Ramblings of a Wayward Code Slave

I just read that James Doohan, who played Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott on Star Trek, died yesterday at the age of 85 due to complications with Alzheimer's. I'm really sad to hear this -- he was my favorite actor on the series and he was a nice guy in real life. When I was in graduate school at USL I made a special trip to Baton Rouge to see him at a Star Trek convention. I don't normally attend such things, but I made the trip just to see him. He was a really friendly fellow, he gave a nice talk, and I learned a number of things about him -- including that he was one of the first people to hit the beaches for the D-Day invasion as part of the Canadian forces committed to the battle.

He'll be sorely missed by many...

Wired has an article entitled "The Godfather" that talks about the life and contributions of one Vannevar Bush (1890 - 1974). Among other things, he laid the groundwork for the Boston freeway system, cofounded Raytheon, and helped start Silicon Valley. He also described a hyperlinked information system ... in 1945. Some of the ideas and statements he made during his lifetime were completely off-base, but that's what you get with idea people. Four times out of five his ideas might not be worth the time he spent describing them, but it's that fifth time that more than makes up for the other four. Some people tend to focus on his more outlandish ideas and statements, but they're just trying to find fault with a man who was a true visionary.

As with most other things, this brings up something for me to complain about. I'm an idea person myself, so I understand what he went through. I haven't had the success that Bush had, but I've had a few good ideas in my time; unfortunately, I haven't had the resources to see them through. I have, however, had to endure the "you're an idiot" looks over the years from peers in college, coworkers, etc., who just didn't understand how I operate. Idea people don't mind being wrong and they don't mind criticism -- they toss out ideas to be debated and wait for them to either be shot down or affirmed. It's collaborative conceptualization at its most extreme. The simple fact is that most people can't stand criticism and they hold back for fear of actually being wrong about something. Ironically, it's some of these very people who stare incredulously when someone has the courage to speak up and toss out an idea that isn't The Solution -- these cowardly and condescending twits actually help create the environment that scares them so much. Perhaps they act that way specifically because they're so afraid of doing it themselves; instead of having the courage to speak their mind, they try to belittle those who do. It would do them well to consider that if we all held our tongues until we had time to research things and get our ducks in a row before speaking up then we'd still be calculating with slide rules today. So I can sympathize with Bush about his detractors -- they're just jackasses who are terrified of having an original thought lest someone think it foolish. It reminds me of the Apple commercial from the 1984 Superbowl where they had people lined up like lemmings, walking off of a cliff while holding their PCs. Today, supposedly we're all "thinking outside the box" in industry but in reality I just think that the box got a little bigger so we can't feel the walls anymore. People are still terrified of original thinking and people like Bush and myself still get the "you're an idiot" stares as a result. Bush laughed all the way to the bank and I ... well ... know where the bank is, dammit.

Ah grasshopper, Bush is the true Master and we are all but unworthy apprentices. It's a shame that I didn't learn about him until today.

My grandmother (on my mother's side) had a green thumb. She could throw seeds on a parking lot and have a crop of corn within a week. She'd water a bush and it would visibly start to grow. Sunflowers followed her instead of the sun. So where did it all go wrong for me? Plants wilt when I enter a room, chia pets die, and the only thing I can successfully grow is mold in the refrigerator.

In college I experimented with ferns since I was tired of the only living things in my dorm room besides myself being dust mites. This was a dismal failure, resulting in two dessicated fern corpses whose final resting place wound up being the patio roof of the USL Conference Center for reasons which I will not go into here. My second attempt, also in vain, was a plant I named Moses (it was a Wandering Jew). Moses not only didn't enter the Promised Land but, from his appearance, didn't even survive the trip through Egypt. His final resting place is also atop the patio roof. Don't ask.

When I started working, I tried out a fir-looking thing I got from a local nursery. All of the needles fell out and I had a really unattractive oversized twig in a pot for a month or so before I finally threw it out. Undaunted, I tried another plant with big green leaves that all sort of grew out of a center stalk stuck in the dirt. When I left the company a few months later, I gave the plant to a coworker who, shortly thereafter, finished what little I hadn't already done to the poor thing.

I then tried a miniature cactus, which I killed from overwatering. How can someone kill a cactus from overwatering it? It's just watery pulp on the inside, so what's the deal? This is when I gave up on plants.

And then I remembered. My father, back when I was a teenager, wanted fresh tomatoes instead of those gassed ones in grocery stores that taste like, well, nothing. So he grew tomatoes and had a harvest of (I think) one tomato. We still make references to the $80 tomato. It must be that the genetics from my father's side is stronger than from my mother's. Now that I think about it, though, my mother isn't exactly a botanist, either.

As I sit in my office, taking a break from programming, I'm contemplating taking another stab at having a plant in the office. Fake plants look fake, so I'm going with something alive but hardier than what I've tried in the past. Maybe kudzu.

When I was 16 I wanted to see The Terminator -- a rated R movie -- at the theater in Laurel. Buying the ticket was no problem; unfortunately, however, they had a guy at the door who was checking IDs to make certain that nobody under the age of 17 was admitted. In a rare moment of social charm, I struck up a conversation with the fellow while he stood outside the door and we chatted sociably (he was a nice fellow) as he checked IDs. He never questioned me about my age since I dropped the fact that I was starting college in the Fall (I was actually starting my senior year). During our conversation he mentioned that he was thirsty and I offered to stand there in his place while he went to the concession stand. So it was, on that day back in 1984, I not only got in underage to see the movie but I also was carding people at the door. I said the guy was nice, not that he was particularly smart. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Nothing, but it has plenty to do with U.S. Customs officials at international points of entry into the country.

Two days ago we denied admission to a British muslim by the name of Zaki Badawi. Dr. Badawi, head of the Muslim College in London, has an honorary knighthood and in 2003 was a guest of the Queen at a state dinner held in honor of none other than George W. Bush. He is an outspoken critic of the Al-Queda terrorist attacks and just recently voiced his outrage at the London bombings. He was en route to give a high-profile lecture at the Chautaqua Institution in New York City when he was turned away at JFK airport.

Is this honestly the kind of person we don't want in America? He's highly educated, well-respected, and an outspoken critic of violence. This man couldn't hijack a cab. Aside from a balloon, I doubt he's capable of blowing up much else. If we're turning this fellow away, just who are we admitting? It's an interesting question to ponder.

While the security checks and terrorist blacklists might be helping somewhat, these cases where high-profile people are being turned away are not only embarassing but also damaging to international opinion. Moreover, the Canadian and Mexican borders are still full of gaping holes in both patrol coverage as well as level of scrutiny. At the present time, having these types of checks at airports is like putting a bandage on an elbow scrape while ignoring a severed leg.

We need better mechanisms, better coverage, better instructions, and more education for the front-line people deciding whether a given person enters the U.S. or not. Until then, terrorists can enter rather easily and embarassments like the one on Wednesday will only continue.

Four bombs exploded in London a couple of days ago. Today I check the news and the headlines include "Suicide Bomber Kills 4 in Israeli Mall" and "27 People, Many Children, Killed by Bomber in Baghdad".

Question #1: Has the Grim Reaper declared open season on the people of Earth?
Question #2: Do we really need to help him out?

I know that my first question is as likely to be answered as is my growing a hand out of my forehead. The second question is a lot more complicated. These attacks are in retaliation for other actions, namely the occupation of Iraq. At the risk of being branded a pacifistic ninny by the hardcore Limbaugh crowd, I think that we had no business going in there without the support of the United Nations, including key Arabic countries. The reason Desert Storm was a success was because the UN backed it and several Arabic nations participated in it. It wasn't seen as a U.S. intrusion into a Middle Eastern country. Iraq is totally different.

Of course, one could counter that 9/11 was pre-Iraq, and rightly so. 9/11 was a heinous act of treachery and Bin Laden and the rest of Al-Queda should be put in solitary confinement for the rest of their natural lives with nothing to do but count the days and use the toilet. (I don't believe in the death penalty on philosophical and religious grounds.) What 9/11 didn't do was give us the green light to jump the gun and go invade a foreign nation without international support. And no, Britain doesn't count as international support. I understand about Germany, France, and Russia dragging their feet and why they did it -- and I think they're selfish for doing so because of economic reasons -- but there's a right way and a wrong way to do things. What the U.S. did was akin to a teenager asking his/her parents to be allowed go to the movies and doing it anyway after they say no because their response wasn't the right one.

At the same time, once we committed I was behind staying there. We just can't turn a country upside down and then leave, forcing them to cope without an established government and the ability to enforce laws and provide for their people. Perhaps this offends the tree-hugging Dean followers, but I just don't care. That's one of the nice things about this blog being mine.

Does this excuse others from blowing up innocent people? No way. The bomber who blew up a bunch of kids should burn in an especially hot part of Hell, by the way. Two wrongs don't make a right, and anyone unhappy with the Iraqi occupation have a number of avenues to voice their opinion without resorting to violence. I don't condone or respect violence, regardless of whether the U.S. is the victim or the culprit.

I think all of this goes back to that primitive impulse -- when faced with a conflict, resort to violence. Perhaps that was the only way that Neanderthals could resolve conflicts over women or food, but we've supposedly progressed quite a few millenia since then. Of course, you can go to any redneck bar and watch the beered-up guys get into brawls over Ford vs. Chevy or Skoal vs. Copenhagen. I expect our leaders to act better than Bubba and Joe Bob, though. I also expect, perhaps unreasonably so, for people who call themselves patriots to act in the best interests of their nation. Killing innocents cannot further a cause.

So what about the conflict participants themselves? I certainly don't believe that our soldiers in Iraq should be targeted by the insurgency -- the mere idea of my approval is revolting to me -- but on the other hand I'm forced to try and get into their heads. I had almost convinced myself that I was a hypocrite because I support the actions we took in the American Revolutionary War, but I'm not. Let me explain. First, the British wanted to keep us subjugated and denied us basic rights that British citizens were allowed; however, the U.S. has demonstrated that it is there to help establish an independent government freely elected by the constituents of Iraq and to keep the peace and provide basic services until that government can take over. Second, while the American colonials did perform acts that the British could feasibly have called terrorist -- sabotage, ambushes, etc. -- there was a colonial army (commanded by George Washington) under the direct control of Congress that engaged the British in a plethora of battles from 1775 through 1781. Now while there is no existing military that could likely stand toe to toe with the U.S. in a stand-up battle given our technology, the same could be said of the British in the 18th century. In their case, technology wasn't a real factor, but the quality and amount of their equipment and training certainly were as well as sheer numbers. So I have no sympathy for the insurgents resorting to terrorism. If a bunch of backwoods farmers could form an army, hold off the British for seven years, and finally push them out of the country then anything is possible. Am I advocating violence? No way. But at least if there has to be violence then don't go suicide bomb something. That's just senseless violence and doesn't further a cause or an argument at all.

Of course, I know why they're doing it. They think that if people at home start dying then public support will dwindle and they'll win. This can backfire, 9/11 proved that. On the other hand, they may be trying to drive us broke with the cost of the operation in Iraq, protecting the U.S., etc. Plus, they've caused enough people to feel insecure enough that we're allowing our civil liberties to be curtailed in the name of security. This is the insidious part, because they're costing us tons of money and have caused our own freedom to be diminished and most U.S. citizens aren't that aware of it, if at all. So in one respect, it could be said that they're winning.

Solution? Admit the mistake of going in without support and ask the UN for an international force so U.S. troops can be a much smaller percentage of the peacekeeping force in Iraq. In particular, ask that Middle Eastern forces participate. Perhaps there are other solutions, but I don't see them right now. I just know two things for certain -- the Iraqi operation has not been good for us domestically, and the international community now thinks of us as a bully who'll flex his muscles at the first available opportunity. I'm neither a pacifist nor a warmonger, I'm just a taxpaying citizen concerned about our motives, our actions, and our wisdom. I know this is a controversial subject -- I simply don't want one mistake to be compounded with several others. We may wake up one day to discover that we're all broke, the economy is a disaster, and our freedom isn't what it used to be. Heh, we have a name for that day: "today". I'll leave it up to you to decide if that was a joke or not...