Infrastructure?

Amtrak Locomotive
image via Wikimedia CommonsFirst, as a libertarian, I'm of course holding my nose even just writing this post... things should be funded by private enterprise rather than government. But since it's being talked about, and it's going to happen anyway... might as well make some constructive suggestions

Everyone has ideas for what sort of infrastructure the big stimulus should build. Everyone says be smart, and avoid pork... way easy to say but hard to do.

Some stuff is obvious:

• Improve the electric grid so that renewable energy can be routed to where it is needed.
  
• Fix bridges, tunnels, water mains, and so forth that really need it

Those are both "construction" sorts of things. Manufacturing has been hit too, though.

Amtrak has seen a surge in ridership of late, as other modes of transportation have become pricier. But they're running into limits. Why? Amtrak has a rolling stock shortage. For years, their capital budget has been far short of replacement, and there are lines of passenger cars in need of repair, awaiting funds. New trains or more frequent service are proposed and often deferred because there just isn't the rolling stock available.

So then... build some... increase Amtrak's capital budget, and get the shops going repairing things. That has the advantage of not only stimulating manufacturing, it also produces something that's actually needed, and when used, will reduce energy consumption.

And don't limit it to Amtrak, review all the other mass transit modes and see what capital improvements for rolling stock have been lacking. We need that more than we need new freeways that promote urban sprawl.

Why I chose not to run for ArbCom this year

This is not me...
Image via Wikimedia CommonsI have received a number of queries about why I am not running in the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections this year.

I was seriously considering it. I felt duty bound to put up or shut up, to try to effect the "change we need". But when I saw the quality of some of the candidates (whose views I by and large agree with) that were standing, I decided to stand aside. I have a lot of things to do and the last thing the project needs is another arbitrator that can't give full measure, attentionwise. I'd rather someone else were elected that could devote full attention. I hope I'm not wrong in judging their quality (and winnability) and that candidates I support and agree with do end up getting elected, and candidates I oppose don't.

But another factor is that with the SlimVirgin-Lar case so recently closed, after some analysis, I felt that the potential for drama and disruption if I ran was high enough that standing aside seemed a good thing to do for the good of the project. I'd note that the SlimVirgin motion has, even though it's been closed and SlimVirgin desysopped, been used by ElinorD to re-raise issues I feel are already well and truly settled, and by others to trumpet some of the victimization memes we've heard before.

As far as that case goes, I continue to feel constrained by privacy considerations about what I can and cannot say, and by decorum in not wishing to use the same level of vitriol as some of my opponents have employed, and by honesty in not wishing to distort matters in the way I feel some of my opponents have done... an election campaign with me in it at this juncture would possibly lead to more disharmony. Given that there are competent, generally right thinking candidates standing, why do it?

Instead I put those questions of mine together, at some considerable thought, as a summary of some of the important issues and philosophical underpinnings facing the project. Candidates have been evaluated by me (and others... I want to single out Kato for his particularly cogent and insightful work in this area) on how well they answered them. If the community nevertheless chooses candidates that fail to answer these well, so be it. But asking these questions and NOT running seemed more likely to effect the change we need than NOT asking them and running, and having the campaigns veer off into internecine warfare and drama.

So that's why.

If next year is a rerun of this year, if the candidates we elect this time, with the strongest community mandate for change we've seen yet, nevertheless give us the same arbcom we got before, or worse ... then maybe I'll run next year. Or find a different hobby. Because if there isn't a change for the better, we're in for it. And since I've been there, done that... I don't want to do it again.

Bail out the Big Three?

Image via WikipediaEveryone's talking about it, so surely this is just one more voice in a sea of noise...

Bailing out the Big Three (Chrysler, General Motors, Ford) automakers is a bad idea. They should be allowed to restructure. Even if that means bankruptcy. Why? Because without restructuring, we are just postponing the day of reckoning and making it worse when it does come.

Look, I'm from Michigan. It will be painful. Hugely. People will lose their jobs. But the alternative is worse. The Big Three made some bad decisions. Bankruptcy is a way to take the useful assets and try something different.

Some will say that bankruptcy means everything shuts down. Nope. The automakers will still be making autos, still be making spare parts. Just not under current management and with current contracts. Airlines keep flying. Railways keep running. Stuff just gets cut.

Some will say that no one will buy cars from a bankrupt maker. If the maker is bankrupt it doesn't mean the car that was OK to buy yesterday all of a sudden falls apart. Nor does it mean that parts will never be available or that cars can't get repaired. Parts come from a network of suppliers. Ford hasn't made Model T parts in over 70 years, but they're out there, in the aftermarket. Repairs are carried out by dealers. And dealers make most of their money from service, not sales... dealers will continue to repair things, they'd be foolish not to.

So... let them fail, if they're going to. And let them KNOW they will fail if they can't sort things out themselves... that will give them incentive.

Schumpeter speaks of creative destruction. Let it create. This is a case where the village has to be destroyed in order to save it.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Seeking Aid, Automakers Have a Friend in the U.A.W.
• UAW chief: No more concessions
• Here Comes Auto Industry Bailout Bills
• Showdown Over A "Dinosaur" Auto Industry
• POLL: Would you buy a car from a company in bankruptcy?

Out with the old, in with the new..

Out with the old... Good bye Bush II!

In with the new... Hello new little one!

Today I should be a grandfather. I sit here in the hospital waiting. Daddy (newly become a citizen, this is his first election) stopped to vote on the way to the hospital. Priorities seem right to me :)

Update: I AM a grandfather.

And McCain's concession speech was high class.

Reframing

A picture frame
Image via Wikipedia In US politics this year, as always, we have seen a fair number of attempts to change the subject. The McCain campaign, when asked some difficult questions, seems at least in part to have focused on Obama's involvement with Stephen Ayers instead. The Obama campaign, when asked some difficult questions, seems at least in part to have focused on such things as Sarah Palin's incipient grandchild.

This is reframing things. When presented with a question, answer something else. Or better yet, make a charge that is entirely unrelated.

It's a particularly effective technique, and a particularly insidious one. When you're losing... change the subject. Accuse the other side of something else. If it's scandalous enough, it doesn't even matter if it is completely irrelevant to the question at hand

If this sort of behaviour were confined to US politics alone, we could brush it off... politics as usual. But it's not. Reframing happens in everyday life as well. Look hard enough and you'll find it in your walk of life too, I bet. And woe be to you if you're the frame-ee rather than the frame-er. It can be quite hard to get the question back where it belongs.

So watch out for that.

Know of any examples of reframing? Let's hear about them

Is this the best we've got?

Joe Biden explains something
Image via Wikimedia CommonsRecently , when interviewed by Katie Couric, Joe Biden was quoted as saying:

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed,"

Look, I'm not really a big fan of either of the duopoly parties... or their candidates (my guy is Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and yes I know he's not going to win) but I just have to wonder... how well did Joe Biden actually pay attention in history class?

• The big crash was in 1929, before FDR was president
• In 1929 TV was just an experimental idea, not really something that presidents spoke on. (the first president to even be seen on television was Truman, in the 40s, and it wasn't until 1951 that a president spoke nationwide)

So maybe we have a VP problem regardless of who wins?

Supreme Court rules in favor of gun ownership rights

Image via WikipediaThe Supreme Court of the US have struck down a District of Columbia law absolutely prohibiting gun ownership or possession within the district. I have to admit I am surprised by this. I had expected the DC law to be validated. But this is, in my view, a good ruling.

It's broader than many expected... the Supremes tend to rule as narrowly as possible, so many were expecting the court to rule on some narrow interpretation. But Justice Scalia, writing the majority opinion, said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted. (quoted from Yahoo's report).

That's a strong affirmation of the interpretation that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." means individual rights, not army rights... For a long time, the meaning of "well regulated militia" has been in dispute, not least because the language has changed... militia then meant every able bodied male, and regulated didn't mean subject to regulation.

I expect that I will be in the minority among my viewing audience in being happy about this.

That's OK.

Happy Birthday Amnesty International

Image via WikipediaFreedom comes in many flavors. While the Wikimedia Foundation projects are primarily concerned with free content and free access to knowledge, that freedom goes hand in hand with other sorts. Freedom from oppression, freedom to speak and believe, freedom from injust political imprisonment are in some ways more important (although the entire basket of freedoms go hand in hand) and that's what Amnesty International is most concerned with.

Today is Amnesty International's birthday. Founded in 1961, it won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977. Happy birthday!

Here's a Wikipedia link. Here's a Britannia link too.

I work hardest on wiki projects but the fight for freedom takes many forms. Let us not forget...

SpaceX, making it easier to get the heck out of Dodge?

Falcon 1 at launch complex
Image via Wikimedia CommonsWhen I was growing up, I wanted to be an astronaut. I suspect I wasn't the only person who felt that way. Heck, I even wrote NASA for an application.

In a previous posting, I questioned the value of Constellation and wondered why NASA isn't just farming the job out to SpaceX. That reminded me that I haven't written about one of my favorite new companies yet.

SpaceX, one of several companies started by Elon Musk, of PayPal fame and fortune, is trying to make space travel cheaper. This is a non trivial task, and the first two launches did not achieve orbit, but the company insists they were successful in the sense that they learned and refined a lot.

They have a novel approach to PR, they seem to be willing to put a fair bit of stuff right out in public... in particular they had live feeds of their first two launches, which was pretty cool.

Dragon and Falcon 9
Image via WikipediaSpaceX has three different projects going... the Falcon 1, and the Falcon 9, two different sized mostly reusable launchers, and the Dragon vehicle, which is a crew and cargo vessel that can be launched atop a Falcon 9.

With the activity at Scaled Composites (including winning the X prize) going on, it really looked like the 2000s were going to be the decade where space travel really went commercial. But both Scaled and SpaceX have suffered some delays. Scaled Composites had a damaging accident and the first launch of the Falcon 9 has been pushed back. They've tried to put a good spin on it, but still.Image by jurvetson via Flickr
So I'm still hopeful, but maybe not quite as. Maybe it will take a bit longer. Maybe it can't be done at all and we're doomed to government space? I certainly hope not! Is the fact that SpaceX have won some NASA contracts a good sign? A bad one? What do you think?

Is Constellation just a rehash of Apollo?

Image via WikipediaNASA has proposed "Project Constellation", which aims to put men back on the moon by 2020. Part of the project are the "Orion" manned vehicle, launched by the "Ares" (in versions I and V) rocket, and using the "Altair" lunar lander.

Some have evaluated the program and see it as another big expensive project that will compete for funding with science, and also will compete with the Commercial off the shelf (COTS) initiative.

While I've been a big fan of space exploration all my life, I have my doubts about this whole thing.

Except for some semi reuse at the beginning, it sure seems like the entire thing is more or less "Apollo, but bigger and better" ... Aries I and V (which use Shuttle SRB derived first stages) launch a crew module and lander separately, a rendezvous in orbit mates those and the crew module stays in orbit around the moon while the lander lands. The descent stage is left on the moon, just like the LEM.

Why do this at all? We already know how to do this. Instead of developing new government rockets, (and make work projects) why not just pay for launch capacity from SpaceX or whoever? Or better yet, how about actually building some industrial capacity on the lunar surface? I want the transformative activity in near earth space that science fiction promised us. It's 2008, where's my lunar catapult?

What do you think? Rehash or value add?

Would you vote for this man?

My cousin, Jerry Swartz, is a long time educator and labor activist, is running (or I should say, recently ran, by the time you read this, the election will be over) for MEA Secretary Treasurer of the MEA, the Michigan chapter of the National Education Association.

Jerry is one of four candidates running. I'd like to tell you who the other three are but I haven't sussed that out yet. The MEA website has a search capability but I wasn't able to find that information.

Jerry and I are, you could say, diametrically opposed on a lot of matters... (He's a union organizer, after all) but he's a very hard working and well meaning person who has done a lot of good for his local and who is not afraid of keeping those in power honest.

The state MEA would do a lot worse than Jerry Swartz as Secretary Treasurer...

Besides, I don't have any other relatives who have had their picture taken with Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm!