Then you have failed utterly my friend.
August 31, 2011
From Nature News:
“The area in which I have failed the most is as a father,” Quiñones-Hinojosa readily admits.
Then you have failed.
None of us are perfect. We have our successes and our failures in many parts of our lives. Lord knows I do.
I do know this though.
If parenthood is where you fail “the most”, you are fucking up.
DrugMonkey 
August 31, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Sometimes I think people say stuff like this as a way of pretending that they actually care a lot about parenthood. You know, beating the breast about what failures they’ve been as parents, when they’ve always given parenthood the backseat to other ambitions. Telling themselves they HAD to sacrifice the parenthood gig to make it in the career. Which, they did, to make it in the way they did, the way our work world is structured. As long people keep thinking that being at the top of whatever heap is really important, they will keep sacrificing relationships and family to get there. There is no surfeit of people who think that sacrifice is worth it, and that they can come back around at some later point after they’ve made it and pick up the relationship/family pieces they’ve dropped. The concerted effort to make women think an unwillingness to do this is a proof of their inferiority in science, or business, rather than a symptom of resistance to the crushing weight of capitalism, always makes me gnash my teeth.
LikeLike
August 31, 2011 at 1:46 pm
I assume that you both saw the Nature editorial that accompanied this feature? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7362/full/477005b.html
“As research funding declines in many countries, science will intensify. Anyone lacking the inner intellectual drive and a capacity for relentless focus to get to the heart of the way the world works should stay away.”
I can’t imagine a conclusion more guaranteed to alienate people from joining science.
LikeLike
August 31, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Well, obviously Quinones-Hinojosa is quite extreme, and there are plenty of ways to succeed at science without being him. OTOH, I can’t really fault a guy who started off picking crops as an undocumented immigrant and wound up a neurosurgeon and researcher if he is over-the-top in his demands and work habits. I mean, you don’t rise that high from that rough of a start without some massively over-the-top drive. And you don’t easily lose the habits that got you through that journey.
Not having lived his life, I’m not going to critique it.
As to the editorial, if funding is scarce and competition is tight, those are signals that there are indeed too many people chasing too few dollars and too few positions. In other words, those are signals that there SHOULD be fewer people pursuing careers in academic science. (That is NOT the same as saying that there should be fewer people studying science. The university is supposed to be a system that takes in people as inputs and produces smarter, productively-trained people as outputs.) So, yeah, when there are too few positions, you probably shouldn’t try for one unless you’re prepared for intense competition.
What if somebody said that acting is hyper-competitive, so unless you’re prepared to get rejected at hundreds of auditions while sleeping on couches and waiting tables you shouldn’t move to Hollywood to pursue an acting career? Would we lament this exclusionary advice, or would we thank them for persuading our kids that they should stay in school?
LikeLike
August 31, 2011 at 3:35 pm
The thing about parenthood is that its frequently impossible to tell what action is going to fuck up your children until its too late. You make a decision, often with their best interest in mind, and then realize (to paraphrase the great Louis CK), “Welp, that’s going to leave an emotional scar. Thank Mommy for the therapy later.”
When I screw something up at work, it sucks, but I rarely feel like a failure. I figure I’ll fix it. Or do it differently next time. Feeling like you’ve made the wrong choice for your children is a far different horrible feeling to contend with. But, that’s because my children, not my career, are the cornerstone of my life.
LikeLike
August 31, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Fucker is doing neurosurgery on 2-3 hours of sleep, and bragging about it (in bed at 0100, our of bed at 0500, and claims to have spent a couple of hours lying awake in bed thinking about the surgery).
You’d think that a fucking neurosurgeon would have at least passing familiarity with the research on how sleep deprivation influences human performance.
Apparently not.
LikeLike
August 31, 2011 at 8:47 pm
I suppose it depends partially on one’s standards.
But yeah. The article was ambiguous, but it sounded like he went to sleep at 1, woke up, practiced surgery in his mind for two hours, and then got up at 5. Two hours sleep total before brain surgery? Either we need to be *studying* this guy, or I really REALLY wouldn’t wanna be his patient. Let alone his post-doc… or worst of all, his kid.
LikeLike
August 31, 2011 at 9:02 pm
No, I’m with Alex on this one. First, Alex is right about what it takes for someone from Quiñones-Hinojosa’s background to rise as high as he has. Second, I think few people in my generation of graduate students will get to be academic PI’s without the stamina for intense competition. There’s already a dearth of professorships, and we’re living in a political climate that’s increasingly hostile to taxpayer-funded science. Even now, many PI’s I know are doing science in some capacity around the clock. This includes the good-natured and genuinely innovative ones who don’t write Kern manifestos or fire pregnant women from their labs. I think one major difference between the PI’s I admire and the PI’s I don’t want to emulate is that the admirable PI’s don’t feel as if they’re working around the clock. I don’t think the difference is in “inner intellectual drive and a capacity for relentless focus”.
Plus, what I’ve learned from my first year of graduate school is that scientific ambition and having children don’t seem to mix for the vast majority of scientists. That’s why so many women get out of the game at the postdoctoral level. I could be wrong. If I am right, this could be for a multitude of reasons, not just the one that Quiñones-Hinojosa gives. But, whatever the explanation, I’m under the impression that if you aren’t prepared to forgo childrearing, you can forget about having a career that other scientists actually respect. Having to spare time to raise children’ll screw your career as much as not having children but being dumb and lazy would. (And right now I spend a lot of time worrying that I am dumb and lazy.)
I’m not saying this is the way it should be. Honestly? I don’t know how it “should” be anymore (though I’ve got some outlandish ideas). This is the way I think it is.
Fucker is doing neurosurgery on 2-3 hours of sleep
I really hope that isn’t true. That’s cray-cray.
LikeLike
August 31, 2011 at 10:11 pm
It’s easy to criticize A Q-H, but I found the self-congratulatory tone of Julie Overbaugh’s commentary to be equally off-putting.
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 2:18 am
Juniper-
Your “vast majority” is wrong. Plain wrong. And the “other scientists respect” bit sounds suspiciously circular to me. Make sure you are not valuing only the opinion of the Kerns and the Poos of the world…
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 2:49 am
Having to spare time to raise children’ll screw your career as much as not having children but being dumb and lazy would.
No. No, it won’t. Having children keeps you grounded and reminds you of a major reason why you have a career. Being dumb and lazy is just dumb and lazy.
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 3:05 am
The big lie in all of this is that quantity of publications is what it takes to have a successful, stable scientific career and make important contributions to the advancement of your career. Looney-tune neurosurgeon dude himself admitted that the vast majority of his pubs are just bullshitte turd case reports. This assefucke may *enjoy* driving himself and his poor fucke trainees to death, but it is not necessary for a stable successful scientific career.
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 3:06 am
Having children may, however, make the PI slightly less patient with chronologically adult academic trainees.
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 4:05 am
Having children may, however, make the PI slightly less patient with chronologically adult academic trainees.
Even better, getting advice from fellow PIs *without* children. “I don’t understand why KidX does FillInARidiculousActivity — you should just tell them to GoBlarghThemselvesOrSumin'”. Ummmmm … no. It’s a kid, not a dog/cat/ferret. Same goes to single PIs trying to relate to those in a relationship; hilarious conversations and looks on their face(s).
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 5:12 am
“It’s easy to criticize A Q-H, but I found the self-congratulatory tone of Julie Overbaugh’s commentary to be equally off-putting.”
Really? I didn’t even get a glimmer of that. When one is describing ones productivity per-unit effort, it is appropriate to discuss one’s accomplishments.
Or perhaps you can point to an equally accomplished female scientist discussing her accomplishments elsewhere that you find appropriately demur?
“Having children may, however, make the PI slightly less patient with chronologically adult academic trainees.”
Interesting. I thought having a kid made me radically more patient with my chronologically adult PI.
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 6:28 am
Your “vast majority” is wrong. Plain wrong. And the “other scientists respect” bit sounds suspiciously circular to me. Make sure you are not valuing only the opinion of the Kerns and the Poos of the world
DrugMonkey, I am listening to you, and you would know better than I. But I need to make it clear at this juncture that I’m not getting this impression solely from the Kerns and the Poos of the world. I’m getting it from childless scientists who don’t want to live the Kern life, and I’m getting it from parents, mostly women, who tell me that they’ve sacrificed the opportunity to have careers in scientific research in order to have children. I’m getting it from scientists who left research for careers in administration, education and logistics who quoted their mentors announcing that they “didn’t want women in their labs because too many of them are on the mommy track”. I’m getting it from female scientists who, frankly, worship a bit too much at the altar of Domesticity, Childbearing and Deferring to the Men as the Real Geniuses (that last part is the one that burns me up the most) for my taste. I’m getting it from the stuff they say about one another in my presence.
Having children keeps you grounded and reminds you of a major reason why you have a career.
I have always been a staunch supporter of workplace policies that assist working parents of both sexes. People have a right to have children, and I think anyone with a brain can look at the history of science and realize that the greatest contributions have come from an array of personalities with a diversity of backgrounds and lifestyles. That’s why statements such as this one make me a little angry. It sounds suspiciously like one of my colleagues, with whom I’ve had friction over this issue, telling me that you can’t learn to value “what’s truly important” unless you reproduce. Since “what’s truly important” to any given person is completely and justifiably subjective, and since I’ve never criticized any of my colleagues or mentors for having children, I took this as both an irrational statement and an attempt to put me in my place because I have the gall to not want any children and to undertake graduate school with optimism. But maybe you didn’t mean this the way that my colleague meant it.
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 9:51 am
I have always been a staunch supporter of workplace policies that assist working parents of both sexes. People have a right to have children, and I think anyone with a brain can look at the history of science and realize that the greatest contributions have come from an array of personalities with a diversity of backgrounds and lifestyles. That’s why statements such as this one make me a little angry. It sounds suspiciously like one of my colleagues, with whom I’ve had friction over this issue, telling me that you can’t learn to value “what’s truly important” unless you reproduce. Since “what’s truly important” to any given person is completely and justifiably subjective, and since I’ve never criticized any of my colleagues or mentors for having children, I took this as both an irrational statement and an attempt to put me in my place because I have the gall to not want any children and to undertake graduate school with optimism. But maybe you didn’t mean this the way that my colleague meant it.
Juniper, I think you have misinterpreted me. The decision to have children is clearly a very personal one and I would never try to influence someone one way or the other. My response was purely to your statement that having children could have the same effect on your career as being dumb and lazy. That is patently not true, as many, many highly successful faculty can attest. Dumb and lazy will kill your career. Having children will not.
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 11:39 am
I find this intriguing.
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 11:48 am
Juniper said: But, whatever the explanation, I’m under the impression that if you aren’t prepared to forgo childrearing, you can forget about having a career that other scientists actually respect. Having to spare time to raise children’ll screw your career as much as not having children but being dumb and lazy would. (And right now I spend a lot of time worrying that I am dumb and lazy.)
Odyssey said: That is patently not true, as many, many highly successful faculty can attest. Dumb and lazy will kill your career. Having children will not.
I will agree with Odyssey here, but with a qualifier. Having children will not destroy your career, but it will likely alter it — temporarily or permanently — unless you have someone to completely shoulder the burden at home. But do you really want to have a family and never be around to enjoy it?
Anyway, regarding altering one’s career: I have kids and am at an R1 public school, the state’s flagship, and according to all metrics I am doing pretty well. If I hadn’t had children, would I have been at MIT or Stanford (top places in my field)? Maybe, but maybe not. There is nothing that guarantees reaching the upper echelons of academia; for every laser-focused workaholic who got there by forgoing all else, there are hordes of people who sacrificed just as much or more and didn’t get there. All I know for sure is that I wasn’t going to have a family and not be there to raise them.
To me, and I dare say to most scientists with families, family is what brings sanity and balance back into one’s life. For me, it was never a question of either-or; I would not be anywhere near happy without my family or without my career. They are both great passions, if you will, and the only way for me to feel successful is to combine and enjoy both of them. Anything else — even the highest imaginable professional standing without the personal life — would feel like a failure.
(This is NOT a judgement of people without kids. This is my view of my own personal choices.)
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 12:09 pm
If I hadn’t had children, would I have been at MIT or Stanford (top places in my field)? Maybe, but maybe not. There is nothing that guarantees reaching the upper echelons of academia; for every laser-focused workaholic who got there by forgoing all else, there are hordes of people who sacrificed just as much or more and didn’t get there.
This is the answer to Juniper’s examples of people who claim “Oh, I would’ve been a RockStar but for …..” yes, bias exists but people also make choices that are going to shift their odds. Not rule any particular fate in or out, but shift the odds.
Parenthood is only one such choice, btw.
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 3:35 pm
My physician wife and I have 2 children ages 9 and 6. At various times in our marriage, each has sacrificed for the other’s career. We are both doing very well now – although we both still work hard and for a couple of hours in the evenings after the kids are in bed. If one can’t do good science working 50-60 hours a week (including bench science, grant writing, reviewing, etc) one is not being efficient.
This neurosurgeon is an idiot – if you pubmed search him, the papers you see are in low impact, barely noticeable journals. Who wants to spend this much time doing “science” if your output is only deforestation.
Lastly, one of the reasons I don’t do clinical medicine anymore is that while doing it, I could tell that I wasn’t at my best when compared to those doing it full time. No way would I let this guy near my brain.
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 5:47 am
Homie isn’t that much of a baller, he’s only got one active R01 and his K award ends soon. No wonder he works the poor fuckers to death, he can’t afford to hire anyone else.
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 5:53 am
I don’t quite understand how one can get experiments to work after being at work for so long. My coordination starts failing at the end of the day–increased risks of dropping or breaking something, or hands shaking in the cell culture hood and contaminating things.
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Many pf these fuckers still wear their exhaustion like it is a badge of honor. At least where I am, its part of the culture.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 5:47 am
We have a seven week old child in the next room. My career isn’t even on the table (or my mind) right now – she is. Oh well. It is something how my priorities shifted in a day and, once I’ve slept for four consecutive hours, I’ll have to reexamine my choices and my life. Funny that my spouse hasn’t had to do the same thing. Why, he’s doctorin’ today. I don’t know, I find myself in new, uncharted territory here. I’d rather have a happy family life at the end of the day than a prestigious career and that’s a choice I’m glad I have the opportunity to make.
Brain fog. I don’t even know what my point is today.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 8:57 am
My response was purely to your statement that having children could have the same effect on your career as being dumb and lazy. That is patently not true, as many, many highly successful faculty can attest.
Odyssey, your point is taken. However, I still can’t help wondering: How many of these highly successful faculty are male scientists with wives who gave up any prospect of an ambitious career to do the lion’s share of the childrearing and the housework for them? I’m not the only heterosexual woman in science whose view of having children is deeply influenced by the examples around her. Barring laziness and stupidity, it’s easy to have a high-flying career if one’s parenthood is entirely comprised of gamete donation.
Yeah, Dr. Two Hours of Sleep Before I Cut Into Your Brain has children. Dude just didn’t rear them– or so I’m guessing from the Nature article. This is why DrugMonkey is disgusted with him. If the dude had, however, he probably wouldn’t be a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins.
Now, I do continue to be unpleasantly surprised that a prestigious institution such as Johns Hopkins would offer to their patients a neurosurgeon who sleeps two fucking hours before he cuts into their brains. I also don’t think it’s awesome to have only one active R01 at that institution at that career stage and to put quantity before quality. But that is a digression. Even quality science done by incredibly talented scientists can require a lot of time, no?
I find this intriguing.
Isis, I should probably mention that my PI knows what pseudonym I blog under, I don’t know who else at my former or present schools knows what pseudonym I blog under, and my identity is thinly veiled anyway. So I constantly walk the fine line between blogging honestly about things that frustrate me and gossiping. I don’t mind having to walk that line in order to keep blogging as “Juniper”, but I do acknowledge that I kind of suck at it. That paragraph is about as specific as I can get, and even writing that much will probably screw me politically at some point.
This is the answer to Juniper’s examples of people who claim “Oh, I would’ve been a RockStar but for …..” yes, bias exists but people also make choices that are going to shift their odds. Not rule any particular fate in or out, but shift the odds.
Yes, you and GMP are right. I realize that the list of reasons why various scientists don’t become Rock Stars (i.e., tenured academic PI at Ivy League or equivalently ranked institution with 7 R01’s, 8,000 Glamor Mag articles and ten New York Times popular science bestsellers, or whatever) could include:
– Children or no, they don’t have the talent or the drive.
– They definitely have the talent and the drive, but they turned down the offer of a tenure-track professorship at Harvard, because, while they were much gratified, they still didn’t want to live Lifestyles of the Bruised-Eyed and Pasty White as witnessed during their interview.
– Higher resolution analysis: They have the requisite intelligence, creativity and motivation, but they don’t have the “it” factor.
– Women in the US: they feel as if they owe it to feminism to have serious careers, but the truth is that they as individuals are chiefly interested in childrearing and homemaking, so they go through the motions instead of fully engaging in their careers.
– Men in the US: they feel as if they owe it to tradition and patriarchy to have serious careers, but the truth is that they as individuals are chiefly interested in childrearing and homemaking, so they go through the motions instead of fully engaging in their careers.
– They can’t admit to themselves that they’ve lost interest in science, so they drift about instead of taking charge of their lives.
– They got burned by shitty-ass mentorship, the Kern Manifesto and the machismo that pervades their labs, departments or subfields.
– They caved to the people who are so embittered by shitty-ass mentorship, etc. that they now expend a lot of energy telling starry-eyed n00bs that they’re just going to fail, grow to hate science, and wind up waiting tables and driving taxis instead of advising them from a less vituperative and anecdata-based perspective.
– There’s a dearth of research positions
because of a devastating mixture of dumb-ass political philosophies and people’s inability across the political spectrum to think seriously about what research science is going to start looking like as the 21st century progresses.– They refused to relocate for the sake of their spouse’s career.
– They had children for the wrong reasons with the wrong partner. (God, but does this one really deter me from wanting children.)
Obviously, this list isn’t comprehesive. Additionally, some of these reasons could explain why a given scientist doesn’t have a respectable research career anywhere, not just at an Ivy League or in academia. At any rate, yes, you are right.
GMP, I really liked your comment. It’s good to hear that you have both a serious career and a family and are happy about both. I grew up in a community where traditional gender roles were rigidly, rigidly enforced by peer pressure and all the women, including my mother, stayed home. I have always thought that my mother doesn’t regret having children but would have been happier if she’d also had a serious career. This is one reason why I simultaneously don’t want to have children but fervently support measures that help parents maintain serious careers.
Who wants to spend this much time doing “science” if your output is only deforestation
That made me laugh so hard. I totally agree.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 10:26 am
To add to Juniper’s list:
-life is, in all objective reality, a series of compromises and you are just muddling along, doing the best you can to pursue all of your goals. In the recognition that you’d rather be at least semi-competent at several things than an abject failure at any one of them.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 11:11 am
There’s no need to focus on being a superstar with 7 RO1’s & etc.
If you can maintain a funded group and research topics that interest you then you have a job that is – in terms of both pay and working conditions – 99 times better than what 99% of the world has to put up with.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 12:24 pm
That’s right Academic Lurker
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Juniper and anyone else junior who believes children and academic careers don’t seem compatible, NO NO NO NO NO. I don’t know where you’re getting these ideas from. I am a (currently childfree) TT assistant professor. I am viewed as less successful than others with kids because the pressure now is not to just succeed academically, but to “have it all”. I’d say it’s not only commonplace but in fact expected that you will succeed *and* have kids. I am married so people openly make comments to me to have kids on the tenure track all the time (both in my department/university and at conferences). Most people I know also are very present in their kids’ lives. I am now at a top 10 school in my field and I also worked in Europe – most postdocs there were having kids as the maternity leave was great. That’s one problem with the US (and can cause discrimination against women).
Lets not perpetuate these ideas. Not all corners of academia are family unfriendly. At least I’ve been in many that are not.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 4:01 pm
There is no question some women (and men) may feel like having children set them back. But before you buy all that, be aware that there are plenty of people who use it as an excuse to blame their lack of productivity for other reasons. (Though this is not a very popular topic to bring up).
Why would I say such a horrid thing? I have had 7 years of illness (ongoing) during which I was at zero% work for 8-9 months at a time 3 times. The rest of the time I am maybe at 50-80% capacity. I absorbed all the lost time and productivity without going insane and without losing my career. You learn to work better, wield your strengths and form collaborations as needed. I can’t imagine a baby is much much worse than my illness.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Sorry I keep writing in parts but Juniper, if someone bugs you about not understanding the real meaning of life because you don’t have children, tell them you very well understand, having survived cancer. That can shut people up. That patronizing attitude pisses me off too. But this is not something specific to academia.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 9:38 am
Juniper and anyone else junior who believes children and academic careers don’t seem compatible, NO NO NO NO NO. I don’t know where you’re getting these ideas from
Well, for starters, women who have told me that they left academic science because academic science is a boys’ club where lip-service is paid to “work-life balance” while in reality women with children are relegated to unimportant projects and gossiped about with sex-specific disrespect. I don’t necessarily agree with them, because academic science is a vast enterprise and some departments and subfields are more hostile to scientists with families than others; I alluded to that in the list in my last comment. But I don’t dismiss how they feel, either– especially when other scientists tell me that those women left academic science because they never wanted academic careers in the first place– dude, how do you know? did you ever bother to ask?– or can’t keep their stories straight on a number of other topics I won’t go into now.
the pressure now is not to just succeed academically, but to “have it all”
Is this a good reason to have children? Children aren’t accessories, or prizes. They’re human beings who depend on their parents for everything, and even the highly intelligent and well-behaved ones with good hearts are hard work to care for.
In my opinion, too many people get married and have children merely because there’s societal pressure on them to do so. As the clock ticks away, these people unenthusiastically settle for partners with whom they’re actually incompatible, and then they have children that they aren’t equipped to raise and may regret having. Then they grow bitter and, rather than admit to themselves what’s really going on and take charge of their lives as best they can, they view themselves as victims of fate and proceed to tear down everyone within their sight who didn’t sacrifice career and lifestyle on the altar of domesticity just to be like everyone else.
Certainly, this doesn’t describe everyone with children. A number of people genuinely want to have children, and I am happy for them when they do. Some people have both careers and families that make them happy and sane. But it describes more of them than people want to admit.
Your managing to have established a successful academic career in spite of a serious illness is not any less impressive just because you don’t have children– whether you wanted them or not.
But before you buy all that, be aware that there are plenty of people who use it as an excuse to blame their lack of productivity for other reasons. (Though this is not a very popular topic to bring up).
Yeah, I concede that this is probably true. I alluded to that in my list, too.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Societal pressure to have children is a touch simplistic Juniper. Being around a lot of parents, from many different walks of life, it is more that people fail to think it through. or fail to know themselves deeply. They *think* they themselves want children. They aren’t consciously knuckling under to societal pressure.
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 4:43 am
“The big lie in all of this is that quantity of publications is what it takes to have a successful, stable scientific career and make important contributions to the advancement of your career. Looney-tune neurosurgeon dude himself admitted that the vast majority of his pubs are just bullshitte turd case reports. This assefucke may *enjoy* driving himself and his poor fucke trainees to death, but it is not necessary for a stable successful scientific career.”
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 11:25 am
They aren’t consciously knuckling under to societal pressure.
DrugMonkey, I am very tempted to tell you that you obviously haven’t had to deal with the people I’ve had to deal with for seven years in various settings.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 6:48 am
i don’t know about being a top research scientist but i do know about being a top IBM executive. its hard. REALLY hard- no shortcuts, no excuses. its HARD. and yet… IBM has a management cadre with plenty of working mothers- the numbers in that regard are stunning. A deep bench of management talent, with many working mothers. Well done IBM!
LikeLike
October 15, 2011 at 12:04 am
Our hard-working, sleep-deprived friend has written a memoir in his spare time, which he will be discussing on C-SPAN this weekend:
http://www.q-and-a.org/Program/?ProgramID=1361
LikeLike