23andMe, you'll recall, is the genetics-testing company founded by Anne Wojciki (left), wife of Google co-founder Sergey Brin. Google is an investor in 23andMe and leases the company office space.

A tipster recently spotted a 23AndMe "blimp" flying around Cupertino and the rest of Silicon Valley. Some digging revealed the "blimp" is, in fact, a zeppelin, provided by a company called Airship Ventures.

Airship Ventures, in turn, is funded by Google, according to some strong evidence we wrote about previously. It's also funded by "futurist" Esther Dyson. Dyson, like Google, also invests in 23AndMe.

Dyson, as it turned out, is also funded by Google; "I have fed at its trough many times," she once wrote, citing speaking gigs and advisory board slots. She has, in turn, been something of an advocate, declaring publicly that Google actively fights evil and should be allowed to regulate itself (she disclosed her ties to the company when saying this).

So, here are some of the interlocking money flows:

• Google has given money to its founder's wife's firm 23AndMe, which in turn has given money (or other consideration) to Airship Ventures, owned by Google itself (it would appear) and by Google vendor and public Google advocate Esther Dyson.
• Google has given money and/or co-invested with "futurist" Dyson, who has in turn given money to 23AndMe, a Google investment co-founded by it's own co-founder's wife.
• 23AndMe gives money to Google, for office space, while Google gives money to 23AndMe as an investment; 23AndMe then hires Airship Ventures, whose profits then go to Google as an (apparent) owner, and to Google defender Dyson as another owner.
  
• Dyson's investment 23AndMe hired Airship Ventures, another Dyson investment.

There are also some softer, stranger relationships:

• Esther Wojcicki (left), mother-in-law to Google co-founder Sergey Brin and mother to 23AndMe founder Anne Wojcicki, has promoted both Airship Ventures and Google Docs in the Huffington Post. She once worked for Google as an educational consultant.
• NASA allows Airship Ventures to dock at Moffet Field, saying its craft will be used for scientific investigations. It also allows Google's founders to park their party jets there, citing similar reasons.

It's hard to doubt this back-scratching, built as it is on cashflow originating at Google, benefits the search giant's friends; the real question is whether it does any good for shareholders.

(Second blimp pic by John Murphy on Facebook, submitted as part of a 23AndMe Facebook contest. Esther Dyson pic by Steve Jurvetson.)

Woj's new disclaimer reads:

I am a long time high school journalism teacher at Palo Alto High School, Palo Alto, CA, but I also have children who are either employed by or otherwise have a financial interest in Google. I am not employed by Google and own no Google stock.

The disclaimer is true in a Clintonian sense. However, Woj does not say she has previously been employed by Google as an "educational consultant" from 2005 to 2006, creating several programs which promoted Google to teachers. Her otherwise lengthy Huffington Post bio does not disclose this fact.

That's not the end of her conflicts of interest. Woj joined the board of Creative Commons, a nonprofit group which promotes alternative means of licensing copyrighted works, in July. Earlier this year, Wojcicki promoted a Creative Commons project without disclosing any ties to the group — such as whether she was, at the time, in discussions to take a seat on its board. At the least, the appointment has the appearance of a reward for her positive coverage.

Which makes me think that disclosure is simply not part of the journalistic curriculum at Paly. Susan Wojcicki rented out her garage as Google's first office; the Wojcicki family has been entwined with Google practically from its inception.

Woj's Google obsession in the Huffington Post would be less disturbing, perhaps, if she stuck to promoting Google's nonprofit efforts. But some plug for Google's products seems to sneak into her writing, too. Whether or not she's got a current, personal financial conflict of interest, she's clearly got an emotional one. Would Bill Gates's mother-in-law bash Microsoft products?

So perhaps Woj is incapable of seeing a tie to Google as something worth disclaiming. Perhaps she has so internalized its don't-be-evil worldview that identifying oneself as connected to Google feels like bragging that she's a good person. Doesn't every good person support Google, the company of good, and all the good it does in the world?

If that's really what Woj believes, she should exercise the critical thinking she ought to be teaching her in the classroom and recognize that her bias runs so deep that she can't even write a truthful disclaimer. And if so, she should stop writing about Google, Creative Commons, her daughter Anne's genomics startup 23andMe, and the various other investments her extended family is entwined in. I can think of no better example Woj can set for her students.

And if she can't, or won't? Perhaps its time for Paly's administration to stop letting her teach her journalism students the wrong lesson.

We couldn't help but notice the teacher in the shot: Esther Wojcicki, Sergey Brin's mother-in-law. Google continues to insinuate its way into all media.