2/19/2003   President Bush today, in response to the immense solidarity of millions of peace protestors across America, and more millions around the globe:

     "Anytime somebody shows courage or
     when it comes to peace, that the
     people will eventually understand
     that -- first of all deciding based
     on a protest is like deciding, well
     I'm going to decide policy based on
     a focus group.  The roll of a leader
     is to decide policy based upon the
     security, in this case, the security
     of the people."

I would like to quote the ever illustrious actress Janeane Garofalo, who gave a speech along with other star protestors against the war. "How is it that this debate has been twisted on its head, that somehow those that advocate peace and diplomacy are anti-American?"... "Or those that advocate peace are anti-troops or pro-Saddam?" YEAH! And don't for once think that its unAmerican to exercise one's First Amendment right to call B.S. even on the President himself.

2/18/2003   So I'm rearranging my office, putting up some new shelves to house my ponderous collection of books, and I run across an old Reader's Digest. Now, I don't read RD regularly, but there's one issue from the late 80's with a story called "Shootout At The Redhorse Barn" or something like that. It's one of my all-time favorite short stories. This issue, October 1993, was not the one as it turned out, but it had an article on Harrison Ford that I started scanning through. And I found something interesting. This is a quote that seems strikingly pertinent.

"His big-screen character stands at the very center of American myth and represents one of our most cherished self-images. We are a good people, easygoing, but do not push us, because if you do, we may come over and clean you up. We don't start wars, but we finish them."

Are we good people? Do we not start wars?

Well, we certainly didn't attack the al Qaeda first, and we ran straight in and gave as good as we got. We wiped out the Taliban and the al Qaeda strongholds. Fragments of both groups still exist, but they are now scattered and ineffective, and will probably remain so. It was at once a horribly tragic and stirringly proud chapter in our history.

But what about bombing Iraq? This time, is there really a good reason to put our troops in harm's way? Is there really a good reason to kill the thousands of civilians that will perish in any decent effort to arrest Saddam? Outside of Bush's ratings, what will the result?

Ask yourself this: What's the objective?

1. To eliminate terrorism. This will increase terrorism exponentially as we strike at the heart of the Middle East without good prior cause and without the support of the other countries in that region.

2. To remove Saddam from power. Are we so sure that we can get him? His underground facilities were impressive in the last war. How impressive must they be now, 12 years later and with an impending conflict whose stated purpose is solely to depose him?

3. To eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction. We have a larger and more imminent threat of that in North Korea, but we aren't attacking them, are we? And once the current Iraqi regime crumbles, who will take Saddam's place? Will they be able to hold on to power. If they are picked by the U.S., I doubt it. And even if they aren't, the perception will be that they were. A military junta will rise up and throw down that government, and the government that follows will be another Iranian-style radical Muslim government, I guarantee it. Saddam is crazy, but he's not breeding more crazies. The Ayatollah did. And if you think they won't stockpile far more dangerous weapons than Saddam can while under our thumb, you need to check your history.

4. To establish a stronghold for the U.S. in the Middle East by democracizing one of the countries there. My wife came up with this one. (She's an avid Republican, by the way. Our love for one another prevents us from getting into too many political discussions...) Previous attempts to set up U.S. friendly governments in the Middle East have met with resounding failure. Iran is a perfect example. The people in these regions resent our attempts to Westernize their cultures. And once we have a military base there, what next? Do we invade Saudi Arabia? Jordan? Egypt? Exactly how power hungry do we start to look with Iraq under our control and a HUGE military presence there? Bush starts to look like a potential Hitler, especially when you look at his views on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Is it so hard to be better than the bad guy? Is it so difficult to take the high road? Can't we resolve ourselves to not being the guy that throws the first punch?

Today, February 1st, 2003, at 9:00am, the space shuttle Columbia broke up during reentry killing all aboard.

This strikes me like a death in the family. It has always been and will always be my dream to go into space. I've often voiced to my friends and family that I would give just about anything to fly on a shuttle mission, even more to land on the moon or even Mars, to break free of the Earth and move to the pinnacle of mankind's achievements. I have held all the astronauts from all countries as heroes unlike any other. They pave the way to a future unlike any the Earth's civilizations have ever known. They walk on fire to bring us the stars.

What a horrible reminder of the danger inherent in this pursuit. Do not be fooled; this danger was always there. With 17 years since the last tragedy, it was easy to become complacent in our successes. But once again we have paid a part of the price of joining the gods.

It's still early, only 12:47pm in the afternoon now. It will take time for this to sink in. But I'm the type that asks, "What next?" And here are my predictions:

• First, the Palestinians will be seen dancing in the streets and handing out sweets to children as they did when the World Trade Center was bombed on September 11th, 2001. There was an Israeli astronaut on board. No tragedy seems so great that someone somewhere won't rejoice perversely in it. Update 3:30pm Ok, the Iraqis beat them to it, calling it "God's Retribution." But they won't be the last. Heck, I'll bet even the North Koreans are chuckling into their kim chi.
• Bush will take advantage of this situation to ground the shuttles and cut NASA's funding. What he ought to do is increase NASA's funding so an alternative to the shuttle can be found. (Update below.)
• The International Space Station will be visited once more by one more shuttle mission -- or perhaps by a Russion soyuz mission -- to clear out the station of the last of the scientists on board. And then it will sit empty and unused until NASA can recover.
• NASA's recovery, if it happens, will only be after a long and tedious investigation at the end of which someone will lose their job. And NASA will only recover in spite of Bush, not because of him.

It turns out that a large percentage of the money given to NASA is only awarded so that NASA can turn around and spend it in the state represented by the Congressman that swung the vote for them. Yup, Pork barrel politics has been running rampant with NASA's budget. So you say, "They've been getting millions all these years, what the heck do they do with it?!" And now the answer turns out to be, "The Congressmen have been dipping their hands in it."

Bush was about to push through a bill giving NASA a small increase in funding this year. Anyone want to guess where that extra was going to end up? I'm guessing Texas, to build the Gee Dub Bush Space Museum. Hey Georgie! Am I close?!

So what NASA needs is public accountability for it's expenditures and a mandate from the President to Congress to give NASA the funding it needs to:

• replace the Space Shuttle fleet with the next generation of spaceships,
• extend and enhance currently planned missions,
• And get the ISS completed specifically so it can assist missions to Mars and the outer planets.

After myriad problems with its web site, from hackers to lousy connection speeds, Italian Roman Catholic churches are polling their members for a patron saint to look over the 'net.

And you know, I have a suggestion.

I vote for St. Jude. The patron Saint of Lost Causes....

Oh, it was close. I started to write a piece -- ready for this? -- defending Microsoft.

I know! Can you believe it?

Microsoft was hit hard, embarrassed publicly, and is now being thoroughly flogged for its performance in the face of the Slammer virus. And now the "security experts" are saying that the MS patch process is too complex and the cost shouldn't be passed on to the customer.

Ok, so let's look at the translation of that: "Microsoft should only deliver perfect software." Let's face it, that's what they're saying, as ridiculous as it sounds. As someone who has designed and written software, managed development projects, and delivered a wide variety of systems, I can say that it's impossible to deliver a perfect piece of software. This is well known in the industry. In fact, to paraphrase one of my favorite authors, once a piece of software has no bugs, it's obsolete. Bugs are a fact of life with software. All you can really do is eliminate the bugs that would directly cause damage to a system or prevent the use of the software and try to stay nimble when addressing lesser bugs or difficult to find bugs.

So I was prepared to say shame on the industry for slamming Microsoft for not being perfect. But then I read a little closer...

Seems Microsoft put out a fix that would have stopped the Slammer virus. Then they put out a patch that reversed this fix if not applied correctly. Now, that's a problem. And to top it off, Microsoft itself did not apply the fix to all of it's servers that would have stopped the Slammer virus in the first place.

Ok, so let's review. M$ gets slammed for months because their software isn't secure. This isn't new, it's been that way for a long time. So in response they start the "Trustworthy Computing" initiative. M$ has hundreds of QA people. It's not like there's only one programmer who does all the coding, testing, code review, archiving, and documentation! (cough)   I can picture Bill himself rallying the troops to this cause, giving sweeping powers to his QA and security teams to do whatever is necessary to get the job done.

And this is how that initiative has played out.

Oh, well. Hm. That's a darned shame, it really is. Not that it affects me, you understand. I run my web server on Linux and I use MySQL for the database. Yup. Not so much as a hiccup over here. Yeah, I develop SQL Server (and Oracle) software on Windoze for my clients, but for my web server, I'll stick with something that won't be cracked, hacked, or crap out.

Sorry, Bill. I was so close to feeling sorry for you. But for such a large, well funded, and closely scrutinized organization, that's just plain sloppy.

Let's start the month off right, shall we? And the best way I can think of is it reiterate, lest we forget, all the reasons Bush is fully qualified to lose the next election.

• He broke international missile treaties.
• He broke disarmament treaties.
• He undermined the Environmental Policy Act.
• He undermined the Endangered Species Act.
• He violated international environment agreements.
• He relaxed regulations on putting mining waste in streams.
• He relaxed energy efficiency standards for air conditioners.
• He relaxed fuel efficiency standards.
• He undermined the Clean Air Act.
• He exempted the Pentagon and armed forces from environmental protection laws.
• He cited the writings of a single crack-pot pseudo-scientist over all the peer-reviewed work done by the most highly regarded scientists of the world in rejecting the Kyoto Protocol.
• He has undermined the last four decades of efforts to set aside protected lands by opening those lands up to commercial development interests, particularly but not limited to the oil and timber industries.
• He has taken advantage of the 9/11 attack on the U.S. to undermine the Bill of Rights.
• He has taken a justified but stymied war against the al Qaeda and shifted it to an unjustified war against a beaten down and contained dictator in the hopes of keeping the U.S. public's attention off the apparent failure to find bin Laden and off the complete failure of any of his tentative and half-assed attempts to revive the economy through trickle-down (or to borrow a recent line, "mist down") tax cuts.
• He has done more to violate the separation of church and state with his "faith based" initiatives than any President since... hell, I'd have to go so far back, I'm not sure....
• His economic policies have taken a correction in the stock market and turned it into a full-on recession. Estimates just two years ago said we'd have a $5.6 trillion surplus over this decade. Estimates released earlier this week put it at just $50 billion over the same time period. You do the math.

  "There Ought to be Limits to Freedom!"
- George W. Bush, 05/21/1999

I didn't elect him -- I voted with the MAJORITY.

A gentleman wrote me the other day to call me names. So I call him names back. Whoop-t-do. SSDD, as the High Virtuoso of Horrifying Verbage, Mr. Stephen King, wrote in the book I'm winging my way through currently, "Dreamcatcher."

(Side note: I originally wrote a semi-emotional outburst here about this event, but I'm scaling it back a bit. We've corresponded a bit more and I realize now my reaction to him was every bit as heated as his reaction to me. We're human.)

Then he writes me back to list his grievances with Bill Clinton. But the list spends more time griping about Clinton's zipper control and the rumors about the state the Dems left the White House in than any other topic. (Missing silverware? No, Rob, it was missing "W" keys on the keyboards, but I digress...) What people seem to forget when they're talking about "The Other Party's Candidate" is that every President is a politician, and therefore, by definition, comes into office with a certain amount of dirty laundry and leaves with a little bit more. The difference usually being that the public can't gripe because they elected him.

In the case of the MFFB (Monkey Faced Frat Boy for those new to these pages), he was appointed by the Supreme Court when they shut down the voting process in a wholly unConstitutional decision. So I can shoot my First Amendment protected mouth off all day about what a dork he is, because I voted with the majority.

And just so Rob doesn't feel that I've ignored his list, here's the short list of Bush's offenses prior to even getting into office:

• Convicted of drunk driving. Lied repeatedly to cover up his arrest.
• Lying under oath. Bush & staff stop investigation of contributor's huge funeral home company.
• Pulled Strings to Avoid Vietnam, & Got Favorable Treatment
• Texas government corruption: State $$ for campaign funders & business cronies
• Cocaine: felony drug use, vile hypocrisy, and a hushed up arrest?
• His "young and irresponsible" behavior: sex, drugs and (gasp!) rock and roll?
• Thin skinned: censors his critics with police, lawyers, $$$
• Character: Spoiled rich kid living off his family's name and reputation
• Made millions on insider business deals, for little work
  Deal #1. Personal Profits from Failing Oil Companies o Easy Money From Odd Sources
  o A Surprise Deal From Bahrain
  o Access to the President and National Security Adviser for his foreign business partner
  
  Deal #2. Selling Oil Stocks Just Before Iraq Invaded: lucky guess or illegal insider trading?
  Deal #3. A Big Slice of a Baseball Team
• Hypocrisy: using government coercion to make his private fortune

Oh, and Rob? Have a nice day... Really.

Here's the horrible truth about this tragedy: it could have been prevented. NASA has known that some of the heat shield tiles could be dislodged. In fact, nearly every shuttle mission ends with some of the tiles missing. Columbia was the first shuttle to go up, and when it returned it had serious scorching and burns due to missing tiles. This was not a new problem. And NASA noticed that something hit the wing and caused a burst of debris flying off the left wing.

So what could they have done differently? Well, for one, they could have shipped up some replacement tiles. They could have sent up (or perhaps they do send up) the single man propulsion pack that allows them to maneuver, untethered, around the outside of the ship. And they should have made it a regular practice to either venture outside the ship to examine the tiles or have a small robot unit to inspect it. If there was a serious problem and the ship could not be repaired, another shuttle could have been sent up to rescue the crew. It's that simple. Why that wasn't part of the return checklist, I simply cannot fathom. But I'll bet you it becomes part of normal procedures in the future.

Second, and I have no doubt this will be more difficult, the crew should be housed during reentry in a unit contained within the ship, no doubt small and cramped, that could withstand the destruction of the ship around it. In fact, it may have to be designed to blow the ship up around it to propel the debris away. This lifeboat would be designed to handle the destruction of the ship, the heat of reentry, and some form of survivable landing. It should also be detachable in some nondestructive procedure in the event that the crew must leave a shuttle that could be repaired in orbit, thus lessening the loss of collateral in the event that serious damage or malfunctions can be identified while in orbit. I don't believe this is possible with the current shuttles. They have just enough room to get the crew and the payload from point A to point B, and they simply aren't designed to hold a lifeboat. The lifeboat could potentially be built onto the sides of the payload bay in front of the rear tanks, but that's one layman taking an uninformed look at the outline of the ship.