One more day (almost)...
Feb. 20th, 2002 07:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgpThings are mighty quiet around here at the Ops Planner back room console. Alex K. took off at his appointed time, headed for The Outpost, a local watering hole that traces its roots back to the days of the Mercury program, it is said. I've been there a few times, and it does certainly seem to attract a lot of NASA types, and the walls are festooned with autographed photographs of many, many astronauts and crews.
Alex and I got to discussing the space program earlier, and Jim Oberg's new book in particular. I saw it at Barnes & Noble the other day and took a gander at the index to see if there were any references to translators or my former employer. I saw none, but in reading the book, was struck by his almost strident tone when it comes to the joint U.S.-Russian program. To say the least, the man is critical of the idea (and has been, for some time).
Alex tells me that despite no mention in the index, Oberg did put in a dig against my old boss and the cadre of translators and interpreters that've been working in the program for nearly the past decade. I can only say that I'm not surprised. Jim has a reputation for having very definite opinions, and like a lot of people, appears to have little respect for people who disagree with him. Unlike a lot of people, Oberg is a published writer who made his writing "bones" back in the bad old days of the Cold War, establishing himself as something of a mensch - and a critical one at that - when it came to the Soviet space program.
Based on his strident tone (observed first hand watching him talk "space" with people) I can't help but get the feeling that he really resents having so many other people develop significant expertise - and consequently, a basis for holding informed opinions that differ from his - in what used to be his almost exclusive bailiwick.
This is not to say that everything Oberg says is baloney, looking at the big picture, but during my brief browse of his book, I came to the conclusion that it'd make a wonderful text for a class that discusses techniques of fallacious argument. Maybe I'll wait for it to come out in paperback before laying out money for it.
The rest of the conversation with Alex K. was not very pleasant. When I expressed disappointment that the only reason humans walked on the moon was, basically, to make a political point, he looked at me as if I'd grown an extra head. Practically everything worthwhile in the world, he maintained, had been done to make a political point. Great art (Michelangelo's work with the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel). Great architecture (examples too numerous to mention). Technology (rockets, radio, aviation). I was too tired and too intent on our work to argue.
Despite his ability to assume a highly argumentative posture, Alex is not one of these people who goes over the top, intending to leave you as a slightly greasy spot on the landscape after he's finished blasting you. Once I shut my mouth, so did he and we returned to our work.
Tomorrow's shift starts at 9 am. After work, I will get together with Lee and see about trying to get at least her stuff out of the apartment. Then there is that translation...
Gotta get ready to go home.
Cheers...
Alex and I got to discussing the space program earlier, and Jim Oberg's new book in particular. I saw it at Barnes & Noble the other day and took a gander at the index to see if there were any references to translators or my former employer. I saw none, but in reading the book, was struck by his almost strident tone when it comes to the joint U.S.-Russian program. To say the least, the man is critical of the idea (and has been, for some time).
Alex tells me that despite no mention in the index, Oberg did put in a dig against my old boss and the cadre of translators and interpreters that've been working in the program for nearly the past decade. I can only say that I'm not surprised. Jim has a reputation for having very definite opinions, and like a lot of people, appears to have little respect for people who disagree with him. Unlike a lot of people, Oberg is a published writer who made his writing "bones" back in the bad old days of the Cold War, establishing himself as something of a mensch - and a critical one at that - when it came to the Soviet space program.
Based on his strident tone (observed first hand watching him talk "space" with people) I can't help but get the feeling that he really resents having so many other people develop significant expertise - and consequently, a basis for holding informed opinions that differ from his - in what used to be his almost exclusive bailiwick.
This is not to say that everything Oberg says is baloney, looking at the big picture, but during my brief browse of his book, I came to the conclusion that it'd make a wonderful text for a class that discusses techniques of fallacious argument. Maybe I'll wait for it to come out in paperback before laying out money for it.
The rest of the conversation with Alex K. was not very pleasant. When I expressed disappointment that the only reason humans walked on the moon was, basically, to make a political point, he looked at me as if I'd grown an extra head. Practically everything worthwhile in the world, he maintained, had been done to make a political point. Great art (Michelangelo's work with the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel). Great architecture (examples too numerous to mention). Technology (rockets, radio, aviation). I was too tired and too intent on our work to argue.
Despite his ability to assume a highly argumentative posture, Alex is not one of these people who goes over the top, intending to leave you as a slightly greasy spot on the landscape after he's finished blasting you. Once I shut my mouth, so did he and we returned to our work.
Tomorrow's shift starts at 9 am. After work, I will get together with Lee and see about trying to get at least her stuff out of the apartment. Then there is that translation...
Gotta get ready to go home.
Cheers...
