This is a personal rant of mine, so you will have to forgive the whole tenor of this particular piece. Self-esteem seems like a very focused issue, but it seems to rearing its ugly head in a lot of places. Let me start with the political and bring it down to the other level. President Barack Obama is persona non grata at NASA these days. People like my wife want to make sure there is a barrel of tomatoes for the employees should he ever come to the Johnson Space Center to speak.
I've spent my time at home trying to stave off the anger. I know he is trying to restructure NASA and the surrounding contractors. I know he is putting more money into NASA. I know the prior administration didn't seem to have an idea of what they wanted to do. NASA affects me personally, and I've tried to keep an open mind, but I can't help but think that Obama has fumbled the ball here and self-esteem is at the heart of it all. Charles Bolden came forth and announced that the goal of NASA is to make the Muslims feel good about themselves. Taking away the religious and political ramifications of such a statement, one has to wonder when it is ever a goal to feel good about yourself.
When John F. Kennedy spoke he said it was the goal for man to walk on the moon before the end of the decade. Now, that was a goal. It was a goal that NASA met. It was a goal that captured the hearts and minds of the nation. Nowhere in that statement was anything mentioned about feeling good about ourselves. We feel good about ourselves when we accomplish something significant. I'm sure the Muslims have contributed a lot. That's not the point. When you walk around looking for people to pat on the back, we aren't doing anything to further the cause. If Obama said "I want to go to Mars by 2020," I'll bet everyone would feel better because a goal would established. They are the smartest and the best. They could do it if given the resources.
As everyone knows, I work in the education field where self-esteem matters most. At least, that's what people will tell you. Unfortunately, we have mistaken unconditional love with self-esteem. Our children should always know that we love them and more importantly should know that we will always love them no matter what happens. We won't always be proud of them and we shouldn't always be proud of them. We should be proud of them when they do something that warrants us being proud of them.
In the education business, this rears its ugly head with social promotion and no child left behind. Imagine a world where everyone that wanted to be a brain surgeon could be one. Everyone that wants to be a Navy Seal can be one. Everyone that wants to play for the NBA can do it. These examples are basic and ludicrous, but necessary. Failure is a necessary part of life. That failure makes it down to basic high school diplomas. If everyone got one then what would they be worth? If everyone went to college then what would a college degree be worth? Our mandate as educators is to help prepare students to be productive citizens and to help them be successful. That is real success and not the fake success that a worthless piece of paper brings.
If that means that they become successful learning a trade or other skill then so be it. Forcing students into a particular line to boost self-esteem is beyond foolish. It is damaging. We have people graduating from high school that can't read or write effectively. This degree gives them an inflated sense of self-worth. They cannot do the things that people with degrees can normally do. The same happens in college when these freshman get in and can't write their way out of a paper bag.
We move back to the political realm we see a warped sense of self-esteem. How much time do we spend on any issue discussing what is wrong and who is to blame? Determining what is wrong is fine and assigning blame has its place, but at some point we reach saturation. It becomes more about being right then actually alleviating suffering or fixing something that needs to be fixed. People make up facts that don't exist and create arguments out of thin air to be right. Who cares of the whole world goes to pot? I was right and I predicted it. Did I do anything about it? Hell no, I don't need to. I was right.
Personal convictions and beliefs have their place. Everyone should have non-negotiables in their belief set. However, that implies that most things should be negotiable. Whether it is health care, financial reform, cap and trade, or energy exploration, we must have negotiations and real action. BP is to blame and we can all pat ourselves on the back and say, "we knew this day would come." What good does that do us now? All the good feelings you can have doesn't change what is coming up on shore.
Thanks for adding some insight. I've long maintained that NASA must do a PR campaign during election season (when people are paying attention) talking about the everyday things we all take for granted. We all benefit from satellites, pharmaceutical research in space, and other products (say velcro and Tang) that were developed for astronauts, but became staples in our lives. I must admit that I support NASA because I grew up here. Most of the people I know either work for NASA (or a contractor) or have someone in their family that does.
Government is about priorities and I certainly empathize with someone that thinks "what in the hell are we doing all this shit for when people are suffering?" I get that. This is because most people have no concept of what is being done. This is why a singular goal (say Mars) is so crucial. As my wife (an engineer with a contractor) so eloquently pointed out that the true value of undertaking such a mission is not the success of the mission itself, but what is learned along the way. We would learn some things that could be applied to making life easier here on earth. For all of that, the overall NASA budget is a small price to pay.
True. And he most recent was Dr. Michael Griffin. Supposedly a top engineer, but a lousy administrator. There was a concerted effort by his unqualified IG to cover up the Columbia incident, hush and threaten the scientists on global warming, and on and on. Somehow these people just don't care that their incompetencies and political decisions affect the lives of the employees. The employees make the agency an amazing place to work.
There has been some scathing commentary regarding O'Keefe. I recall reading one (author's name escapes me) that proffered that O'Keefe was a mindless dinosaur yet a competent engineer.
http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2009/08/11/two-views-of-the-vision/
Sean O'Keefe was probably the start of the downfall of NASA. He was a Bushie who made his mark in DOD, OMB and NASA. No vision
This is one that I know something about. Just completed 4 years in the CFO's Office at NASA HQ-DC. Spent a lot of time in every Center and environmental sites. JSC is a favorite of mine, and just left Clear Lake. NASA has been in trouble for a while. Under Bush, there was a grappling as to which programs would end; and next steps. NASA was the best agency that I've worked for and I spoke with President Obama personally on the campaign trail and expressed my concern for the longevity of NASA. NASA also does great work, outside of the space program.The robotics program at JPL is unbelievable. The website NASAWATCH gives a history of the different Administrators at NASA who were screwup political appointees, only interested in the prestige that came with being the Administrator; and examples of the lies and coverups that they part of. Challenger for one. Long story short, the taxpayers for the most part just don't get NASA. There has even been talk over the years of the private sector funding NASA. I am deeply heartbroken over any talk of NASA being cut. I am now back at the puzzle palace. Science is king at NASA and you know it when you walk onto one of their campuses.
That's just it...I don't know, however, I'm pretty sure I'm crazy...
You wrote: Are they crazy?
You're the AH; you know better than I. :-)
That is so true. I personally recognize that and try to convey that at home. My personal disappointment is that I hoped Obama would take the bull by the horns and give one voice and direction to this thing.
My very first NASA boss said he just once would like to finish something. As a newbie, I didn't understand at the time.
However, the CAIB (Columbia accident report) contained an interesting section on the budgetary history of NASA. Not a straight line toward any goal that I could see.
Directions for NASA change regularly. Everyone wants a singular goal for NASA, everyone has an opinion on what that should be, and everyone doesn't agree.
I agree that a clear goal would be the best thing. But I think that way too much is being made of Bolden's comment.
My wife has the best of both worlds. She works onsite, but technically works for a contractor. She likes it that way because there are perks that NASA people don't get (particularly in travel). She is more driven by a challenge. I don't know if that makes her unique or not.
The problem with Bolden's statement is that it does not establish any kind of a real goal. Making people feel good about themselves is not a goal. Should never be a goal. Even if it was a misstatement, there was no statement of a goal anywhere there. I want everyone to work together towards a common goal. That includes our international partners. Some kind of a circle jerk is not a goal. It's just a circle jerk. Present them with a challenge and hold them accountable for meeting it the safest and most efficient way possible.
Hi Bobo,
All those are good points. Richard Hoagland and John Lear claim we've been traveling to/from Mars since the 70's via Stargate. Both of those guys are knowledgeable engineers with impressive pedigrees. Are they crazy?
Tragic,
yup, that's us alright...
I just wound up 15 years with NASA subcontractors. I worked exclusively on the space station program, carrying out a variety of tasks related to software integration and data transmission.
Yes, I was laid off. No, I'm not bitter and I don't blame Obama. My lay-off was in the cards before Obama was even elected.
I've been laid off before -- but never at this advanced age :-) -- so my future is a bit uncertain. I think that's okay. We'll see how it goes.
About government contracts. I hate it when I read of a weapons systems being continued, even though the military doesn't want it, because jobs are at stake. It's wasteful and inflationary, maybe a bit demeaning, and dishonest. If a government contract is really a jobs program, than call it a jobs program. Stop with the dishonesty.
That's why I hate it when our elected reps push for NASA programs because jobs are at stake. Should we really regard the nation's space agency as a jobs program? I say no.
I do think we need to be smarter about government contracts. At JSC, contracts and sub-contracts set up little ghettos of different risk and reward.
Every proposal to carry out a government contract should be evaluated on its plans for the end of the contract. How will they use the technology they've amassed? How will they utilize the people they've trained? How big will their effort be to develop non-governmental businesses WHILE they're carrying out the contract? Change happens. Let's lessen the impact of a contract coming to an end.
It seems to me that communications technology enables a lot of engineering and operations work to be done almost anywhere. I've worked for two different NASA subcontractors. Each had stated goals of building non-governmental businesses. Neither really did it in a big way. I think we should look into why. And then change it.
The Muslim thing. I worked with most of the international partners on detailed ISS telemetry data issues. Between language barriers and dense engineering documents, the discussions would be long and wearying. But more than once, I would find myself thinking that when such groups of dedicated people got together across country borders, big problems could be solved. Bigger, perhaps, than space exploration.
Many of the ISS international partners are former enemies of the United States: Russia, Japan, Italy, Germany. We work together now. I think exploring stronger Muslim ties via the space program is worth trying.
(Of course, for obamahaters, this is a prime opportunity to get all puffy. I say, let's poke'em with sharp sticks.)
The New Direction. I'm no expert. but at least two aspects of the proposed change in direction seem right to me: new propulsion technology and getting to an asteroid.
I've heard estimates that a trip to Mars, with current propulsion technology, could be an 18-to-24 month round trip. What happens to human bodies in reduced gravity for that long? Even now, astronauts spend considerable time in rehab after an extended time on the station. That seems big to me. If new propulsion technology can lessen transit time, I'm all for it. Mars isn't going anywhere.
And figuring out how to get to asteroid seems both difficult and practical, especially if the asteroid is one we haven't discovered yet, one with negative potential for our lovely planet. I think we should do that.
scott have you ever noticed that so many people "working" for nasa are actually working for contractors who are working for nasa? i know a person or two who have worked at nasa for not one but several consecutive contractors, minus the great benefits that go along with being a federal employee? possibly this is because nasa is not really a govt entity, just kinda one, like the federal reserve. i'm not implying the people i know aren't satisfied to be "this" close to their dream job, just relating that in a galaxy far, far away they were told if they did a good job a direct hire would probably occur. it did not. reminds me of my old days working at compaq computer when a majority of the labor force did not work for the company, instead placed through contractors. maybe nasa is different, let us know. i felt obama's mars ambitions might be overreaching, but i was glad to hear muslims are invited to participate since india and china are already in the mix. i might be different from many people because i've always felt space should belong to ALL countries. the "space race between america and russia was used to initiate years of anti-russian schoolyard sentiment, often going farther then a healthy rivalry. even after the iron curtain came down it took a long time for healthy interactions between the two superpowers.
And furthermore... :O)
In flight anomalies have dropped by 90% in the last year and a half. 90%! That's huge! I'm not a big fan of putting the hammer down but if there was any benefit to Reagan's economic philosophy it was that after all the smoke cleared we were running a tighter ship and that's important to moving forward. I guess the problem was that 'perspective' was lost regarding what was important to us as a society. Those anxious to hop on the bandwagon, yet lacking the wherewithal to deserve to be on it started looking for ways to divert attention away from their lack and started pointing fingers at those that 'appeared' to be unworthy. Seems there were a lot of people scrambling for cover.
Sam....spot on!
The engineers I work with all said that spending had to be cut back if we was gonna make it. I posited to them that if that included the loss of their job would they still agree. They all said, "of course" and I thought "B*llSh*t". Now they want to string him up but no more than they did when he first walked into office. Obama did the right thing to force people out of their complacency. So now it's time for them to come up with some good ideas on their own (it is after all their ballgame) or shut the f*ck up.
What people at NASA want is real leadership. Funding issues are secondary to a real objective. Making anyone feel good about themselves is not a real objective. I do agree that Obama probably did not call with that mandate. I'm sure he misspoke, but why is that even a topic of discussion? The reason is that there is no clear objective at this point and that is the real crime.
If you say, "I want to get to Mars by 2020 and I want our international allies to know that we value their aid and support of this goal" then you have done all you need. Why do we need some over the hill astronaut to blather on about all the Canadians have done at a wrestling match?
Self-esteem is something that is earned by working hard and accomplishing something. It cannot be given to you through political speeches or ill-gotten degrees or gain. Everyone needs a good attaboy at the office every now and then, but that does not give you self-esteem. While I may value someone's aid and accomplishments, telling that person or those people cannot be a primary objective of any project. Imagine filling out a weekly report on your activities. "I told Joe he did a great job on the expense report." You'd either be reprimanded or laughed out of the office.
does anyone else besides me doubt that Obama walked into Bolden's office and told him his job was to make Muslims feel good? I think what happened was that a call for more multinational support for what should be a project of every nation on this planet that lists humans as citizens instead of a project for the glorification of one nation's ideology was reworded into a statement seemingly designed to incite outraged among the easily incitable.
maybe it would be a good thing for the average muslim in the average 3rd world country to know that his people didn't always scratch a living from an inhospitable desert in abject poverty...but were once pre-eminent in the arts, sciences, and literature.
At the end of the day, the insurmountable differences among the people of this planet are inconsequential.
In the words of the legendary Yakko Warner...
"It's a great big universe and we're all really puny....just a tiny little dot about the size of Mickey Rooney. While we don't know if it stops here, we're quite sure we're on top here. It's a big universe, and we're not."
NIMBY = Not in My Back Yard
We want dentention facilities (Republicans want more than Democrats) but not in my neighborhood.
We want cuts in federal spending, just not in our part of NASA.
We want to make sure there are no repeats of the Deepwater debacle, but let's not talk about a moratorium to make sure precedures developed for shallow water wells work for deep water rigs.
We don't want wasteful government spending except when it affects the truck plant in Sealy.
We want tax cuts (which hurts the economy) but oppose helping the long term unemployed (which is proven to help) simply because it's an election year.
We continue to fight two wars because no one, other than soldiers and their families, has to sacrifice. There are no increased taxes, rationing, and the war wasn't even part of the budget until last year.
We're doomed to become a second class country without a national shift in values and attitudes. Sadly, I feel the election in November will only push us closer to the edge.
True very true. If I lived in Iowa and my worked for Kellogs I wouldn't care nearly as much. Since she works for a contractor and we live a few miles from Johnson Space Center, I do care greatly. As Tip O'Neill said, "all politics is local."
The "powers that be" are focusing all their attention on little ole NASA (.6 of the annual budget), while the real culprits who get 50% or more of the annual budget walk off into the sunset.
This is called 3-card monte. Just try and follow the hole card, if you can.