming toward some sort of good but have some disagreements as to how morality should be enforced? Do you mistrust religion? Do you distrust big businesses more than big governments? Do you believe government should be the ultimate source of economic problem-solving among people? If you answered yes to the bulk of these questions, you are probably a liberal.

Do you believe humanity is basically "fallen" and that individuals are good or evil from birth? Do you believe that individuals have the ability to overcome their circumstances no matter how dire? Do you believe the "American Dream" should apply to everyone, regardless of birth? Do you believe that human nature is constant (essentially bad) and bad behavior can only be restrained through religious or governmental authority? Do you believe that human progress (freedom, technological development, enlightenment through inquiry and the arts) is a temporary phenomenon and that societies must guard against "barbarism?" Do you believe that some moral systems (e.g., Western) are superior to others due to their outcomes? Do you believe government's most important role is to ensure a nation's economic and political strength? Do you distrust big governments more than big businesses? Do you believe the marketplace should be the ultimate source of economic problem-solving among people? If you answered yes to the bulk of these questions, you are probably a traditional conservative.

Do you believe humanity is essentially neutral and a product of his/her birth and education? Do you believe individuals can overcome their specific obstacles in life if they are given maximum freedom from government and society? Do you believe the "American Dream" should be exported around the world peacefully? Do you believe that human nature, while bad, can be overcome? Do you believe that human progress is possible, but only through individual, non-government efforts? Do you believe that all established moral systems are valid as long a they don't try to harm others? Do you believe government's most important role is to ensure individual freedom and to allow individuals to achieve as much as possible? Do you believe individual choices and trades (the marketplace) should be the ultimate source of economic problem-solving among people? If you answered yes to most of these, you're probably libertarian.

The challenge, as I noted earlier, is that all of these attitudes--and more!--are at play on the internet and in our national dialogue. If you let yourself get overwhelmed by the babble and the back-and-forth, you have a few choices:

• Tune out everybody and just avoid politics as much as possible
• Listen to/read only those people with you you agree
• Absorb it all and try to obtain a balanced perspective on how people think about the world

The benefit of the first option is less stress; the downside is that you become ignorant of matters which might greatly affect how you live and work.

The benefit of the second option is comfort; you can read or listen to commentators with whom you agree and become part of the cheering section; the downside is that you can have your viewpoint skewed to the point of ignoring or being unable to comprehend facts that contradict your isolated worldview.

The benefit of the last option is that  you get a clearer picture of what's being said about the state of the world/nation and how it might be interpreted; the downside is data overflow and a tendency to read more arguments than you might care to see.

I've tried all three options, sometimes within the same week, sometimes within the same day. Sometimes I'll spend a long stretch using one option. Occasionally I even throw in my own two cents. Therein lies the challenge: you can learn about what people say about the world from watching/reading the news/internet/etc., but you also have the option to participate. How do you see the world? Do you believe your voice can make a difference? I guess it all depends on which universe you choose to see.

Christmas for Me, You, and Everybody

For the last few years (4? 5?), my Christmas "tradition" has been to fly to Orlando, spend a few days visiting my dad and stepmom, catching up with Disney friends if possible, going into one of the theme parks, and staying at The Peabody on International Drive. Following the advice of my father, a former Eastern Airlines sales rep, I'd try to pick the least-busy holiday travel inbound and outbound to avoid unnecessary crowds. As it happens, one of the least busy days to fly is Christmas Day, so I've spent several December 25s in airports and airplanes, heading away from Orlando to somewhere colder. Last year, I was on the verge of unemployment. I knew it was where I wanted to be, and made the plan to return to Florida. I've spent a year living in other people's homes, scrounging for work, but in the end, I got to a place where I think I can support myself, live in my own apartment, and (huzzah!) spend Christmas in Orlando. No idea what I'll be doing that day--dinner with Dad is the 23rd ("because Bart always leaves on Christmas Day"--ouch). However, I'll be in a warm place, near people and places I love and within electronic and telephone contract of those not so nearby. I consider that a holiday well spent.

I couldn't rightly say where my faith is at this moment, but Christmas has always been a special time for me. I love Luke Chapter 2. I love Perry Como, Bing Crosby, and the rest on the radio. I love the trees and the lights. I love gathering together with family and friends. It's always been a time to feel and spread goodwill, and that's what I try to do.

Whoever you are, wherever you are, I hope you find this season a warm time of good fellowship. Merry Christmas, one and all.

Movie Review: Interstellar

Let's get the bad news out of the way for those of you who don't have the patience to read an entire review: I really wanted to like Interstellar, but it just didn't move, entrance, or excite me like I thought it would. I give it three stars. Those of you with short attention spans may now move along to other parts of the internet. If you'd like to know why I gave the film this rating, feel free to keep reading.

Obviously I wanted to like Interstellar because I'm a space geek and because it's been quite a while since I saw an upbeat vision of space exploration depicted on film. And let me be fair here: that is what Interstellar provides. And the stakes are high: astronauts heading off to the far reaches of space--via a black hole, no less--to save the Earth. So you've got the broad tapestry we expect from space operas, as depicted by SF Grand Master Brian Aldiss:

Ideally, the Earth must be in peril, there must be a quest and a man to match the mighty hour. That man must confront aliens and exotic creatures. Space must flow past the ports like wine from a pitcher. Blood must run down the palace steps, and Ships launch out into the louring dark. There must be a woman fairer than the skies and a villain darker than the Black Hole. And all must come right in the end.

Without giving too much away, I would say, again, that Interstellar includes most of these ingredients. Plus, as an extra bonus, the director got scientific input from an actual astrophysicist. Also on the positive side, the visuals of entering the black hole are amazing and worth seeing on the big screen. The space hardware, too, is believable. In fact, the spacecraft look very much like NASA hardware (which, in fact, they're depicted to be). Though truth be told, my favorite bits of screen eye candy are the closeups of the planet Saturn. And on the human interest side of things, we have people who are stock characters to serious SF fans: we have our plucky astronauts doing what they can for their own disparate reasons--the hot pilot (Matthew McConnaughey) flying off to live his dream and save his family; the scientist's daughter, out for reasons of her own and following in her father's footsteps; the robot with a sense of humor; and a range of characters who are either worth knowing or easily disposable.

So why does this film disappoint?

Let's start with the exposition--the "world building," as SF writers call it. We've got a future Earth that is dying from some sort of blight that is killing crops, eroding the oxygen in the atmosphere, and shrinking the world's population. The most obvious signs of this negative future are massive dust storms, which call to mind the nuclear winter parts of The Day After. In fact, a few aspects of Interstellar reminded me of The Day After, including the corn-country setting, the blowing dust, the air of despair, and the presence of John Lithgow, who in this film portrays a crusty grandfather instead of the scientific genius (that role is played by Michael Caine, who does much less crying in this film than the last Christopher Nolan Batman film). But the last thing that reminded me of that "epic" made-for-TV movie was the bad acting. Honestly, I can't recall the last movie I saw where I felt the actors just phoned it in, but this film had an abundance of it, including bad acting by a couple of famous actors whom I figured would know better. The best explanation I have for this bad acting is an unfamiliarity with science fiction and its unavoidable technobabble.

Next thing? The buildup. Interstellar suffers from pacing problems and is therefore too long, by about 40 minutes. There would be no shame in curtailing the exposition to get McConnaughey's pilot into space, but Christopher Nolan felt otherwise.

I was going to say nice things about the soundtrack, which has touches of classical Earth themes that will definitely remind audiences of 2001: A Space Odyssey. That is good and bad. 2001 definitely has grandeur, and the Interstellar soundtrack manages to evoke that grandeur in some cases. However, there are a couple places in the film where the soundtrack overwhelms the actors' voices. At the time, I was frustrated because I couldn't understand what the actors were saying. Only later, like this morning, did I realize that the sound problems had been on purpose, which somehow made it worse. A little reminder to Hollywood directors: don't make your game-playing so obvious. As with good written material, you don't want to disrupt the audience's willing suspension of disbelief. If the reader or movie-going audience is made aware of the artifice of what's going on, they are no longer paying attention to the story but are instead paying attention to the storytelling.

Lastly, there is the plot, which is convoluted in places, messy in others, and in some places outright unbelievable. It takes too many steps to get from Earth to the heart of the plot (the "MacGuffin," which was also the name of the bar where I bought a bourbon before entering the theater). And when I got to the MacGuffin, I found that...well, I just didn't buy it. It was like a "high concept" for a science fiction film written by someone who doesn't read a lot of SF but thinks, "Hey, if we do this, it'll be really cool and deep," but it's not.

Which brings me back to my original three-star rating. I applaud Christopher Nolan for making a space opera with a positive view of science, technology, and the human future. And he delivers that...BUT: I didn't care about the characters. The story is too long. The central "high concepts" that resolve the plot make no sense or are muddled. So Interstellar gets three stars from me. Your mileage could vary.

The Future of Electricity

I probably wrote too much on this subject in Facebook, so I'm moving my thoughts here. What started this discussion was a Popular Science story on how all those solar panels people put up to reduce strain on "the grid" actually aren't as helpful as they could be. My friend Angela referred me to a somewhat longer piece by the New York Times on the same subject. Here follows my response, with a couple extra links/comments:

Okay, so I went back and read the NYT piece. I don't know how various systems ARE handling electrical power, but here's my slightly more-informed take on the issue:
1) A useful electrical grid should be focused on demand, not efficiency, even if that means redundancy. The general public is concerned with two primary issues when it comes to electricity: price and availability. I could be wrong, but my guess is that we're willing to pay slightly more for 100% availability.
2) The grid also should provide overlapping/surge capabilities to meet demand as required (e.g., regular business hours, the hottest part of summer days so people don't die of heatstroke, or during the coldest part of a winter night up north when temps drop to Antarctic levels).
3) Future solar panels can be built/added to the west sides of people's roofs/yards. If the government is serious about maintaining/improving electrical power during peak loads, they can offer incentives to help people pay to move their solar panels.
4) Another useful thing that could be done with roofs (for addressing climate change) is to paint them white or reflectively to increase the amount of sunlight being reflected into space instead of being absorbed by the ground.
5) If individuals have the wherewithal to provide themselves with electrical power through solar, generators, etc., they should be allowed to opt out of the grid. If there's a major disaster, such as a hurricane, the individual would have an equal or better chance of having power.
6) Consistent-output power systems (nuclear, natural gas, coal), should continue to provide base-load power. Solar and wind are just too fickle to depend upon for base power. The sun might be shining just brilliantly or the wind blowing like crazy during a peak-load time--in which case everyone wins. If there's a peak load and a cloudy, windless day or night, all those solar panels don't matter much.
7) Capacitor technologies are improving, as are other energy storage technologies (e.g. flywheels). If those can be made to harness the energy collected by solar/wind as generated and dispensed as needed, I can see a better system evolving--one that keeps environmentalists reasonably happy while continuing to allow our high-tech civilization to function and prosper.
 
My $.04.

An Open Letter to Microsoft

[This message was also sent via the "Feedback" option in Outlook. The Feedback box had a character limit, so I'm completing my thoughts here. I am nothing if not persistent.]

Dear Microsoft:

In the past two months, your spam filter has turned from relatively reliable to nearly worthless. I now have 500(!!) word-search junk filters set up, and that is still not enough. I wrote to you because 500 filters is your "legal limit," and the garbage keeps coming in. I am not going out to a lot of websites to get my name put on special lists just so I can enjoy the attention of the world's online entrepreneurs. My name and email are in the public domain, so I am just getting bombarded. Your spam filter appears to have given up the ghost unless a junk message runs afoul of a rule that I set up for it. I am an independent contractor, and new business can come in from unknown sources, so I can't just block everyone who's not on my contact list and call it done.

Also, because I have my Outlook tied to my iPhone, I must ask: does the junk filter even work on iPhone? I ask because if a junk mail message hits my iPhone first (as opposed to the webpage), more often than not the message will go to my inbox, not the Junk folder. If the message gets to the website first, it's a tossup as to whether the message will go to Junk or the Inbox.

I am not happy with this situation. I have been using Hotmail for 17 years because the service has been worthwhile. I might stop now.

Bart Leahy
Heroic Technical Writing
Orlando, FL

Do It for the Children

Start by reading this article. Go ahead, I'll wait...

http://www.cato.org/blog/addressing-critics-purportedly-no-good-very-bad-chart?utm_content=bufferd20a4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

If you're not interested in reading about standard deviations and the like, the chart is pretty clear:

Per-pupil public spending on education has increased dramatically while test scores have remained essentially flat. I'm not saying stop education spending. Clearly we need an educated population. I am suggesting a little more rigor when someone argues that "We need to spend more! It's for the children!" Rather than just have a knee-jerk reaction and give in to avoid being seen as "anti-education," it might be more constructive to ask how much more someone wants to spend, and on what?

Generation Huh?

Just finished reading an essay in The Weekly Standard on Millennials, that wild, wacky, much larger generation after mine (GenX). The basic point of the article being that so-called scholarly articles making generalizations about generations are often a bunch of balderdash, poppycock, pick your standard term for bunk.

I guess I'd have to agree. Reporting from the anecdotal field of the real world, here are my own observations of Generation X:

• Most of my peers are or have been married at least once.
• Most of us have jobs.
• Many of us have kids or, if not kids, pets.
• We have a low tolerance for the foolishness imposed on us by Baby Boomer bosses.

Beyond that? Honestly, my observations become nearly useless because our friendships and work acquaintances are self-selecting. I've worked at Disney, which attracts one demographic. I've worked for the Department of Defense, which will bring in a slightly different demographic. I've worked for NASA and the aerospace community, which truly has a niche set of social attributes. In fact, the space community has been so monochromatic that I wrote a master's thesis on marketing approaches to bring in more women and minorities. Regardless, I have been drawn to and worked in environments that have very strong, very recognizable cultures. Disney is all about entertainment, perkiness, neatness, and guest-focused customer service. The military culture is predominantly male, top-down, honor-focused, and has a tendency to break things and kill people on behalf of our national defense. The space community is almost a mix of the two: very upbeat ("visionary"), top-down, and WASP male, with a few more hopeful women than the military and a lot fewer minorities.

I suppose it's instructive, then, to talk about Facebook and my 20th high school reunion, both of which provided me the opportunity to see how "normal people" in my generation have done. (Point of reference: I got a paper award for "Most Unusual Job" at the reunion.) My high school, situated in the Western Suburbs of Chicago, produced a lot of people with what my folks used to call "straight jobs": doctors, lawyers, contractors, nurses, teachers, what have you. As a writer for NASA (and now a freelance writer working for aerospace and non-aerospace clients), I do not quite fit that label.

In other ways, I'm right in line with the tastes of middle-class white males of my age and background: I watch the NFL; I listen to classic rock and pop music from my high school days; I drive a Honda sedan; I get annoyed by the foolishness of both major political parties (the left more than the right) and recently registered as "unaffiliated" in Florida as a mild protest. I'll probably vote libertarian in coming years.

The Generation X (born 1961-1975) peers I interact with most often are scientists, engineers, or technology-focused in some way. They're some of the best and brightest people I've ever met, and they give me hope that this nation can continue to do great things. While all high-achieving, very few of these folks to share common ideas about the future--they range from loud libertarians to confident conservatives to passionate progressives. The political battles we inherited from our parents will continue.

My peers who have become parents also have a wide range of beliefs and attitudes about the world; however, being parents, they have that common traditional streak that wants to see their children grow up well-behaved, mature, and capable of getting a job. Again, it might be a self-selecting reflection on my friends, but none of them has the attitude that their kids can't or shouldn't try to do better or that they should expect a check from the government to live.

Undoubtedly I'm not seeing the whole picture of "my generation." I heard a lot when I was in college for my B.A. and afterward about how expectations were being lowered for us because many of us graduated in the middle of the Gulf War recession. I heard similar things about the Millennials in 2002 when I got my M.A. and we were going through the second Gulf War recession. (Note to self--no more schooling: I keep graduating just after war-induced recessions.) The "low expectations" line is media BS. We work, we pay our bills, we'd like to have more money. How is that any different from the Baby Boomers? Who are the exemplars of Generation X--Elon Musk, President Obama, Robert Downey, Jr., Jeff Bezos, Darlene Cavalier? Or are they Marilyn Manson, Timothy McVeigh, Len Bias, and Pink? (Okay, you have your lists, I have mine.) History will be the judge of our deeds.

In the end, about all you can say about a "generation" is that we had a similar set of world events happen around us and we all found ways (some better than others) of surviving them. The only advantage we have over previous generations is that we get to see a bit more of the future than they do. What we do with the knowledge and experience is, of course, up to us.

Setting Our Sights Lower

First, read this so you understand the context of my next rant. Go ahead, I'll wait... http://www.eco-business.com/opinion/life-degrowth-economy-and-why-you-might-actually-enjoy-it/

Okay, so you had your own reaction to what you read: you shook your head in dismay, nodded in agreement, or shrugged and wondered, "So what?"

For those of you who didn't take the time to read the linked article, here's the author's general thesis:

Earth is getting too overpopulated, we're running out of resources, life is going to become a lot harder, and the concept of economic growth is outdated, unhelpful, and unlikely to continue. As a result, we might as well get used to it, make a virtue of necessity, and learn to live within our means because the future is not going to get any better. We need to share the wealth so that non-Western nations receive an equitable share of the world's wealth. Instead, we should establish a world that involves more local economies and that is less dependent upon international travel. We shouldn't focus so much on new technologies to save us and should learn to "do without" certain luxuries or technologies.

Did anyone just have a flashback to the 1970s? Are we in yet another era of doom and gloom and limited vision?

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
--Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth."
--John F. Kennedy

"There's nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America."
--William J. B. Clinton

...and I haven't even quoted the Republicans yet.

The point is, America is a nation founded on a fundamental optimism that says if you give people freedom and a fighting chance, they'll find solutions to their own problems, with or despite the government's intervention. However, the author appears to have already pronounced sentence on the future: we're doomed, we'll never make it, the people are too stupid to solve their own problems, they can only be ruled for their own good and protection, based on a vision shared by the enlightened.

The problem is that "degrowth" is antithetical to the American experiment because of the implications of the author's ideas:

• Who decides what's equitable? Not the people, obviously.
• Who decides what we can "do without?" The diversity of our economy and technologies ensures that nearly anything and everything can be given a fighting chance to succeed, given enough hard work by the inventor. Who's to say what we can or should do without? And who is this author to say that we should dream smaller?
• How would they enforce this "de-growth?" It brings up an interesting notion: do governments worldwide become enforcers of de-modernization of the world? Would they send in armed troops with magnets to destroy unwanted knowledge and explosives to destroy unneeded inventions like cyclotrons, nuclear reactors, CAT scans, or rocket ships?
• Will Those Who Decide still have access to luxuries and world travel? Here's a hint: yes. I recall talking with Les Johnson about the anti-technology forces in our civilization. "They want to send us back to the caves," he said. I don't think so. They want to send us back to the manors and serfdom, where the majority remain ignorant and ruled while the wealthy elite continues to enjoy a high standard of living. The problem is, it won't happen that way; not by a long shot. Read on.
• What happens if individuals or nations opt to stay pro-growth? We're seeing a variation of this with the Kyoto Protocol, which is supposed to curb greenhouse gases. America has the technology to become high-tech without petroleum eventually, I suppose, but China and India are not there yet and are unlikely to comply with Kyoto anyway. So say they stick with the large nation-state approaches to technology and economics. What happens to the hundreds of thousands of small nation-states elsewhere in the world? If human history is any guide, they will either reunite into coalitions and nations as well or get swallowed up one by one.

Decentralization and descoping of the world economy only works if everyone does it. Odds are, everyone won't, unless some external force requires all of them to act simultaneously.

More to the point, as a space and technology advocate I want to live in a future of abundance. I believe we can access the energy and materials of space, combined with nanotechnology and other clean high technology here on Earth to ensure a future where everyone has access to the goods of civilization. Degrowth is not the way to do it. Degrowth assumes a zero-sum game, where we'll never find additional resources, and therefore the only way to have any choices is to be one of those who decides how the pie is divided. That is a recipe for world conflict on a scale we haven't seen in 70 years, and it would include a lot more nuclear weapons.

No matter how politely or benignly worded, a philosophy of low expectations implies a political order where those expectations would be enforced, lest someone question the underlying assumptions. I'm more in line with entrepreneurs like Elon Musk, who want humanity to expand the scope of technology of civilization. Regardless of past errors or current problems, we certainly have enough pride and ambition to believe a better future is possible, don't we?

Jeez, I hope so.

INFJs and the Elusive Difficulties of Simple Pleasures

This blog started with a Twitter exchange: https://twitter.com/SciCheerGopher/status/505690250539442176

The basic problem seems to be that people of a certain temperament--say, INFJs--have a problem just letting things be and enjoying simple pleasures. Pick one: being with family, walking on the beach, having a quiet meal with friends. Are such things simple? It depends on how you look at them, and that's the point.

What does an introverted-intuitive-feeling-judging person do in times of quiet enjoyment? Absorb the moment. It's our default response. We don't say a lot. Instead, we observe what's going on around us, to differing degrees and with different emphases, depending on the individual. Some focus on remembering the details of faces, some of conversations, some of the thoughts or feelings or sensations we have while in the moment. For the INFJ, the details are part of the moment. We collect such complex "simple" pleasures because it's our nature to do so.

That's not to say we can't enjoy our quiet or simple moments; we just have a lot going on inside. If you see someone whose personality you know to be an INFJ and they have a quiet smile on their face, just let them enjoy. You might ask them, "What are you thinking?" but while their hard drive is crunching a lot of data at that moment, they might say something simple like, "I'm just happy."

45

Once a year I get seriously self-indulgent on this blog and reflect on where I am in my life. There are worse things I could do with my time.

So: 45 years old today. I guess one of my b-day cards got it right: you know you're getting old when you start getting old-age jokes on your birthday cards. The grey hair remains grey--though, remarkably, it hasn't retreated too far up the forehead yet. The weight is down through a random, solemn decision to eat and treat myself better. I'm avoiding fried foods as a lifestyle choice. I'm snacking on things that are recognizably natural foods. I walk more.

And my oh my, is my professional life different from where it was a year ago! This time last year, I was still in Huntsville, Alabama, gainfully employed with a space/technology-focused small business. This year, courtesy of some government budget-cutting, I now AM a small business, back in the city I love, Orlando, Florida. I struggle here and there with finding business and paying bills, but thanks to the kindness of friends, I've been able to house-sit in genteel poverty, an arrangement that will continue through early November. I've had the breathing space to find and build clientele, for which I'm duly grateful.

Having come close to the bottom of my reserves in late spring, I'm now on a path to steady bill paying and taking steps toward improving my ability to expand my line of work (taking a grant-writing class, getting help from a coach, getting in touch with local friends to find new opportunities). Progress!

And here's the thing about freelancing that I'm coming to realize: I have no problem supporting customers, it's bosses I don't deal with well. I'm always willing to help or answer to a customer. A customer has come to me voluntarily, seeking my services. A manager, however benevolent, is there to tell me what to do. I don't mind that most of the time, it's a fact of life; however, the fewer layers I have above me, usually the better I'm able to function. I'm picking the type of work I do, the workload, and my hours of operation. I probably could and should have gone freelance earlier in life, but better late than never, I suppose.

*

Do I have any deep, new wisdom at the ripe old age of 45? Just one thing: the most important thing I've learned to do this past year is be me happily, with all the good, bad, and weird that entails. I...

• Wear Hawaiian shirts and shorts for my standard "work clothes."
• Try to stick with aerospace work because that is what I love to do and am passionate about doing. 
• Take a lot of the low-key, low-visibility jobs with the Science Cheerleaders because I'm not particularly gung-ho to get on stage. 
• Can speak on stage (if I must) without much fear or trepidation. 
• Am blatantly geeky about some things, blandly conformist or mainstream about others. 
• Am mildly to terribly conceited, and a linguistic snob. 
• Am back to being a libertarian (with a conservative flavor).
• Have a taste for philosophy, science fiction, history, and terrible puns. 
• Cannot shut up on Facebook. 
• Walk around theme parks, play John Williams soundtracks, and light up aromatherapy candles to relax. 
• Read self-help books because I want to make myself a better person. 
• Live and travel alone because I recognize my social strengths and limitations. 
• Am an introvert with extroverted moments. 
• Have a list of things I want to do, and I take steps to make them happen. 
• Am not in any big rush to change the world or to boss around others. 
• Love Orlando's afternoon thunderstorms and lack of snow. 
• Don't share secrets, am not particularly interested in learning the secrets of others, nor do I wish to share whatever secrets I have with everyone I know. 

It's not a perfect life, by any wild stretch, but I prefer the problems I have to any others. My willingness to be honest with myself about myself allows me to be honest with others--as much as I think they can stand--and that's not so bad for 45. I'm pretty happy being Bart.

Again, better late than never.

Doing What's Important

It seems to be human nature that, as long as things are going well or predictably, we don't think too much about what we're doing with our lives. Are we doing the right things? Are we focusing on what's important? Et cetera. Usually it takes a crisis for someone to get off their duff and to do something important or constructive or meaningful with his/her life.

Luckily, in my case, no crisis was needed. I had the first adult conversation with myself when I was around 25. I was writing an "alternate history" in which I tried to imagine what my life would have been like if my parents hadn't divorced, and how it would have been better had they not. It was a faintly ridiculous exercise, and I realized--even as and after I wrote it--that I did not believe the premise. All the life circumstances I'd described in the story were relatively achievable, I realized, if I just did something. The reason I call this my first "adult" conversation was that this was the first time I stopped asking, "Why me?" and started asking, "What do you want to do about it?" The specific question I asked--jeez, 20 years ago now--was, "What do you want to do with your life?" And a scared but determined little voice in the back of my mind said, "I want to go into space."

So what this answer led to was a simple question and a few realizations. The question was, "So what are you going to do about it?" From there arose the following realizations:

• My life wasn't going to get better waiting for some magical thing to just happen to me.
• I could change my life's narrative.
• I could take constructive steps on my own behalf to live the sort of life I wanted and make the sort of world I wanted to have happen.

That was some heady stuff at 25. I still need occasional reminders at 45 that this is what I'm doing. But at 25, that meant changing my attitude for the better at work (I did); getting smarter about space (which I did, first in the form of reading a lot of the eminent books on the subject, later through formal schooling); and trying to figure out what sort of career I could have to make "space" a reality. Eventually I became a space advocate, got myself a better degree, and developed a daily habit of doing something constructive every single day. That last habit continues. Mind you, it took about 15 years to realize that going into space might not be the best career choice for me, given my biological susceptibilities to claustrophobia, motion sickness, and fear of heights. But I'm still working in the space business. I can't help it. It's what's important to me.

Why?

Funny thing, that. From a very young age, I've just always believed that going into space was fundamentally a good thing. Call it an article of faith, if you like. The words coalesced around that kernel of faith later, but here they are: If human beings are out in space, they're expanding their literal and figurative horizons. They're looking outward, trying to understand the universe and gaining knowledge for themselves rather than looking inward and meddling in the lives of their neighbors. They don't see life as a zero-sum game. They have an expansive view of themselves and their place in the universe. They believe that they have the abilities necessary to learn what's out there and how to survive in it. A society that's going into space believes that it's worthwhile to do so because it believes that it's worth expanding; that their way of life is worth replicating on other worlds; that it has confidence; and that is worth emulating, and worth duplicating on other worlds.

My way of supporting that cause is to write. In my case, writing takes on many forms: some glorious, some complicated, some mundane. I write outreach materials for NASA. I write technical documents and proposals for organizations that do aerospace work. I write policy papers and manifestos. I create documents and processes so Science Cheerleaders can go out and get kids excited about science.

So that's what motivates me. Your mileage might vary. In any case, I'm living my life in line with and in support of my ideals. I am not waiting for some major catastrophe to rip me out of my world and ask, "What have I been doing with my life?"

The Machines Are Taking Our Jobs: Now What?

This set of speculations was spurred by a YouTube video technological creator/guru/advocate/author Peter Diamandis posted on Facebook. Check this out:



I tried to write some fiction along these lines last year, so naturally I have a few opinions. Here are the challenges, as I see them:

What do you do with (or for) people who have nothing to do?
While all people are considered equal under the law in theory, in reality, individuals have differing and varying levels of ability, accomplishment, and insight. In the U.S., many people whose jobs were shipped overseas or downsized went on unemployment or "disability," and stopped working. We're a rich country, but if we are to provide for the necessities of the unemployed or unemployable, to what level does that beneficence reach? $50,000 per person? $100,000? $1 million?


In America, individuals are defined by what they do for a living, whereas in Europe asking someone about their job is considered almost or seriously rude. I recall asking someone over there (France, maybe?), "What do people talk about, then?" The bartender laughed and said, "Sex, religion, and politics," which are all taboo or rude subjects in America. So maybe technological unemployment would be a bigger problem in the States than elsewhere? The question becomes: "Lacking the need to work for the necessities of life, what purpose does human life have?" It's only been in the last two centuries that more than a very, very few people had the luxury of asking that question. 

How will a world of abundance affect the shapes of nations and governments?
Governments exist today to ensure any number of things, from protecting private property to ensuring domestic tranquility to ensuring that every citizen has the basics of physical existence. If "the basics" are handled by in-house 3D printers/replicators, the issue of private property becomes effectively moot, as does the perceived political need to attack others for "resources." Would governments be responsible for the safety, welfare, and education of large populations anymore, or does governance become a more localized effort? Do we see one world state or thousands or millions of city-states?

Also, given a future of human abundance, is there any need for people to gather together and live in cities? Or, lacking the need to go out in the fields and work, will everyone move to the cities and leave the spaces between them untouched?

What happens if mass technological unemployment comes before a future of abundance.
As history shows, human beings are not particularly rational in response threats to their livelihoods. The writers of Star Trek VI reminded us, the term sabotage came about because workers threatened by automation threw their shoes (sabots) into the machinery. Such resentment against technology, however irrational, is not unprecedented. Science fiction writer Isaac Asimov depicted a future in several novels where humans not only resented but actively destroyed robots that were taking their jobs. Are those machines lowering the prices for necessities? Maybe--but maybe not enough to prevent poverty, even of the technical variety. All people know is that "those machines" are taking their jobs away and leaving them a little poorer.


What becomes of money in a future of abundance?
Money exists as a uniform means of exchange so that people can acquire limited goods and services using a common standard of value. It is a substitute for bartering, because not everyone has something we want, and it's much more difficult to trade with multiple people if you just want one item in the first place. But again, if everyone has access to the necessities of life--food, water, clothing, shelter, tools--money becomes less of a concern, except for rare luxury items/activities, such as space travel, long-range travel on Earth, or exceptional aesthetic experiences.


How do we educate people in a civilization of abundance?
We're already facing the first wave of this problem now: we have millions of people who have been put out of work through improvements in technological productivity. Those who remain in the workforce work longer and harder until they, too, are replaced by improved processes and machines, leaving an ever-increasing number of people unemployed and with no useful skills as currently defined by the economy as it is currently constructed. Do we train the unemployed to "seek their true calling?" Do we train them to pursue other lines of work that are still useful but not as suited to their abilities? Do we train everyone to become "creative geniuses," knowing full well that not everyone has those abilities?

The purposes of education will necessarily change. If "the basics" are provided or done by machines, is there still a need to teach "basic skills?" What do people do if the machines break down? Are they fixed by other machines? What if an area is wiped out by electromagnetic pulse (EMP), who will have the ability to restore the technologies that make abundance possible? Human beings could be educated to better find and exercise their innate talents. But what if those talents are made irrelevant by automation?

Do we still fight each other?
The motivations and tools for antagonism between nations and individuals would necessarily change. Would warfare even be necessary? Possible? Or would weapons become ever more vicious, as molecular machines become capable of targeting and killing specific individuals, slowly and viciously, at the molecular level? Would benevolent machines and computers restrain our violent tendencies, as Asimov would have had it? If we are modifying our bodies at the molecular level to monitor and control our internal body chemistry, will violence-inducing anger even be possible? We could learn to tame ourselves and our violent urges or we could learn to direct our tendencies to violence into more constructive channels.

What does humanity do with itself on a healthier, safer, freer, and more advanced world?
It is conceivable that a future of abundance could lead to a future like Star Trek, where people challenge themselves by exploring and settling other worlds. However, I'm not so sure. What need would a happy, comfortable population have for "adventure?" Exploration entails risk, and a world of safety and comfort would appeal to many--especially older people who remember what a world of "adventure" was like and feared it. Perhaps our misfits would go off into space--those who, despite every advantage, would seek life elsewhere because they are unable to get along with their peers or stay content in a life without challenges. Or do we try to genetically modify (or breed out) "restlessness?" Perhaps our machines--more capable, smarter, and faster than us--might insist on "taming" humanity...not enslaving us, merely ensuring that no one gets any ideas about leaving home.


I have tried to frame my concerns under the assumption that Diamandis's future of abundance is possible. I do not necessarily believe that that is the case. "The Singularity," for example, might be absolute bunk. But a future of high technology, mass good, and massive disruption is upon us, and Diamandis is right about the fact that we need to consider what direction that future might--and should--take.

Book Review: Rules for Radicals

I picked up this book because it's supposed to have strongly influenced our current President and a potential future candidate (Hillary Clinton). Writing as a GenXer with little to no interest in '60s activists, I had no previous experience with the author, his activities, or his writings, so this review will focus entirely on the text of Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. If you're interested in politics--left, right, or other--I believe you'll find this brief read (196 pages) worthwhile.


I'm not 100% certain what I expected from this book, but the way folks on conservative talk radio use Rules for Radicals or "Alinsky" as shorthand for this or that political vice of the President, one would assume that this was the political version of The Anarchist Cookbook--all fire and brimstone and down with The Man. This would be incorrect.

Background
Let's start with the subtitle: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals [italics mine]. This book was written in 1971, after much of the wildness of the 1960s had already happened--and in many ways this book is a reaction against the chaotic and at times violent activities of that decade. Alinsky saw dramatic, screaming activism as counterproductive to effecting actual, lasting change. As an activist and professor, Alinsky is at turns lecturing and speaking from experience. He's taking the tone of an elder statesman saying, "Look, kids: you can yell and scream all you want, but if you actually want to change the world, you need to play a different game." His primary lesson is, surprisingly (to me), to work with people and the system as you find it.

To introduce his topic, Alinsky starts by explaining his purpose for writing the book: to teach serious activists how to make lasting political changes without alienating a large section of the population, which he believed was the general reaction to much of what the hippies did. He is out to win hearts and minds, and he believes that that can only happen by working with people as they are and the political system as it is. He is trying to explain how to obtain greater political access for the Have Nots in a world comprising three main groups:

• The Haves
• The Have-Nots
• The Have a Little, Want Mores

Alinsky also provides definitions of specific concepts, such as power, self-interest, compromise, ego, and conflict. He lays out these terms in realistic, non-threatening, and terms so the willing reader/activist understands how they operate within the U.S. system of government. His analysis is not so different from what you hear about America today: unnecessary war, government overreach, corruption, and minorities being kept under thumb by an oligarchical majority.

Community Organizers and Ego
One thing that caught my attention in this section was this description of a "community organizer," which is a favorite epithet of my friends on the right to describe the President:

"The ego of the organizer is stronger and more monumental than the ego of the leader. The leader is driven by the desire for power, while the organizer is driven by the desire to create. The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach--to create, to be a 'great creator,' to play God."

However, he bookends this statement with the following two warnings:

"Nothing antagonizes people and alienates them from a would-be organizer more than the revealing flashes of arrogance, vanity, impatience, and contempt of a personal egotism."

"An infection of egotism would make it impossible to respect the dignity of individuals, to understand people, or to strive to develop the other elements that make up the ideal organizer."

Taking Action
Gradually, Alinsky moves from a theoretical discussion to more concrete, action-oriented content. He states that the first step in community organization is disorganizing the status quo. This is followed by organizing something new to replace it. One observation he had, which a conflict-averse person might have a problem with, is that there is no such thing as a "non-controversial" issue. If there is an issue, there will be conflict, and that must be managed through politics. If there is an issue but only one opinion on it, that amounts to tyranny.

Another Alinsky point: no one can negotiate without the power to compel negotiation. A protest against an entire nationwide corporation, for example, would be impractical for a local group; however, a protest at a single branch could have more impact.

So what does Alinsky mean by "take action" or protest? Perhaps one of the most important "rules" Alinsky writes about community organizing is that organizers must take people as they are--and that not all of them are going to join a group just because of the rightness of the cause, but for personal, self-interested reasons that are only partially connected to the overall "cause." Another favorite Alinsky ploy is to get one segment of the "Haves" to fight with another segment, resulting
in a win for the Have-Nots simply because the second segment of "Haves" did not want the aggravation of facing a protest themselves.

In the end, Alinsky's tactics are devious and at times cynical, but they were often effective because he understood the American political system. A recent example of effective activism in the Alinsky vein was the combination of pressures put on the L.A. Clippers following the racist comments of its owner. In that case, NBA players wore their jerseys inside-out and several teams threatened to boycott Clippers playoff games. The combination of bad publicity, threatened boycotts, and sponsorship losses (as well as the NBA-level ban) hit Donald Sterling where it hurt--his assets--and got him to sell his team. While more a case of Haves vs. Haves, the massive pressure put on Sterling was a loud message that his behavior would not be tolerated. Still, it was a campaign of which Alinsky would have approved. In the end, winning political battles come down to using the available, appropriate means to get your way. It might not always be pretty, but American politics very much wears the stamp of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

The System is Not Set Up for Introverts, Reconsidered

The recent public shaming of several public figures has brought to mind several aspects of the culture that irritate me as an introvert. The internet is merely exacerbating behaviors I didn't like as a kid. Below are a few more reasons why the internet-fueled media culture is not set up with introverts in mind.

• Sharing comments originally intended for one person. Perhaps you've spoken in the heat of the moment, but obviously not intended for the entire world. I'm not going to even speculate on Mr. Sterling's state of mind, for example, but I know that the reason I trust the friends I have is that they don't share my angry comments with everyone. Not saying what Sterling did was right--clearly he's said similar things in the past. That's a discussion for another day. For the moment, let's de-Sterling the conversation and make it about me, you, or someone close to you. Let's say I've said something rather rude, like "I think X is an blankety-blank jerk and I can't stand him." I say this to a friend in confidence, but said friend, for whatever reason, has started recording our conversations and posts my diatribe on YouTube. Or they don't even have to record it; they could just repeat the comment to someone...maybe the subject of the comment himself, creating unnecessary hard feelings with that person and creating embarrassment for me. No, I probably shouldn't have said what I said, but my "friend" probably shouldn't have repeated it, let alone recorded it. That's a level of low that's hard for me to process.
• Ganging up on someone. Are you perfect? Have you said only kind, culturally sensitive, perfectly politically correct words with every single solitary person you've ever met? Never mind, let's cut to the chase: no, you haven't. I haven't. No one has, not even those who decide what's socially appropriate/polite and what's not. So let's say you're better than average and you only slip up once a week or once a month. Take your most obnoxious comment and imagine having it shared with everyone you know. With perfect strangers. Multiply that by a factor of a few hundred million. You know what you did was wrong. Now so does everyone around you, and every self-righteous scold now wants to pile on and tell you how to change your behavior. Or maybe you're not sorry for what you said or did, but you're now surrounded by a lot of people who detest you for it. The loneliest minority in the world is a minority of one, and it becomes nearly impossible to live a normal life with your beliefs intact if you believe that the entire world hates you because of one comment.
• Bringing up old issues. This has been happening in human relationships for hundreds of years. Person A says or does something stupid or hurtful to his or her significant other, and that significant other brings it up in the heat of an argument months or even years later. The internet allows not just Person A to bring it up but anyone who has seen or heard what you did. And the internet never forgets. Years later, decades later, anyone can go back to that moment of ill-timed stupidity and throw it in your face. I read an article recently that brought up the fact that forgetfulness is one of the human attributes that allows us to forgive others and to heal. The internet does not allow anyone to forget and does not allow the perpetrator of social faux pas the right of forgiveness. (Let's assume here that I'm not talking about high crimes and misdemeanors.)
• Always being "on stage." This is a particular pet peeve for introverts. We usually don't enjoy being the center of attention. I write on the internet and usually go out of my way not to post pictures of myself unless I deem it necessary--in fact, I once asked a friend to remove a photo. My standard internet avatar is the gopher armed with a machine gun. And most authors (unless they're major money makers) manage to enjoy a bit of anonymity not possible for actors, actresses, or other media figures, whose faces tend to be everywhere. Different introverts respond to the internet--particularly Facebook--in different ways: 
• Carefully control or limit the amount and type of information shared.
• Create an online "persona" that resembles, but isn't a 100% representation of what the individual is actually thinking.
• Not participate at all.
• 
  Many of my friends take the first approach. My parents take the last approach. I favor the middle approach, where I share humor, opinions, or stories that interest me. However, I usually don't share all my personal information (address, financial status, relationships, etc.) about how I live my daily life. So far as the internet knows, I'm a sarcastic, cerebral introvert with an odd writing career and gopher for an avatar. Is that "me?" Yes and no. I've seen in some places that "You are your data" now, and that anything you do that interacts with a computer is kept somewhere and explains who you are and what you are like. The internet is gratifyingly free of Bart Leahy-related videos. Part of that is the result of not doing much worth capturing on video; part of it is from a studied effort not to put myself in front of the camera. As a t-shirt now says, "I'm glad I'm old enough that all the stupid stuff I did as a kid isn't on the internet." So if you read my data, you might get some insight into my interests and how I spend my time and money. Does that mean you "know" me? No. You don't know what I'm thinking right now. You don't know what my facial expressions are. You don't know how I react when I'm happy or hurt. You don't know who all my friends are or how they feel about me.
  
  It used to be that only movie stars had this problem--fans thinking that they "knew" the celebrity in question because they've read every tabloid and newspaper story about them. On the flip side of that, the celebrities themselves found themselves in a fishbowl, unable to find a moment to themselves to just be a regular person because any unguarded moment was captured by a voracious paparazzi.
  
  Now we're all paparazzi, if we choose (I usually don't because, quite frankly, what other people do with their personal lives is usually none of my damn business). Yet if our face and data are out there on the internet, we're "celebrities" whether we would wish it or not. This is a doubly problematic issue for introverts: we don't share ourselves as easily as extroverts. The assumption of the internet is that if you post anything "out there" (or someone posts something about you) people assume that they know you. Yet I am sometimes taken off guard when I talk to someone who has been following my doings on Facebook and comments on them when I see him or her in person. Mostly that's a function of forgetting what I've posted...but, again, the internet remembers.
  
  Right now it's just my words and occasionally my pictures out there. How will I behave if I think "the camera's on" every moment of my life. George Orwell considered a horrific form of constant surveillance in 1984, as I do. Yet in 2014, we're doing it to ourselves. I don't know why people worry about the NSA spying activities sometimes when so much of people's lives is being shared. Some people "ham it up" if they know a camera is on. Others, like my parents and me, become very still and very quiet.
• If the camera is on all the time, the extroverts will win. Introverts need time to compose arguments refuting bad things that are said about us or what we think. This is why many of us become writers--because we aren't as adept at the think-on-your-feet interactions required for public debate. We're self-conscious about being the center of attention. We have to expend a lot of energy to interact with lots of people at once, and that can impact how effective we are as public speakers--it's not the quality of our thoughts that is lacking but our confidence in speaking about those thoughts. We might have very well-thought-out reasons for doing or saying something, but sometimes it takes us a while to work out that reasoning--at which point the topic has changed. TV and the internet are all about the now.
  
  I might be wrong, but I think a lot of those people who think up great retorts an hour after the argument ends are introverts. I'm one of them, to be sure. And, again, video is all about what's happening now, in the moment. If it looks like an introvert is losing because they're pausing to think out their answer, the extrovert will be perceived as the winner. A brilliant response two hours later does the introvert no good--the extrovert will be perceived as the better debater and better speaker now. I can't help wondering if that's why televised presidential debates have shaped the presidents we have gotten over the past 50-odd years.
  
  To close this essay, I'm left to wonder how introverts will find advantages in a culture that is increasingly driven by the immediate, the verbal, and the "live action." I'm open to suggestions. Right now, however, I need to turn off this machine and go take a walk.

The Pains and Joys of Consulting

Many of you have heard more than you need to about my wild and crazy life (not) as a consultant. This has been a simultaneous blessing and curse. On the one hand, I've been free to pursue whatever work I want to do (a lesson learned from Jason Hundley); on the other hand, I've been living with major ups and downs in my work load and income, with mostly downs on the latter. So I've got maximum freedom coupled with maximum uncertainty. Since leaving larger corporate environments, I've learned to enjoy the freedom of small business life, and I want to hold onto that. If I want to keep the consultant lifestyle, I'm going to have to work for it. The uncertainty can only be overcome by getting out there and hustling for more work to keep the bills paid. No, that's not my favorite thing in the world--I'm getting more introverted as I get older--but if it means I get to run my work life the way I want it, including wearing Hawaiian shirts and shorts while working from home, that's a goal that's worth enduring a little social discomfort. It also might mean a little less time on Facebook (maybe). Starting today, I'll be trying to get smarter about this career thing. That'll mean pushing myself harder and in different directions than I've tried before. The support of my friends and family means a lot, so thanks to one and all for your help.

And, seriously, if you know someone who needs a technical writer--in Florida or via internet--you know where to point them. I specialize in translating engineering language about new technologies into words other people can understand.

Bart D. Leahy
Writer
http://heroictechwriting.wordpress.com/
http://www.zeropointfrontiers.com/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/bartleahy2007
http://vizualize.me/ZPGopher#

and 

Event Manager
http://ScienceCheerleader.com 

Poetry Interlude

Reminder

Just because I gave birth to you doesn't mean I understand you.
I never wanted a boy, didn't know what to do with them.
But God saw fit to send me you anyway.
Perhaps it was good for both of us.
You weren't too fussy or rambunctious--
   a sensitive boy more interested in books than ball games.
You were reading things I didn't understand when you were ten--
   --science, science fiction, philosophy, and I don't know what else--
   but you always had trouble with people.
You needed to learn to care and to have a discerning heart.
I could give you that.
You might be some wizard writer working on great things
   and I'm proud of you.
But in the end, if you learn to listen and be wise and be kind to your sister
   I'll have done my job.

I won't forget, Mom.

What is the Future of Aviation?

So I've picked up a new side job because that's just how I roll--Social Media Pathfinder for Powering Imagination, an organization dedicated to advancing and advocating for improving aviation technology. How, exactly, does one do that, and how can I help? I'm still working that out. For now, I'm going to take a little time with this blog to share what I'm reading.

How, Exactly, Do You Make Airplanes Better?
Human beings have been flying in heavier-than-air crafts ever since 1903. The basic forces at work in flying a plane are lift, drag, thrust, and gravity. Since very little can be done about gravity, inventors have worked on increasing lift, reducing drag, and increasing thrust. As aircraft have increased in their performance and utility, they have become more specialized, and each type of plane has its own performance needs...and that performance can always be improved.

Commercial Aviation
Powering Imagination's primary effort is to improve aircraft performance is commercial aviation--those big, winged aluminum tubes we see filling our airports. While I'd love to tell you that P.I. is looking for ways to improve in-flight comfort, they're more interested in how to make the planes' performance better in the following ways:

• Quiet Flight: making aircraft engines quieter--in the air and on the ground. The last big advance on commercial airliners was the high-bypass turbofan. But the Environmental Protection Agency keeps raising the bar for noise pollution standards. Powering Imagination is looking to demonstrate a quieter electric aircraft over the Grand Canyon.
  
  In addition to the standard subsonic aircraft we see every day, there are folks who would like to make supersonic aircraft quieter--so quiet, in fact, that those Earth-rattling sonic booms practically disappear. And then, of course, there's Elon Musk, who wants to reinvent aviation as he's been reinventing rockets and automobiles. Musk believes it's feasible to build an electric supersonic aircraft that performs both vertical takeoff and landing.
• Improved Fuel Efficiency and Emissions: One of Powering Imagination's founders is Erik Lindbergh, grandson of Charles A. and Anne Morrow Lindbergh. Among their early feats, to demonstrate the commercial viability of aviation, the Lindberghs flew a "Great Circle" route from the Pacific Northwest north over Siberia, then south over Japan to China. Their grandson is looking to refly that trip 85 years later, this time to demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of sustainable fuel technologies.
  
  While a lot of work is being done on cutting-edge, non-kerosene-fueled aircraft, the conventional power plant builders--Pratt & Whitney and General Electric--have their own programs to wring as much power for as little fuel as possible within the current state of the art.

There are challenges to any new technology. Electric aircraft capable of flying 200-300 passengers across the Atlantic are unlikely anytime soon. Right now solar-powered planes capable of long-distance travel, like Switzerland's Solar Impulse, have massive wingspans and carry only one person.

A friend who's more tech-savvy than I am called electric aircraft "a joke," adding, "There are certain unmanned surveillance aircraft where that feature would come in handy, but today those aircraft can only be launched and recovered in very calm weather. Despite huge wingspans, their payload capability is quite low."

So there is skepticism, to be sure. Biofuels are not the only answer, either, and they'll need a lot of federal support to prime the pump, so to speak, before they become commercially viable. Whether that can or should be done is a debate reasonable people can make. But still: we never used to need an excuse to advance the state of the art. Why not keep trying?