Space

Iraq And The Space Program

I’ll bet you’re wondering how I’m going to pull this one off. And I’m not sure what the category should be.

But I was reading a piece from a few days ago by Michael Rubin on Iraq, and the connection dinged in my mind:

Iraq is a complex country, difficult to crystallize in a simple poll. But this is exactly what too many news organizations seek to do. On October 24, 2005, for example, the Guardian reported a new poll finding that 82 percent of Iraqis were “strongly opposed” to the presence of foreign troops in their country. Critics of the war seized on the poll to demand immediate withdrawal.

True: Polls do not lie. Iraqis dislike occupation. They resent stopping on busy highways for slow-moving military convoys. They juxtapose the Green Zone’s generators with their own worsening electricity supply. They fail to understand why U.S. diplomats who seldom leave their quarters must block off the center of their city rather than build their cantonment on its outskirts. They are annoyed by helicopters hovering over their villages. But such annoyance with occupation does not translate into demands for immediate withdrawal.

Polls in mature democracies like the United States are difficult enough to conduct and get right. The task is far more formidable in post-autocratic societies. When pollsters instead ask Iraqis to prioritize their top-20 concerns, withdrawal of Coalition troops usually ranks near the bottom of the list. Restoring electricity, combating corruption, and maintaining security are consistently at the top priorities.

There’s reason here for those who advocate big government space programs to be concerned. Yes, in the abstract, people like the space program. But when it comes down to actually setting priorities, NASA is always way down the list, and there’s little in the president’s vision, and even less in NASA’s proposed implementation of it, to change that. Dr. Griffin is riding for a fall.

Space

Keep Kicking That Strawman

Mark Whittington once again demonstrates his inability to understand the arguments against his wacky “Chinese-taking-over-the-Moon” hysteria:

Of course I am assured that the Chinese would not even think of behaving badly in space. That would be “stupid.”

No, Mark. What is stupid is thinking that anyone has ever made such an argument. Or at least anyone at this web site. Perhaps you’re arguing with someone at some fantasy web site in your own mind.

Just more evidence of Mark’s continuing flight from reality, and another demonstration of why it’s so difficult to take him seriously.

Technology and Society

“An Awesome Piece Of Ordnance”

I have no doubt that this will be militarily very effective, but I wonder what kind of safeguards they have in place to keep the bad guys from getting their hands on one, in such a way as to use it?

I’d like to think that at some point these weapons will have security measures, such as temporary codes (good for, say, an hour), to prevent them from being used by the terrorists. I don’t know whether it’s practical or not, but as our weaponry continues to advance, so will theirs if they can get access to it.

Technology and Society

“An Awesome Piece Of Ordnance”

I have no doubt that this will be militarily very effective, but I wonder what kind of safeguards they have in place to keep the bad guys from getting their hands on one, in such a way as to use it?

I’d like to think that at some point these weapons will have security measures, such as temporary codes (good for, say, an hour), to prevent them from being used by the terrorists. I don’t know whether it’s practical or not, but as our weaponry continues to advance, so will theirs if they can get access to it.

Technology and Society

“An Awesome Piece Of Ordnance”

I have no doubt that this will be militarily very effective, but I wonder what kind of safeguards they have in place to keep the bad guys from getting their hands on one, in such a way as to use it?

I’d like to think that at some point these weapons will have security measures, such as temporary codes (good for, say, an hour), to prevent them from being used by the terrorists. I don’t know whether it’s practical or not, but as our weaponry continues to advance, so will theirs if they can get access to it.

Media Criticism

Not Must-See TV

But it’s worth a listen. Heck, I even turned Greta down for it.

Yes, Mickey, that is damning it with faint praise, but it’s what happened to be on at the time that I linked to it from Glenn’s site. I would have turned down Hannity and Colmes, too, and probably O’Reilly, unless he had some really interesting guest on (a rare event). But not Brit Hume.

Here’s the problem. Political commentary doesn’t make for compelling video, even if it offers the entertainment of watching human robots (a combination of natural ability, and many frozen frames as the video buffer fills up). Even on high-bandwidth media (i.e., my satellite dish), talking heads are talking heads, and most of the time I rarely watch, but listen to it as I’m doing things elsewhere in the house. Well, unless Lauri Dhue, or Megyn Kendall, or various other newsbabes come on. Then, for some strange reason, I feel compelled to actually come into the room to view the screen. I’ve no idea why, but perhaps Robert Wright does.

But I thought the conversation was interesting, and much easier on the ears than the shout shows, and more intelligent than most of them as well. So one suggestion might be to bag the video, because it really is very little value added, and do bloggingmouths.radio instead. Bandwidth doesn’t yet grow on trees, and sticking with audio would open up the audience to the dialup crowd, and allow easier storage of shows, both for users and the server, with reduced bandwidth charges for all.

But even then, the question is, what is the value of listening to guys (and gals) talk, as opposed to reading what they write, which for me has a much higher baud rate for lower bandwidth. I had the same problem in college. I rarely attended the lectures, unless I explicitly had to in order to get the grade, because I don’t take information in that well through my ears, at least if I want to retain it. I always preferred to read the book, which offered me much more data in a given amount of time than having to listen to someone slowly mouth the words.

But given that I do keep a news channel on in background when I’m working, and I could download the audio and listen to it while exercising or out for a walk, one could certainly do worse than checking them out. As I mentioned up at the top, I know I was. Doing worse, that is.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!