Huh?

In an interesting piece about blogging in Business Week, I come across this oddity:

A Google official says the company has lots of bloggers and just expects them to use common sense. For example, if it’s something you wouldn’t e-mail to a long list of strangers, don’t blog it.

That might be common something, but it doesn’t look like common sense to me. If I used that criterion, I can’t think of anything that I’d ever blog, since I would never email anything to a long list of strangers. On my planet, that’s called spamming.

If Google officials don’t understand the difference between a hyperlink that someone comes across, and decides to go investigate it, and having that same person’s mailbox filled with someone’s uninvited ravings, they’re frighteningly clueless about the internet. I wonder if this quote was taken out of context?

No Big Deal

The president’s science advisor says that Mike Griffin will ride to the rescue, and save us from the dreaded gap.

Unlike Senator Hutchison, though, who unaccountably thinks gaps are a national security crisis, Dr. Marburger is more sanguine about them. Too much so, in fact, for my taste:

…more gaps in access were likely in the future of the U.S. space program. These gaps are to be viewed as a fact of life in space operations, he suggested.

“There will be future gaps from time to time. The thing to remember is that the president’s plan is a long-term, sustained commitment.” Gaps, he suggested, were simply a part of the continuing process of space exploration.

While I don’t in fact think that “gaps” are that big a deal, given the trivial things that we’re currently doing (and even planning) with our civil manned spaceflight program, I’m quite disturbed by the notion that they are an inevitable feature of space operations. Imagine if he’d said, “there will be future gaps from time to time in our ability to get into the air,” or “there will be future gaps from time to time in our ability to cross the oceans.”

Clearly, this isn’t an attitude that would be acceptable if we were actually doing anything important with humans in space. The fact that he can make such a statement is a window into his perception of the importance of being a space-faring nation, a goal at which the current plans for VSE still fall far short, for decades.

The New Buggy-Whip Manufacturers

Glenn writes about GM’s problems.

This is an issue of personal resonance with me, and one that I write about with heart heavy, because I almost certainly wouldn’t be here blogging, or blogging about the topics that I do, if it weren’t for GM. I grew up in Flint, Michigan (unlike Michael Moore, despite his claims), the home town of GM. It was part of the proud history of my town, and much of my third grade education was devoted to learning about it. I remember the tales my grandparents told of the proud stand of the union in the 1937 strike, how through the long weeks wives and mothers brought their husbands and sons sandwiches to pass through the factory windows during the lockdown on south Saginaw Street at the Fisher One plant, now closed, around the corner from which my brother owned a house in the 1980s, when it was still operating.

My father was a GM executive. GM put food on our table, paid our mortgage, paid for the public schools that I attended (however abysmal, but at the time, they were probably as good as any in the nation as a result of GM-provided property-tax payments, and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation–C.S. Mott was one of GM’s founders), and helped fund Mott Community College, which I attended prior to going to engineering school at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. And of course, it put many cars in our garage and driveway over the years (most of them GM products).

But the movie October Sky resonated strongly with me, because I saw in some ways GM as the coal mine that kept me from the stars (despite the fact that GM actually played a key role in Apollo–AC Spark Plug Division, for whom my dad worked at the time, built the inertial platform for the Command Module and Saturn), and my father as someone who couldn’t understand how anyone wouldn’t want to work for the company that had treated him, a kid from Brooklyn who moved out of the big city to marry his midwest sweetheart after the war, so well. I remember his shock as I spurned his company cars (almost invariably Caddies, or Caddie wannabes, like Buick Electra 225s, which handled like ocean liners with flooded bilges) for my own MGB-GT when I went out on dates.

Of course, it wasn’t nearly as bad as the movie–my father even tolerated, if he didn’t understand, the fact that I preferred MGs to GM as a youth (and truth be told, to the degree that MGs or their like are still being produced, still do).

Part of the parallel was that I worked summers for the company to help with college bills (getting the jobs through the influence of my dad, of course), and it helped motivate me to study harder so that I wouldn’t have to spend the rest of my life there. One of the things that these summer job experiences taught me was that in addition to the fact that they made lousy cars (even then, in my humble sports-car-loving opinion), they were dramatically mismanaged, and that ultimately (though I didn’t imagine that it would take so long) they had no future.

Now this has all caught up with them.

General Motors is a powerhouse company of the early twentieth century, in a slow-motion collision with the twenty-first. By some estimates, several thousand dollars of the cost of each car they sell goes to pay health care and retirement benefits of their employees. As more people retire, this can only get worse as the burden grows.

Much worse, like the Catholic Church, which I wrote about earlier today, they’re not prepared for the health-care breakthroughs about to come about. One would think that improvements in health care would be a boon to a corporation with many billions of dollars in annual health care costs, and from that narrow standpoint it may. But what happens to that same company when it also has a liability in the form of a guaranteed annuity to its retired employees (and future retirees) as long as they live, when as a result of that improved health care, they stubbornly refuse to die? Virginia Postrel points to a recent article by Holman Jenkins (subscription only, sorry) in the WSJ about GM’s troubles which alludes to this:

Mr. Wagoner has decided that GM will go the final laps in its race with the mortality tables without the possibility of any hits that Zeta might have spawned. This may be entirely rational, but the grim reaper had better hold up his end of the bargain.

Given current advances in medicine, it’s looking like a sucker’s bet that he will.

I’m grateful to GM for what it gave me and my family growing up, but it’s looking (as in fact it has for a long time) like a sinking ship to me, and the current pathetic efforts (scroll down–I’ve never been able to break the code on Mickey’s permalinks) in terms of new models are just rearranging the deck chairs. The only hope I see, ultimately, is a bankruptcy that will require a renegotiation of the insane contract with the UAW.

Does anyone else see any parallels between GM’s current situation and that of another outdated child of the early twentieth century–Social Security?

[Update on Friday night]

For any of those who found their way here due to an intrinsic interest in and knowledge of GM and Flint history (particularly recent Flint history), I have a request for information here.

Stuck In The Past

Senator Hutchison is going to be a distinct downgrade from Sam Brownback, when it comes to space policy, though she’ll probably be good news for JSC. It also means that one of her nicknames should be “Senator from ISS.”

In an article in which Bill Readdy says that NASA plans to accelerate the development of the CEV (not intrinsically a bad thing, given that it’s going to be built at all, and certainly in line with the new administrator’s desires), note this:

Sen. Kay Hutchison (R-Texas), subcommittee chair, said that NASA must work to avoid being caught without the ability to launch its own human missions to the ISS and low-Earth orbit.

End Of Newspapers?

I actually think that newspapers are more likely to be done in by things like Craig’s List (when they start losing their classified ad revenue) than bloggers, Sam. I’d like to know more about that poll.

Young people may be reading blogs, but it’s not obvious from it that that’s where they’re getting their news. There are a lot of blogs that talk about a lot of subjects, but that’s more of a social activity, I suspect, than information gathering.

End of Newspapers

The Economist quotes Rupert Murdoch saying so. I predict a set of better paid part time specialist bloggers taking over for the generalist newspaper journalists. It may happen soon:

Whereas 56% of Americans haven’t heard of blogs, and only 3% read them daily, among the young they are standard fare, with 44% of online Americans aged 18-29 reading them often, according to a poll by CNN/USA Today/Gallup.

The Sin of Inaction

There is an interesting argument going on here about my article on Orion. I am cc’ing you the following:

I always thought the active-passive distinction in philosphy and law was a cop out. We are just as responsible for the millions who die from our inaction as we are for murder. If you are consciously not donating to a hunger fund with the understanding that the inevitable consequence is that an additional person will die of hunger, it is tantamount to first degree murder.

There is an active choice to be part of coal deaths. Every time we turn on a light switch, we actively increase the coal output that kills tens of thousands per year or more. So each flick is increasing the likelihood of death. It is therefore self-deception to suggest that moving in the direction of safety is a sinless course. It is just murder too common to prosecute.

So if we can all agree that we are a civilization of murderers, then we can get on to real questions like is it better to kill people with atmospheric nuclear explosions to colonize the solar system or kill each other through inaction.

Sticking with spending $15 billion/year on chemical rockets instead of half on nuclear rockets and half on defibrillators is killing hundreds of thousands.

I would give my life to colonize the planets. Our focus on saving every life is penny wise and pound foolish.

Do people avoid having children so that all their cells can die a natural death? Envision all humanity as cells of a greater organism, the global species. Envision that it is time to have a child species on another planet. Isn’t that worth the death of millions or hundreds of millions if new billions will spring into existence? I am asking for dozens possibly killed offset by savings thousands of others that would otherwise be killed.

I don’t expect to fundamentally change dinosaur thinking. “I will not kill anyone to save the species from the asteroid that has our species’ name on it.” But be aware of the systematic cost of the capricous risk aversion we impose in the name of morality.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!