There Is No Excuse

The church behind the protests -- chicagotribune.com

My reaction to reading the first paragraph of this was that my jaw dropped open and I uttered an expletive best left untyped. There is simply no excuse for parading around with a sign saying "Thank God for dead soldiers". None. I'm ashamed to be the same nationality as these people. We should go to their funerals with signs saying "Thank God for dead fundamentalists who give Christians a bad name." The First Amendment grants them the power to say that but I never thought that anyone would have the nerve -- the raw guts -- to say something so profane yet at the same time so uninformed. Their abrasiveness is exceeded only by their ignorance.

They're griping about America's tolerance of homosexuality. They should be worried over America's tolerance of them. Since they're Bible thumpers, I'll go off the reservation and quote the Good Book once. John 11:35, "Jesus wept."

Social Security

It sounds like a nice idea, doesn't it? Security for the elderly so that people who don't have the extra money to save up a retirement nest egg at least get something for their effort upon retirement. President Franklin Roosevelt proposed it back in the early '30s during the depression era and when it was signed into law in 1935 (the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, or FICA) a lot of people rejoiced since it meant extra income. And that's when the problem started...

FICA is based on the premise of pay it forward. In other words, the current generation of workers is paying for the previous generation and, when the current generation is close to retirement the next generation will be paying in for them. Those people who got FICA back in the '30s made out like a bandit -- they never paid in but they got the benefits anyway. Of course, back then 16 people were paying in for every person getting benefits. That ratio has dwindled to 3.3:1 today and by the time the money crunch comes for the FICA program it is estimated to be closer to 2:1.

So why is the ratio shrinking? A general population increase is the current culprit, but in another two or so years baby boomers will the answer, those kids born in post-WWII America who are nearing retirement age now. People at the retirement age now were born in 1945, so in another couple of years we should really start feeling the crunch of people retiring and wanting their FICA money -- which they deserve, having paid in all of their working lives to the fund.

So what does that mean for us, the current generation of middle-class wage earners who are the backbone of FICA's accounts receivable? It means that the government is counting on us to make good on the promises it made to the boomers. Does it mean our FICA contributions will be going up? Perhaps -- that really depends upon the increase of retirees relative to the increase of workers paying into the system. So the effectiveness of current FICA contributions relies upon us staying one step ahead of the retirees populationwise. Bad news for Planned Parenthood...

But the population increase is just part of the problem. By the nature of FICA, it holds large sums of money for a long time. Congress has seen fit to "borrow" from FICA to pay for everything else under the sun, so while FICA has plenty of money in theory, it is woefully short of cash in reality. It is forecast to go into the red in 2017 and become insolvent in 2041. It sounds like a long time away until you stop to consider that a 30-year old today who wanted to retire at the age of 65 would do so in 2042.

So between the population explosion and the poor financial management, the working middle class is likely going to get to heft this behemoth back into solvency. Most likely this translates into higher taxes and reduced benefits for our generation, if we actually see any benefits at all. I'm not certain why I'm griping about this today except that it really irks me when the IRS chews up my paychecks and then government still can't support itself. Even with people paying in veritable fortunes every year we have an obese government that needs bariatric surgery more than I do. I'm tired of paying for $17,000 wrenches, $2,000 toilet seats, and $3,000,000,000 stealth bombers. I'm tired of listening to Bill Maher and actually having something to agree with him about. I'm tired of paying for people to be baby machines and I'm sick and tired of paying for people who can work but just choose not to do so.

So in the end the FICA problem is just symptomatic of the gorged, flatulent, and ever-hungry federal government that looms over our pocketbooks much as the Grim Reaper does over a funeral home. I certainly don't mind paying into something if I'm going to get it back out -- that is, after all, the entire premise behind bonds et al -- but paying into something when you won't get anything back out is just stupid. Do I advocate FICA rebellion? No, I'm prepared to fall on my financial sword just as everyone else is. I just think that we could have put better people in Washington who wouldn't have crapped all over America's future.

Ice, Ice Baby

BBC NEWS Science/Nature Arctic ice island breaks in half

Climate shift? What climate shift? Every credible scientist admits to an abnormal shift in climate due to our abuse of the environment and every politician denies it flatly. What more convincing do we need? Okay, here's some more. A chunk of ice -- an "ice island" -- the size of Manhattan broke off of an ice shelf back in August 2005 and has since moved about 600 km (360 miles) south and now has split into two smaller chunks.

Okay, let's say that Manhattan was made of ice and that just happened to it. Right now Manhattan would be two large icebergs floating past Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and it only took 2 years for them to reach this point. This should shock you. If you continue to be nonplussed by it then consider...

All of this fresh water melting in the Arctic -- because it's all coming south and it's melting as it does it -- is affecting the salinity of the water in the northern Atlantic. There are two facts that are important here. First, fresh water is less dense than salt water. Second, the warm surface water coming up from the south Atlantic is responsible in a large way for northern Europe's temperate climate despite its latitude. When the Arctic ice melts, that warm salt water will no longer be close to the surface but will dip underneath the thickening layer of cold fresh water from the Arctic. Great Britain will have a climate roughly equivalent to Siberia.

If all of this sounds like the plot to The Day after Tomorrow, you're not too far off. Take out Dennis Quaid's bad acting, the overly-dramatic ice shelf breakage, the two-day climate shift, and the monster killer land hurricanes then the basic science there is true. In fact, the shot of the Earth at the end of the film is fairly accurate in its ice cover from predictions I've seen online.

I've been seeing climate alerts for over a week now in the news. Stories about how the summer Arctic ice melting this year is an incredible increase from past years. Stories about how the sea pass from Labrador to Alaska through Canada is open again for the first time since nobody knows when. Don't listen to politicians -- they want to be re-elected. Fixing the environment -- if it's even capable of being fixed now -- is going to cost money and people don't want to hear about taxes. I guess turning a blind eye to the problem and dumping it on their kids and grandkids is just as good for them.

So if you want the problem to just go away, that's fine. Ten minutes from now you won't even remember you read this. Just don't bother with investing money for your grandkids' college funds -- buy some property down in Peru instead so they can survive as third-world landowners instead of third-world squatters.

Random Number Generation

Courtesy of xkcd.com ... I'm certain that my former programming students will love this one.

Reminds me of the funniest thing I've ever been told: "Dr. Alexander, you must be a Republican because that test you just gave was full of shock and awe."

Venting Frustration

Every now and then we all get down and have different ways of dealing with it. For the most part of my life, that's been eating. Some people turn to alcohol, others to drugs, and still others do more obscure yet self-destructive things. I turn to food. Both my grandmother and my mother always portrayed food as a central item to the family unit and a full family was a happy family. Perhaps that's where I got the idea.

But I took it too far. Food became an escape, a self-indulgent method of forcing happiness upon me when I didn't know how to obtain it another way. This has led to my obesity and to the need for bariatric surgery. I just tried to vent my unhappiness another way -- through writing -- and it seemed to work so perhaps after forty years I'm finally catching on. I'm certainly no poet but what I wrote kind of turned into something like a poem. I looked at what I wrote and, while it is indeed personal, perhaps putting it here for people to read might help others like me change before they get to the point I'm at. So here it is, and don't judge it too harshly...

It's 6 o'clock in the morning
and I struggle to breathe;
my lungs, flattened by the
cheese enchiladas with the sour cream on top
are almost not up to the task.

My panic attack subsides now
as I ponder how my life got to this;
no food is worth this misery, this pain
and yet my mind flashes back
to those dry rub ribs with the cole slaw and the good beans,
you know the ones I mean.

My life is now one string of problems
with endless suffering and woe caused by
two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce,
cheese, onions, pickles on a sesame seed bun;
I did it to myself, eating all of those
double Krystals with cheese and bacon.

I've always run to food when I'm unhappy, like the time
when the girls made fun of me and I ate two chocolate sundaes;
or when nobody wanted to go see a movie on Friday night
and I wound up watching one with a jumbo bucket of popcorn
and a box of Whoppers.

My marriage fell apart
and I buried it under guacamole and quesedillas;
my mother died
and I buried it under lasagna, spaghetti, and fettucini alfredo;
I'm going to die
and I'll be buried under dirt topped with grass.

The truth is that I'm already buried
under spaghetti casserole with cheddar cheese on top,
under pork tamales with rice and refried beans,
under veal parmesan with a side of spaghetti,
under sesame beef with egg rolls on the side,
under my lack of willpower,
under my inability to keep from stuffing food in my mouth,
under this little child crying for love and acceptance.
My God, what have I done to myself?

My Greatest Gift

I turned 40 yesterday and had a chance to reflect upon the past four decades of my life -- the things I've done wrong, the things I done right, and the events that stand out the most. And in that brief moment of introspection I realized that I had received a tremendous gift, one that transcends all others. And at the same time, I never noticed it and never thanked anyone for it.

People will often cite birth as his or her greatest gift until parenthood arrives at which time it typically becomes the birth of a child. I don't have any children and, while I certainly can't argue that my birth wasn't the greatest gift of all, I'm thinking more along the lines of a gift that you receive once you're already breathing oxygen.

Stumped? I was too as it took me four decades to fully realize its presence, significance, and impact upon my life. So here it is: my parents let me fully control my own path through life without interference. It doesn't sound like much at first, but consider what I mean. My parents emphasized education but without pushing me in any one direction. Artist, philosopher, scientist, or retail store clerk, my parents wanted me to have an education but understood the need for people to discover themselves. My parents didn't want me to live a lonely life, but never pushed for me to marry and have children. After I did marry, my wife and mother didn't get along -- mainly due to my wife's insecurities -- but my parents were always friendly and welcoming and never got between she and I, even up through the divorce seven years later. I've had some great experiences and made some gloriously horrendous mistakes, but they were my experiences and my mistakes.

So that's it, my greatest gift was the freedom to take what God gave me and make the most of it. It's not a tangible gift that I can wear or show off, but in its own respect it is one that I wear and show off every single day. Thanks, Mom and Pop, for everything.

Gravitationally Challenged

I'm fat, obese actually. It's a problem that is becoming increasingly common among Americans: as our incomes rise and the number of fast food places increase, so do our waistlines expand. I'm presently having to reap the harvest of the sinful seeds that I've sown in the past and living with this condition day to day is both humiliating and debilitating. Moreover, we the obese are the final frontier of discrimination. Consider a common rendition of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act statement:

It is our policy to promote equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program of specific practices designed to ensure the full realization of equal employment opportunity without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, age or sex.

Notice how it covers different races, religions, ages, genders, and countries of origin but how it says bupkus about height and weight. I could be a one-eyed Islamic Malaysian lesbian and the government will help me fight for my right to have a job somewhere. If I'm overweight, the EEO Act says nothing. This is both an interesting oversight and a glimpse into the disparity of what different people consider "equal."

What got me to rant on this tonight? Well, it seems that researchers from Harvard Medical School have concluded a scientific study that shows that having fat friends tend to make you fat. I don't know about others, but I tend to overeat to compensate for feelings of lonliness or pain; hey, telling all of my friends that associating with me is helping to put the pounds on them is really doing me a big favor. Thanks guys! I appreciate you taking the one thing that gives me happiness -- interpersonal relationships -- and trying to eliminate them. Good going, Harvard! What's next for them? How to curb bulemia through removing food sources? How to combat diseases in the elderly by placing madatory age caps and instituting euthanasia?

Here's something they can do: come up with some nonhabitual medication that gives me the same feeling as when I eat. I don't mean those appetite suppressants that make you feel full, but something that affects the brain chemistry, kind of like what eating chocolate does in lieu of feeling in love. That would actually be useful. In the meantime, those Harvard researchers had better check their own waistlines because if they're in the Sansabelt Club then they might just find themselves at home checking TV Guide instead of attending swank Ivy League parties.

Windows Vista and Your Privacy

Forget about the WGA! 20+ Windows Vista Features and Services Harvest User Data for Microsoft - From your machine! - Softpedia

George Orwell theorized that by 1984 we'd have a totalitarian government that he referred to as Big Brother. I won't speculate here on how true his prediction was or was not; however, it seems that the true Big Brother is turning out to be Microsoft. In order to use Windows Vista, you truly have to give your privacy away to them on a silver platter. I don't know about you but I'm going to stick with XP Pro for as long as my software will allow it. I cringe at the thought of the embedded calls-to-home in XP Pro, but it pales in comparison to what the article I linked above is mentioning.

We all knew that getting on the Internet was a sacrifice in privacy just because of the nature of the technology. But now the desktop is proving to be less and less secure as well. What browser do you use and what software do you have installed? Microsoft knows. Is it all legal? Microsoft knows. Just think of what information Microsoft is capable of collecting -- I'm not implying that they already do.

1. Your most recently accessed files including name, type, and size.
2. Your most often accessed files.
3. Your most popular folders.
4. Your most filled folders, either by number of files or size in bytes.
5. The contents of files, if accessible by a Microsoft application (Word, Excel, etc.).

Based just on these five things, Microsoft could feasibly determine if you maintain your checking account on your computer and figure out where it is and what kind of software you use to edit it. They might even manage to get your current balance. Microsoft could figure out how you use your PC based on how you organize your files. Are you writing a novel? Microsoft can be your editor. Are you doing research? Microsoft can help with that grant proposal. Do you have a porn stash? Microsoft can be your pimp.

Okay, okay. The pimp thing was a bit over the top, as was the porn stash; I'm sure there are plenty of people with nice clean machines like me. However, it does serve to make a point. Think inwards right now and consider the things that you wouldn't want strangers to know about you. When you lock the door at night and close the curtains, just what are you not wanting the world to witness? Do you have any of that on your computer? Then it's not private. And if you're thinking that my paranoid ramblings have gone completely off the deep end, bear in mind two things: first, I'm not saying that these five things are happening but am postulating what if; and second, I've discovered in my forty years of life that the line between possibility and eventuality is infinitesimally thin and often trampled upon.

As for me, about the only thing I have to hide these days is the tub of Blue Bell mint chocolate chip in my freezer and the fact that I like to air-dry after showering (watch at your own peril). But it's the principle of the matter. Regardless of whether you're a boring old fart like me or someone with a more interesting nature, you should be outraged at the true price of Vista. So don't buy it. Microsoft invested so much in Vista that if it flops it'll be the worst disaster the company has had in its lifetime. Just refuse to buy it. When Vista's revenue stream dries up the company will very quickly bend to consumer demand and the monitoring will get yanked out. Believe me, I work for a software company and if our customers aren't happy with something we quickly change it so that they are.

So just don't buy Vista and wait them out.

I Feel Dirty

I feel like I did back when I was a Boy Scout and spent the weekend out in the woods running around with other unwashed guys and generally stinking up everything we touched. This is the kind of skank that takes a chisel and a brick of lye to remove. I should probably do myself a favor and just bathe in liquid Lysol. Why, you ask? I switched to Internet Explorer 7.

Aye, I have hearkened to the call of the heathen gods who have demanded certain sacrifices for my repentence at being part of the Mozilla movement. I was first confronted with this infernal contract called the EULA where I offered up my CPU's soul with a single click. After taking the leap, they knew that they had me so the heathen gods immediately asked for another 10Mb of RAM to eat, but that was only an appetizer. It then presented me with a crappy interface, where none of the buttons are grouped logically and where I have a one-click link to Rolling Stone magazine, just in case I felt the need to quickly read their website when I haven't done so (or bought one of their magazines) in my entire life.

Firefox gave a good fight, though, asking me repeatedly if I wanted it to be my default browser. Nonplussed, the heathen gods would ask me right back again. The battle waged on and on into the night when finally Firefox, in a disgusted fit of rage, simply announced that it was moving on and would remain as a backup brower "just in case I ever had the time to visit." It sobbed something about "going ahead and letting it die as long as I was having fun" while the Task Manager gleefully unloaded it at the request of the heathen gods who needed the extra RAM for another snack.

Just as people sometimes get married and realize too late that the grass really wasn't greener on the other side of the wedding ring, I felt this wave of regret -- or it could have just been the boudin I had for lunch -- as the heathen gods showed me the next little feature of switching. Bookmarks are handled completely differently in IE7 as in Firefox and there is no way of merging the two into one or easily translating one to the other. So what followed was a two-hour process of rebuilding my bookmarks, but not in IE7. I used Google Toolbar 4.0 for it. Of course, I've just given Google more personally-identifiable information, but after the heathen gods have gotten hold of me how much worse could it get? At least I can access all of my bookmarks from any computer with the toolbar installed on it; and if it's not installed, I can still get them from my Google account. When giving onself to the heathen gods, one more heathen god is of little consequence.

But now I have IE7 installed, running, and updated with the 217 Windows updates that were required to fix known issues with it. McAfee's Internet Firewall is panting now that I've got IE7 installed, Firefox having allowed it to get slightly out of shape; however, it looks good in a jogging suit and I hear that IE7 gets that extra weight off real quick.

So why did I put myself through such pain? Why did I intentionally require myself to scrub down with a Brillo pad and a bottle of Mr. Clean? Did Firefox break? No, it runs well and in less RAM than IE7, although they're never more than about 10Mb apart from the tests I ran. Does IE7 have some cool new feature that I can't live without? No, not really; in fact, the user interface is really whacked to the point where I wonder if they dug up Andy Warhol to design it; if so, I doubt it took longer than 15 minutes. I switched because I use the browser a lot for work and corporate webmail, corporate timesheets, and Webex just aren't Firefox-friendly. Oh they say they are, but with caveats. Microsoft Exchange webmail neuters about half of itself if you're running on a non-ActiveX browser. Timer -- the timesheet webapp -- sometimes loads in Firefox and sometimes doesn't; I guess it depends on if you've sacrificed enough goats or not that morning. And then there's Webex -- even after downloading and installing the Java plugins for joining and running meetings it still does it every single damn time you use the thing. The IE7 version uses an ActiveX control so that doesn't happen.

So the bottom line is that, without a good ActiveX emulator for Firefox, I just can't use it to do what I need to do for work. And I refuse to have two browsers open every day -- I have have 4Gb of RAM but I'm not going to let two different browsers duke it out each day while consuming 50+Mb each. Plus I'll get the whining about "I'm not your default browser!" while links from other apps that I click just get randomly tossed into one or the other. Nope, no thank you.

Firefox, you won me over not with the smaller footprint, but with your style. Unfortunately, Windows has done to you what it did to Linux on the common-man's desktop -- rendered it redundant. I haven't messed with Linux in five years because my job is 100% Windows-based and dual-booting just cured me of the Linux bug. If I can't load the pages I need for work in Firefox then I'm forced to use IE7 and that makes you redundant, Firefox. Now when you have ActiveX support -- which you won't since that's how the hackers get in most of the time -- I'll switch back, and with great glee and likely fewer headaches. Until then, however, I'm trapped by the heathen gods and their EULA.

I think the bathwater is hot enough now, so I'm heading in with my chisel, Mr. Clean, and Brillo pad to try and scrape off the humiliation of yet again joining the lemmings on their journey to the cliff's edge.

Google Revisited

Well, my paranoia about privacy issues must be catching like a virus. At least I know I'm not the only one wondering what Google's doing with all of that information it has on us.

Peek-A-Google - Forbes.com

Google ranked 'worst' on privacy - BBC News

For Mom

This weekend is Mother's Day and is a little over one year since my mother died. She passed away in Laurel, Mississippi, the town where she grew up, got married, and wound up spending most of her life. She was also someone who cherished family and history, both of which are important to Laurelites. So tonight when I was cleaning out my nightstand I ran across a newspaper clipping and I knew what I had to do. It required scanning it into the computer in two parts, downloading the trial version of Photoshop CS3, and using it to layer and merge the clipping into one piece again but the hour I spent on this was worth it. It's now protected from water, heat, and my error-prone filing system.

So in honor of my mother and maternal grandparents I present the computing world with a story from the Laurel Leader-Call from May 23, 2001.

The Terror of Terror

I can't seem to check out Google News without seeing at least one article with the word 'terror' embedded somewhere in the title. These days you can't go through the day without seeing or hearing the word at least once unless you like living in a complete news blackout. But what's in a word?

Thanks to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, we have
Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r, 'te-r&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands terror>
synonym see FEAR
- ter·ror·less /-l&s/ adjective


So terror is a state of intense fear and, in the context used in the news, it would be appropriate to say a state of fear induced by revolutionary groups to get what they want. The problem is that we need a new word -- terror has little to no meaning any more. We have terror acts, terror threats, terror suspects, terror risk management, anti-terror training, and the list goes on. Terror used to be a word that was fairly reserved and had a specific meaning and evoked a particular emotion when used. Now it's just another word.

It's kind of like profanity if you'll grant me the time to draw the parallel. Modern war movies like Full Metal Jacket use profanity to the point where it is no longer profane, it's simply ignored. If forced to be around someone who talks like that in real life it might offend someone at first but then the person will gradually adjust and find that he or she is filtering out the colorful words. The point here is that a person can get used to just about anything he or she reads or hears by building selective desensitizing filters.

So back to terror. The word is meaningless now as it's overused and misused to the point of being utterly superfluous. The 2001 attack on the World Trade Center was indeed a moment of true terror but then the "War on Terror" phrase was coined and the government and media wanted to connect everything in to that. So we have terror this, terror that, and terror the other. We read about a "possible terror incident investigated" and discover that it's some poor slob of Arabic descent who packed a Swiss army knife in his luggage. To me a "possible terror incident investigated" is if someone sees the outline of a gun in the x-ray machine. Terrorism and terror have become catch-all words for something that should still be very specifically defined, but isn't.

Perhaps it's more than just the words. Ben Franklin once said that those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither. Isn't that what we've been doing for the past five years? Isn't terror just a metaphor for our sacrifice of personal freedoms and civil liberties to the government? And the government has been more than willing to take them, hasn't it? If you get the chance sometime, read the Patriot Act. If you do you'll see the broad-based actions that the government can now take against its own constituents. What amazes me is that there is a nontrivial segment of our population that's actually cheering them on. I don't think I could say any more about that than P.T. Barnum already did with his immortal quote.

The problem we're running into is the difference between democracy and government. The purpose of government is to govern, i.e., control. The purpose of a democracy, or in the case of the United States a republic, is to control with the consent of the people and no more than the people are willing to consent. This check and balance works as long as the people don't give up more rights than they should. But, not listening to Ben Franklin's warning, we started willingly coughing up our rights after the 2001 attacks and we weren't terribly specific about which ones. We now have a Department of Homeland Security, a branch of the government dedicated to monitoring us, which is contrary to everything I've learned about our history and government both as a student and later a taxpayer. We have dramatically expanded capabilities for the FBI and other domestic agencies. And they all use the word terror. And terror now has no meaning so we feel safer. Are we safer? No, just more domesticated -- like cattle. And we all know what eventually happens to cattle.

Weeds in the Garden

Today on my way home I sat in the truck for a few moments looking at the grass and sky before going inside -- sometimes this is my only connection with the outdoors and when the temperatures are reasonable and it's not raining on me I try to make the most of it. That's when I noticed that the courtyard in front of my apartment building is full of little yellow flowers and various weeds that are intermixed with the grass. And that got me to thinking, which is a dangerous thing to do...

I remembered back in my teens I would be forced at near gunpoint each Spring to go outside and fertilize the lawn, bushes, and trees. We had 10-10-10 ("triple ten"), whatever that is, for the lawn and Miracle-Gro in various manifestations (liquid, feeding sticks, etc.) for the trees, bushes, and monkey grass. My parents were downright anal about making certain that the yard got properly fertilized and then was sufficiently watered so the triple ten and other crud didn't burn the grass. We also had Roundup which, to the uninitiated, is a very effective weed eradicator. This stuff would kill whatever you sprayed it on within 24 hours. I got to use that a lot as well.

So where on earth am I going with this? I'm sitting in my truck looking at the grass and having flashbacks to 25 years ago when I was fertilizing the good stuff and snuffing out the bad. Here's the thought that I was stuck on: exactly who decided what was a nice plant and what was a weed? Is there some kind of definitive list of weeds out there? Do we have the Weed Police who itemize, categorize, and publish a most wanted list? Near as I can tell, they're all plants and God put them here in various forms just like He did with us, to celebrate the diversity of life. Why are the little yellow flowers weeds while the slightly bigger yellow flowers are daisies and zinnias? Who decided that the little plant with the spherical, white feather top that flies away when you blow on it is a weed? Go out into nature. Forests, plains, hills, everything is covered with tall grass and what we would consider weeds. Nature really is just a lot of grass, weeds, and trees. When did these other plants start disturbing us so much that we needed to use known carcinogens to eradicate them? Or for that matter, when did they start disturbing us so much that we felt the need to eradicate them at all?

And then it hit me. We don't stop with the plant kingdom -- we carry it on with ourselves. People sometimes refer to layoffs, breakups, etc., as "pruning the tree" or "weeding the garden," especially when talking about someone unpopular or someone who has fallen out of favor. I know firsthand how it feels to be sent away from something you love because you were unappreciated while doing it. It's not a good feeling. And I guess that's where the weeds have it easy, because they don't understand what's happening when the trowel digs down and they get uprooted. We do.

Maybe people are too caught up in beauty. A lush forest with a babbling brook and waterfall makes for a scene worthy of a photograph. Your back lawn that hasn't been mowed in two months is an eyesore. Why? They probably have a lot of the same plants in both areas. We see a fallen cypress tree in the swamp with a bird perched on it and someone's diving for a camera. We see a fallen cypress tree in your front yard with a bird perched on it and people are asking when you're going to get that cut up and hauled away and, by the way, make sure you get the tree stump ground up so the grass will cover up where the tree was. The beauty of nature becomes the eyesore of the block. Perhaps it's the tribal mentality at work. We are all the same, we must all be the same, if we are not all the same then there is no identity. We must have green grass with no weeds. We must have no sickly trees. We must be thin. We must do something about age lines. We must conform to the status quo. Or else? Well, then you're a weed.

So before you take the triple ten out to fertilize your lawn (literal or metaphorical) and then hit the weeds with Roundup, be sure to decide what is a weed and what isn't; one day you might be rounded up yourself. As for me, I don't see any weeds in the courtyard, just some tiny yellow flowers that add some color to an otherwise drab green turf.

The All-Seeing Eye

Conspiracy theorists love hauling out the Skull & Bones Society at Yale, the Illuminati, the Templars, and the Freemasons as examples of corrupt secret societies, present and past. Movies like The DaVinci Code have played up this angle as well with much success and entertainment value. However, there is a new Illuminati on the horizon: Google. Google metaphorically has its finger on the pulse of the world. How so, you ask?

The Lidless Eye Watches
First, consider the search engine itself. The Google search page is the most often used home page on the Internet. And according to an article I read today Google tags all searches with keywords, timestamps, and originating IP addresses -- and will be holding onto that information for 18-24 months. What does that mean to people who don't know what an originating IP address is? It means that Google can regurgitate every single query made for up to two years and tag it to a specific address. That can be combined with data from the Internet service provider who owns that address to tag it to a specific machine. Once there, the query is directly connected to a household or, if a company, to a machine where the system administrator can determine who was logged in at the time. In other words, Google knows what you're asking about and holds onto that for up to two years. If information is power, then this is a load of it.

That's Some Choice Stuff You're Viewing
Second, consider one of the most popular -- and free -- add-ons that Google has. The Google toolbar is a handy piece of add-on browser software, but at a price. It monitors the various web pages you load regardless of whether you query them up from Google's search engine or not. They make a point in the privacy statement about limiting personally-identifiable information, but I know too much about how the Internet works to buy into the idea that this information, when combined with the Google search queries, doesn't (and isn't) providing Google with a full-spectrum profile of my online browsing habits.

No Fair Peeking...Okay, Maybe Once
Third, Google has Gmail, a very user-friendly web-based e-mail application. A lot of people use it in lieu of giving out their real e-mail addresses, but that power and flexibility also comes at a price. Now Google is storing e-mail for, well, a google of users. I know they're peeking because their spam filters have to in order to work. The question is if they're remembering what they peeked at. Is remembering illegal? Perhaps...I'm not a legal expert. Is it unethical? I'd definitely say so. I would venture that the answer to my question is that they aren't remembering what they peek at but then again if knowledge is power and power corrupts then transitively we have that information (knowledge) itself is a corrupting force.

Um, You Made A Typo There...
Fourth, Google has put out a mini-office suite of apps for free. Called Docs & Spreadsheets, it consists of a Word-like word processor and Excel-like spreadsheet. The service also allows for users to store files for later retrieval from a different location, or to share with people. So in addition to e-mail hosting, Google is now doing file hosting as well with the apps to drive it as an incentive to use it. Once again, it begs the question of whether they can peek at the data or not. Now only a true idiot would trust sensitive e-mail and/or data to a third-party, but I'm recalling the famous P. T. Barnum line as I consider just how much sensitive information might be out there already.

Cringing Yet?
For the rest, I refer you to an archived Cringely blog post on Google and what it's doing right now. For those without the gumption to read another blog entry, here are some of the key points of his post:

• Google now controls more network fiber than any other organization
• Google is building a lot of data centers (server farms) close to reliable electric power and to population centers.

He postulates that "Google intends to take over most of the functions of existing fixed networks in our lives, notably telephone and cable television." This might be a pipe dream and then again maybe not -- Cringely is wired in to the technocracy and his out-on-a-limb guesses are usually more often right than wrong. So while I don't know about the future of GooglePhone, Google Broadcasting Corporation, Google Box Office, or Cinooglemax, the facts from his blog post alone show Google to be poised for something major.

Everyone Recite the Mantra
Then we're left with the underlying Google corporate theory: above all else, do no harm. Noble words and a noble sentiment if we accept it at face value. Google does do charitable work and employees quickly become disciples. Knowing that employee loyalty is earned and not freely given, that last fact says a lot. So is there reason to not accept Google's statement at face value? I'm not certain, but let's say that I'm willing to consider it. If so, then Google has a tremedous amount of responsibility to act responsibly. Let's recap what they have:

• Access to search queries and web browsing habits.
• E-mail and document/spreadsheet data.
• A lot of fiber and a lot of server farms.

It could be that they're just trying to one-up Microsoft and de-monopolize the Windows monopoly. Whatever they're trying, they'd best be careful before they get an antitrust lawsuit brought against them as well. So Google, I'll buy the do no harm bit, but you've got an awful amount of power right now -- so prove me right.

Of course, Google now owns Blogger.com as well, so my blogging engine is run by them. I wouldn't be surprised if
^C^C^C^C^D^D^C
^C
^C

This blog has been halted. It is not the fault of your screen or of Google. Please stand by.
*** Account Terminated ***
Thank you for using Blogger.

Video Game Legislation

States wising up? Video game bills drop like flies

I read this article on Ars Technica today and it really got me thinking. What is the obligation -- or the authority -- of the State to govern the sale of video games with violent content? As you may or may not know, many video games are first-person shooters, portraying violence very realistically. The article linked above deals with states growing more aware of constitutionality issues surrounding the bills they've introduced or considered introducing, but my thoughts take me a step back from that.

I have a problem with trying to pass any bill saying a video game can't be sold to a minor. If there were true adult video games in the sexual sense of the term then I'd understand there being restrictions on those games just as there are restrictions on other adult items; however, given the present collection of popular video games I just don't see the need. I have three reasons for saying this:

1. Limited funds. Passing the bill will require a lot of time and effort, which translates into money. Enforcement will make it cost even more. I doubt that the fines for breaking the law would ever come close to the cost for making it and actively enforcing it. With other available avenues of expenditure such as fighting crime, getting drugs off the streets, and funding education, I think any one or a collection of those would be better suited for additional funds than a bill on video games.


2. Education is the key. When you get right down to it, a lot of societal problems stem from the simple yet painful fact that we don't fund education adequately. What we need are better courses, better teachers, better textbooks, and better schools. How can a kid learn in a school that's falling down in the projects, who doesn't have textbooks for all of his classes, and who worries about getting robbed and/or gang raped if he has to use the bathroom? Legislation on violent video games is putting a band-aid on a scratch while missing the amputated extremity.


3. States have no business legislating parental concerns. The other main source of societal problems stem from inadequate parenting. Any K-12 teacher knows what I'm talking about when I say that teachers get left holding the bag when it's really the fault of the parents. Teachers cannot take the place of parents -- they cannot be held responsible for nonperforming or misbehaving students when these students have MIA parents. Parents don't seem to realize that being a pothead, shacking up with someone, drinking themselves silly, or making little Bobby sleep in the truck because Uncle Jim is in town tonight are all causing harm. Poor performance and/or a bad attitude in the classroom is symptomatic of nonexistent or improper parenting. Well if teachers shouldn't be held responsible, the State certainly shouldn't. And for those who want the State to be responsible, that's simply too invasive. The State cannot and should not attempt to take over for parents. Parents need to get a kick in the rear and realize that they're role models and have an obligation to teach their kids.

So if parents did their jobs, education was funded as it should be, and we did more to keep crime and drugs off of the streets, then everything would be hunky dory. But it isn't and it would take a lot of effort to even start getting there. Why? It's a vicious circle. Little Bobby may have a pothead mom and a dad serving 5 to 10 for B&E, but it's likely that they had parents just as dysfunctional as themselves. So what's the real problem? The moral and ethical decay of our society from within. Unfortunately, there's no easy answer for how to fix that, but I do know that throwing money at regulating video games isn't how to start.