Category Archives: Social Commentary

Death Panelists

Help wanted:

It isn’t hard to see why nobody is clamoring to take a job that offers low pay and lots of regulations and will make everyone in the country hate you.

But it’s been clear from the beginning that this is the kind of thing you get with a massive, centralized health care “fix” like Obamacare: 15 unhappy people in a room making enormously important but impossible to predict decisions affecting a broad and diverse industry (not to mention the lives and health of millions). It’s hard to imagine a centralized approach getting all the nuances of health care right—and we certainly haven’t stumbled onto the miracle cure here.

We sure haven’t.

Picking Up The Pieces

Wayne Hale recalls the aftermath of the Columbia loss:

For the second time in my NASA career, I found myself on a little rise of grass in the corner between building 16 and building 12. President Reagan had spoken facing southeast standing right in front of building 16. President Bush spoke facing southwest standing right in front of building 12. The trees were taller in 2003 than they had been in 1986. We “visiting” dignitaries from the other NASA centers were herded into a triangle of land surrounded with fake 3 foot high white picket fence to separate us from the JSC people. It was strange to shake hands or try to give a hug across that strange fence. Immediately after the ceremony we were herded back into the bus to Ellington for the flight to KSC. Never got home, never saw my family; it was the strangest day of all.

Back at KSC, I accompanied my office staff to a windswept memorial service on the SLF runway itself. Bob Crippen spoke movingly about Columbia and the loss of the vehicle as if she were a living being. It struck me that at JSC the memorial service had been about the crew and at KSC it was about the orbiter. Natural, I suppose, the crew being at home in Texas, the orbiter being ‘at home’ in Florida. Somebody said later it was a tragedy at both centers: at KSC it was as if their home had burned down, at JSC it was a death in the family; both tragedies, just different.

I took a lot of heat that week for this:

I feel for the families and friends of those who lost their lives in yesterday’s catastrophe, just as I feel for the family and friends of anyone who suffers such a loss. What I don’t feel is a personal loss, as though they were my family or friend. I didn’t know them, and neither did ninety nine percent of the American public that now grieves their loss, until yesterday.

I do personally grieve the loss of the space shuttle orbiter Columbia, because I did know it. Very few people saw it both lift off from Florida, on its maiden flight, and land in California, back in May 1981. I’m one of them.

I worked many years for the company that built it. I helped do preliminary planning for some missions for it.

I also grieve its loss as a symbol of what we might be able to accomplish in space, given sensible national space policy (a commodity that continues to remain in short supply).

The crewmembers of that flight were each unique, and utterly irreplaceable to those who knew and loved them, and are devastated by their sudden absence from their lives, and to paraphrase what the president said after September 11, seven worlds were destroyed yesterday.

But, while this may sound callous, the space program will go on just fine without them. They knew their job was hazardous, they did it anyway, and by all accounts, they died doing what they wanted, and loved, to do. There are many more astronauts in the astronaut corps who, if a Shuttle was sitting on the pad tomorrow, fueled and ready to go, would eagerly strap themselves in and go, even with the inquiry still going on, because they know that it’s flown over a hundred times without burning up on entry, and they still like the odds. And if yesterday’s events made them suddenly timorous, there is a line of a hundred people eagerly waiting to replace each one that would quit, each more than competent and adequate to the task. America, and the idea of America, is an unending cornucopia of astronaut material.

When it comes to space, hardware matters, and currently useful space hardware is a very scarce commodity. People are optional. A Shuttle can get into orbit with no crew aboard. It could return that way as well, with some minor design modifications (actuators for nose-wheel steering and brakes, and gear deployment). But no one gets to space without transportation. Many of us would walk there if we could, but we can’t.

Yesterday, we lost a quarter of our Shuttle fleet. The next time we fly, we’ll be putting at risk a third of the remainder. If we lose that one, every flight thereafter will be risking half of America’s capability to put people into orbit.

So, when I grieve the loss of Columbia, it’s not because it was just a symbol. What I truly grieve is the loss of the capability that it not just represented, but possessed. That vehicle will never again deliver a payload or a human to space. It cost billions of dollars to build, and would cost many billions and several years to replace. That was the true loss yesterday, not the crew. I think that people realize this on some level, but feel uncomfortable in articulating it.

Read the whole thing, and note that this is a theme that continues to this day, articulated most fully in my book.

Carrying A Gun

…”saved my life“:

Could proposed restrictions on magazines greater than 10 rounds endanger ordinary people caught in situations like the one you faced?

There is definitely a risk involved with arbitrarily limiting normal citizens to ten rounds (or seven in the case of New York). Statistics generally indicate multiple shots being required to stop a single threat regardless of caliber, and there is almost always a degradation of accuracy in a high-stress situation.

If someone is unfortunate enough to be in a self-defense situation with three or four attackers, the difference between ten rounds and thirteen (or twenty) could mean the difference between life and death.

The only person qualified to determine what you need for your own defense is you.

[Update a couple minutes later]

I agree that Glenn’s headline for this story is much more accurate:

National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre and Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who survived a shot to the head two years ago during an assassination attempt that left six people dead, are among those slated to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. One congressional source tells CBS News that Giffords herself is expected to attend the hearing; she is expected to accompany her husband and address the committee, although she’s not expected to take questions.

Unfortunately, being shot (or being a former astronaut) doesn’t make one an expert on guns or their use for self defense. This is about emotionalism, not a rational informed debate.

The Columbia Disaster

The latest issue of Space Safety Magazine is dedicated to it. I disagree with Andrea’s take here, though:

The focus of commercial space is very much on cost-cutting, while vague assurances are made about safer vehicles. Sometimes safety is even presented as a stubborn obstacle to industry development and progress [I plead guilty as charged – RS]. The commercial human spaceflight industry needs to remember that the primary goal of the Shuttle Program was cutting the cost of transportation to orbit by an order of magnitude, a goal at which it failed miserably. As with the supersonic Concorde, the Shuttle was doomed by being both expensive and unsafe. Being expensive made it in turn unaffordable to undertake any further development or safety modification. But even being expensive to operate did not stop either the Shuttle or Concorde from operating for about 30 years. What ultimately ended these programs was their inadequate safety.

Probably true for Concorde, but not for Shuttle. As I write in the book: Continue reading The Columbia Disaster

James Lovelock

Environmental heretic:

We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs. We need take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilisation.

What he doesn’t (or at least didn’t) understand is that they want civilization, and humanity itself, to fail.

Another Road

The Blue elites are wrong:

It is easy to see how rational people can conclude that the only hope of preserving mass prosperity in America comes from transfers and subsidies. If we add to this the belief that only a powerful and intrusive regulatory state can prevent destructive climate change, then the case for the blue utopia looks ironclad. To save the planet, save the middle class and provide American minorities and single mothers with the basic elements of an acceptable life, we must set up a far more powerful federal government than we have ever known, and give it sweeping powers over the production and distribution of wealth.

But what if this isn’t true? What if the shift from a late-stage industrial economy to an information economy has a different social effect? What if the information revolution continues and even accelerates the democratization of political, social and cultural life by empowering ordinary people? What if the information revolution, like the industrial revolution, ultimately leads to a radical improvement in the way ordinary people live and opens up vast new horizons of human potential and freedom?

Obviously nobody knows what the future holds, and anything anybody says about the social consequences of the information revolution is mostly conjecture; still, the elegantly paternalistic pessimism of our elites about the future of the masses seems both defeatist and overdone. The information revolution, one should never forget, may be disruptive but more fundamentally it is good news. Human productivity is rising dramatically. If the bad news is that fewer and fewer people will earn a living working in factories, the good news is that a smaller and smaller percentage of the time and energy of the human race must be devoted to the manufacture of the material objects we need for daily life. Just as it’s good news overall when agricultural productivity increases and the majority of the human race no longer has to spend its time providing food, it’s good news when we as a species can free ourselves from the drudgery and monotony of factory work.

Good news is bad news for people who don’t like (other people to have) freedom. They need a crisis to not waste.

An Idiotic Gun Buyback

turns into a gun show:

Police stood in awe as gun enthusiasts and collectors waved wads of cash for the guns being held by those standing in line for the buyback program.

People that had arrived to trade in their weapons for $100 or $200 BuyBack gift cards($100 for handguns, shotguns and rifles, and $200 for assault weapons) soon realized that gun collectors were there and paying top dollar for collectible firearms. So, as the line for the chump cards got longer and longer people began to jump ship and head over to the dealers.

John Diaz, Seattle’s Police Chief, wasn’t pleased with the turn of events, stating “I’d prefer they wouldn’t sell them,” but admitted it’s perfectly legal for private individuals to buy and sell guns, FOR NOW.

For now.

Hilarious. And yes, I know that “idiotic gun buyback” is redundant.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Just to compound the idiocy, a commenter points out:

What a deal. Way better deal than the pawn shop. You can report your gun stolen. Then bring it in for buy back and get your gift card (no questions asked, right?). Then the police return it to you. What a brilliant use of Seattle’s money.

Brilliant indeed.

Skeet Shooting

I’d pay money to watch this:

“If he is a skeet shooter, why have we not heard of this? Why have we not seen photos? Why hasn’t he referenced this at any point in time?” Blackburn said Monday on CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront.”

“I tell you what I do think,” she later added. “I think he should invite me to Camp David, and I’ll go skeet shooting with him and I bet I’ll beat him.”

Everyone out there who believes that Barack Obama shoots skeet, raise your hands.

Gee, I don’t feel much of a breeze from all the uplifted arms.

Bob Beckel asked a stupid (or misleading) question on The Five yesterday. “If the president wants to demonize gun owners, why is he saying he’s a likes to shoot guns?”

He wants to demonize people who use politically incorrect guns. You don’t shoot skeet with AR-15s (well, you could, but I don’t think it’s allowed in competition). He’s pretending he’s one of us (see, I like to shoot stuff, too!), while continuing the stupid attack on “assault weapons” (“I can have fund and, per Joe Biden, defend myself with a shotgun. That’s all that anyone should “need”).

Later, after we’re disarmed of the most militarily effective weapons, they’ll come after the shotguns. They play the long game.

[Update a while later]

Sadly, this seems relevant.

Trains Run On Time