Do we really want to go to Mars?

A recent report by the National Research Council ("Pathways to Exploration") offers a argument for a new ambitious and costly project to send astronauts to Mars. This reminded Robert of another celebratory occasion more than 40 years ago. It was the Grissom-Chaffee Memorial Seminar ("Technology and Man's Future") held in Purdue's Elliot Hall of Music on April 13, 1973. The main speaker was the Apollo moon mission commander Capt. Gene Cernan. Robert had the privilege of being invited by then-Purdue President Arthur Hansen to be a discussant following the speaker's presentation. Cernan showed some remarkable photos taken during the moon mission and the audience was gasping. This was a tough act to follow, but here is a part of what Robert said more than 40 years ago.


"I believe that the regulation of technology is the most important intellectual and political task on the American agenda. I believe that a beginning on this task is possible if we do several things. First, we must recognize that technology is more than simply 'organized knowledge for practical purposes.' Such a benign definition of technology emphasizes its purity--that there is no intrinsic flaw or benefit in technology--only in those using it. We must begin to understand technology as an institutional system with an ideology, elites, interest groups and supportive links with corporations, foundations, military interests, federal government and universities.


"Any attempt to alter, regulate or stop certain technological developments will have to confront that institutional system--and it will take more than the wisdom of scientists, humane values and a convincing cost-benefit model.


"The second thing that must be done is the creation and institutionalization of a technical-professional role that will put people first and technology second. It is often assumed that technical experts and professionals have no ax to grind, and therefore their output is always on behalf of the general good or humankind, rather than for their own benefit, or that of people involved in the technical practice, or for the corporate profits that always seem to accrue after major technical innovations have been developed.


"Unfortunately, the experts loyalties are not always pure. Neither is the power that must be granted if they are to apply their special knowledge."


What was said more than 40 years ago may not make much sense today. But it may be worth considering.

1984 Redux

It just dawned on us, in an awakening of our conspiratorial senses, that the missing Malaysian plane is not what it seems. In reality, the plane went down in the water minutes after the transponder was turned off. But agents of the U.S Government convinced the main stream media to continue the avalanche of "news" about the missing plane and the continuing "search" in order to present the subliminal message that government surveillance technology was a very imperfect technology and the public need not worry about the government spying on its own citizens. The media were at first reluctant to participate in the hoax until they realized the positive effect on their profits coming from the sale of advertising time and space. The government for its part always has deniability from "black ops" operations.   

Simulacra-Land

This post is probably the result of too many servings of winter fruits and vegetables. "It looks like a tomato but it doesn't taste like one." Doesn't that sound familiar? Now substitute tomato with strawberry, melon, or peach and you get the picture, a familiar one to many of us. It doesn't taste like what it says!


Now switch to the national scene. "The U.S. gross national product per capita is the highest among all nations." But how come it doesn't feel like that? Maybe it's because we have lost millions of U.S. jobs to plants overseas. And maybe it's because the U.S. tax code encourages companies to invest in joint ventures and overseas production while protecting their profits from the Taxman.


Next image of reality. "The unemployment rate has fallen to the lowest level since 2009 because of strong job creation." How can that be? Maybe it's because we stopped counting the millions of Americans who have given up looking for work and who are no longer counted as being in the labor force.


Simulacra are images of reality, but not the real thing. Our tomato, GDP, and unemployment rate are poor representations of the real thing. Unfortunately, our political leaders and national media have been very successful in spoon-feeding the American people with false images of reality and constructing Simulacra-Land. 

Grass, Ass and Class

Robert once taught a course entitled "Drugs, Policy, and Society." The topics of greatest interest to the students in the course focused on the scientific evidence for addictive effects of different drugs, and the legalization of marijuana. The final oral exam required each student to make an oral argument for or against the legalization of pot. Almost all of the students were for legalization, and they insisted that the instructor (Robert) should also make the same presentation. I always took the "No" position on legalization. Why?


Robert's argument was to contrast the effects of pot, not on the science of drugs, but on the social class position of the users. The main argument was that most public support for legalization comes from the middle class and young people like those in the class. These relatively privileged people have the luxury of experimentation with drugs while in high school or college, because they will soon be moving on to their educational or work careers that will consume their interests and energies, and they will have fond memories of their experimentation with drugs, which was never a central life activity but comparable to beer parties and casual sex. If they went too far with drugs or sex, leading to dependency or pregnancy, they had family resources to help them get through a tough spot in their lives. But for young men and women without financial means who were not going anywhere, drug use can easily become "psychologically addictive" (the science is not clear on this concept) or a central feature in their daily lives. In short, the middle class casual user has a chance of "moving on" after experimentation with drugs, but not the working class youth who is not going anywhere in terms of education or employment, and where pot is more likely to become a gateway drug.


The President has spoken on this issue and his position is "soft," meaning that he wants to be on both sides as a former "user" who experienced no harm, and as a responsible adult warning that alcohol is more dangerous than pot. The President is obviously in the youthful middle class user category, and he is tone-deaf on matters of class, about which he knows little on the basis of personal experience.


So the bottom line is that the privileged American enjoys the pleasures of youthful experimentation, and the bill is paid for by working class youth. We move beyond drugs to include equally dangerous sexual experimentation because of the positive treatment of casual sex in Hollywood and the media, which may be positive for the privileged, but potential disaster for the teenage mother with no resources and no future. For those who remember Dan Quayle, who was a dim bulb on many issues, but who spoke out against the glorification of single motherhood by the media. Quayle was right on the mark on this issue, but his views had already been marginalized by his dim bulb "trope."

Is Providing Health Insurance for All Rocket Science?

Between the two of us we have over 50 years of experience having read, analyzed and critiqued a large body of written material that has been technical, complex, and sometimes opaque. We believe that we should be able to read and understand most public policies that apply to us. But we must admit to being baffled by the Affordable Care Act, and find it confusing to wade through the various choices, benefits, and costs contained within the Act. Adding to our confusion are the recent statements by the President that we "can keep our plan if we want to" (for a year--what does that mean), and by the legislation currently moving through Congress that will also allow people to keep their old plan (whatever that means).

We don't think that our confusion has anything to do with gridlock based on partisan politics. We think that the President and Congress are creating options and plans that protect themselves, their staffs, the insurance companies, and not the average American who wants/needs health insurance. The President and Congress have taken their eye off the ball, which is uninsured Americans, and have been wooed by the siren-songs of the single payer plan or the wisdom of the free market.

It really shouldn't be that hard if the focus is on providing health insurance for the 30 million uninsured Americans, some of whom can't afford insurance and some of the younger risk-takers who feel that the costs of insurance outweigh the benefits. So the questions are: (1) what is the cost of providing insurance for the uninsured? (2) how can we pay for that new cost by new taxes, or by increasing the costs of existing insurance plans, or by a combination of both.

We believe that we could come up with a plan to provide health insurance for the uninsured that would be easily understood and perhaps supported by a larger majority of Americans. We really don't think it is rocket science.

Academic Double Standard?

Our university president was criticized recently for giving the keynote address at a meeting of the Center of the American Experiment, a Minnesota think tank. The critics were concerned about the possible political leanings of the think tank and that the president was paid for his speech.

This incident caused us to reflect on our separate experiences while each serving as the head of an academic department. We could each recall providing almost automatic approval for any faculty request to be off campus for a speaking engagement. In fact, one of us can recall one faculty member who gave at least 50 public lectures in one academic year. Of immediate importance is that we cannot recall ever having asked about the group inviting our colleague, the topic of the speech, or the honorarium that was received.

Question: Should there be a different standard for faculty and administrators? Are administrators more likely to be viewed as speaking for the university, but not so for faculty? And where shall we draw the line: Presidents? Deans? Department Heads? Tenured Full Professors?

This certainly will require the work of a special committee, which will start its work with a survey of the policies used by peer institutions. In two or three years we shall have a new policy on the matter, but no one will remember why.  

Near Tragedy Averted By Obama-Putin Cooperation: A Parable

According to the Associated Press, the National Security Agency reported this morning that a Cruise Missile Attack Squad mistakenly sent a cruise missile streaking toward Moscow with Putin as the intended target. The error was caused by the Squad's reading of the text of Obama's speech to the American people on 9/12/13. The Squad was unfortunately unused to reading real printed words on real paper and they misread Obama's statement that the attack on Syria "would not be a pin prick" to mean a  reference to Putin as a "pin-headed prick." They had to launch to avoid another empty Red Line threat.

Radio Moscow reports that the spirit of Lenin was watching over Putin. Luckily, Putin was out on horseback when the cruise missile came in very low, searching for Putin's address on Kremlin buildings. Using the quick thinking developed during his years with the KGB, Putin grabbed a lasso from his saddle and snagged the missile when it slowed to read several mail box addresses. Putin wrestled the missile to the ground and dismantled the war head.

Upon hearing the news, the White House reported that the lasso was a gift to Putin from President Barack Obama. A genuine Roy Rogers Red Ryder lasso!