Internally, I'm really divided about the necessity to invade Iraq.

On the one hand, Saddam Hussein doesn't appear to be a threat to anyone (but his own people). Americans have let cruel dictators rule for years in dozens of countries, so just being a cruel dictator is apparently not enough to warrant an invasion. What's the big deal about giving inspectors another six months? As long as he's cooperating, let them tear the place apart. Why do we have to invade today? Can't it wait until tomorrow? What is the "clear and present danger" to steal a movie title?

On the other hand, this isn't a game of hide and go seek. He'll be able to hide these weapons forever. It's like a huge shell game. You look under one coconut shell, and the ball is actually hiding in one of the other 20,000 coconut shells on the table. It's a game you'll never win. Saddam has gotten good at these switch games. And why should we stand around and let him make a fool of us.

What would be ideal, of course, is if weapons inspectors found something. Anything. A warehouse full of sarin gas for instance. Or if Saddam did something so outrageous (like kick inspectors out of the country) that we would have no choice but to go in there. But for now, he's playing this game, waiting to get caught in a lie.

Part of it might be the fact that I just don't like George Bush. I don't like him and I don't trust him. He's like a big cowboy, who's only solution is to go into the saloon and shoot everything up. You can kind of tell he's keeping something from us. He's like a kid in elementary school who has a secret and is dying to tell you. He'd love to be able to say, "Saddam's personal chef is a CIA operative!" or something. Being the President must be tough. Day 1, they tell you that aliens did indeed land at Roswell. Day 2, they tell you that the NSA really did kill John F. Kennedy. And Day 3, the shocking news that scientists really can make a battery that lasts forever, but the powerful Duracell lobby group keeps enough funds flowing into politicians pockets to stop that news from coming out.

There's a web site called TradeSports that allows you to bet on certain world events. For example:
- As of this evening, you can win $2 for every $1 you bet if you believe Saddam will NOT be in power on March 31
- You can win $0.50 for every $1 bet if you believe Saddam will NOT be in power on June 30

You can also bet on whether there will be a second U.N. resolution. Odds are currently heavily against that happening.

I'll admit that I have a few bucks down on the outcome. I think Saddam will be able to keep power for a couple of more months at least. Even if the U.S. invades in mid-February, he still might be able to hold power for a month or two after. I also think the U.S. will seek and receive a second U.N. resolution before June. Easy bet there. The U.S. is desparate for the U.N.'s approval.

Scott

Here is my random musing on the current copyright law debate.

Up here in Canada, CDs cost around C$20 (US$13) at the retail level. I believe it's even worse in the States where CDs cost C$30 (US$18). So, based on the Canadian prices, we are paying approx. $2 for each track on a CD.

Now, in the world of pop music, you simply can't listen to an entire CD. That is, there are usually only "1 or 2 good songs" on those types of CDs and the rest is filler. Pop music is just like that. This ain't Jazz and it ain't Rock and Roll. So each song really goes for $7 or $10 at the retail level. That's just too much money for 1 song.

"Compilation" CDs are a good deal -- someone has gathered the 15 top hits of the previous year and sells them on a single CD. Of course, compilations are by definition "old" music, so the record companies don't mind this. But consumers don't want to hear "I'm Like a Bird" by Nelly Fortado. That's so 2001, and we've had enough thank you.

Which brings us to file trading. Instead of shelling out $20, you can shell out $0 and get 15 top hits from today. Make your own compilation, for free. This is wrong of course, and the music industry can't continue to exist with so many freeloaders.

So what can we conclude from this simple analysis.... Currently, record companies do not give consumers what they want. Since consumers can easily take what they want, they do. Why don't record companies just try selling what people want to buy, namely:
- Make CDs cheaper at retail. How about $9 for an entire CD?
- Allow consumers to purchase current songs to make their own compilation? $5 for 15 songs that you can burn to a CD yourself, or download to an MP3 player -- no restrictions. The reason downloaded songs should be cheaper than CDs ($5 vs. $9), and not the same price, is that record companies save the cost of distribution and packaging.

I feel the record companies are partly (mostly) responsible for this mess they're in. I have some sympathy for them, but seriously: it's their own fault for ripping us off for so long. They rip the consumer off, and then rip the artist off, and then have the nerve to cry to us when they feel they are getting ripped off? Ha! Two wrongs don't make a right, but it sure does even the score a little.

I read this month's Wired magazine special, featuring Hilary Rosen of the RIAA. I still don't see the record company side of the issue. How can they justify their user unfriendly pricing and distribution methods? If a record industry exec is reading this, send me an email. I am serious: How can you justify the cost of a CD, and the lack of consumer options when it comes to using that music?

Scott

What the heck ever happened to Bobby Brown's career? I mean, he was Mr. 80's. He seemed like he had it all -- success as part of a group, and success alone. Married one of the most popular female singers of that time, Whitney Houston. Not that her career is any better. She continued to have hits into the 90's though, which is better than Bobby Brown can say. Mind you, the last five years have not been kind to either of them.

Now they look and act just like an old trailer-park couple -- I imagine a lot of stuff gets thrown about that house. A lot of empty liquor bottles in the recycling bin too.

Would they have turned out this way if they hadn't met each other? Would his career still exist, and would she still be considered one of the best female performers?

I was walking in Eaton Centre on Friday, and guess who I saw... Lou Pearlman. "Who?", you say. This guy is best known for being the brains behind the Backstreet Boys and N*Sync. He was also featured on the ABC show "Making the Band" for three years for his third boy band, O-Town. That's the only reason I know what he looks like.

From his web site, I learnt that he was the guy who started Trans Contentintal Airlines (an airline charter service), and Art Garfunkel is his first cousin.

Anyways, inside the mall he was standing around 5 or 10 "pretty boys", whom I know is probably the latest boy band that I didn't recognize. I think a Toronto band, B4-4 was there - at least I recognized one of the members of that group. Oddly enough, there were no rabid fans mobbing them or anything. Everyone was pretty much just walking around them. Well, I guess some pop stars can go shopping like normal people. He he.

Both the common language runtime (CLR) on which .NET applications run, and the C# language itself are open standards which anybody is free to implement.
CLR - http://www.ecma.ch/ecma1/STAND/ecma-334.htm
C# - http://www.ecma.ch/ecma1/STAND/ecma-335.htm

Java, by the way, is not an open standard. It's proprietary, which means you need Sun's permission (ie: licensing) to create Java compilers and application frameworks. (There's nothing wrong with that per se, but how does this make Sun any better than Microsoft?)

In fact, there are a number of (open-source no less) projects underway to port the CLR to run under Unix and Apache.
The Mono Project - http://www.go-mono.com/

Pretty soon, you'll be able to develop .NET applications (XML Web Services in ASP.NET even) without a single Microsoft product in sight.

If you're worried about Mr. Bill, I would also be worried about Mr. Scott (McNeely, CEO of Sun) and Mr. Larry (Ellison, CEO of Oracle). Both these companies would be just as nasty and ruthless and monopolistic were they "in charge" as our friends at Microsoft are. It's just like politics -- it's easy to appear to be a "good guy" when you're not in power, but when you are the clear market leader, it's hard to resist the lure of profits at the expense of customer service.

Perhaps the best solution is not to be married to any one vendor. Use a mix of Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, etc.

I read recently that the Pope has approved the first miracle attributed to Mother Theresa. In the Roman Catholic church, it takes two confirmed miracles to make you a saint. So Mother Theresa only needs one more miracle to become a saint. The gist of the miracle attributed to her was that someone who was sick prayed to Mother Theresa and was cured of the disease.

I also read that in the 20 years since John Paul II has been Pope, he has canonized more saints than all of the previous popes combined. Think about it for a second, more saints have been created in 20 years than in the previous 1,400 years.

What's wrong with that? Lots of things I say. First of all, I don't believe in miracles. I believe there is a God, there has to be. He created the Universe, how else could it have been formed. But that's where his involvement in our lives ended. He started the ball rolling, and everything that occurred since that time has been due to the Physics and the Laws of Nature. That LIFE exists is a miracle. That someone thought they saw an image of the Virgin Mary in the mist of a waterfall is not.

(Every once and a while the Toronto Raptors win a game, which can be considered a miracle I guess too. But I digress.)

Second of all, just because someone lived a good life (or a great life -- Mother Theresa is often cited as the epitamy of kindness and selflessness) does not make them an actual saint. Sorry. That's not how it should work. There are tens of thousands of people like Mother Theresa -- nuns and missionaries who have devoted their lives to helping the less fortunate -- who will not have enough "fame" to be made into a saint. It shouldn't be a popularity contest. There should be an injunction on the granting of sainthood for 50 years. Or perhaps some future pope will recind sainthood from a few hundred of the less worthy...

It's kind of like all those Universities that grant Doctors degrees to movie stars. Bill Cosby has a Doctor's Degree -- and for what? Doesn't that diminish the value of the people who earned their doctorates? Doesn't thousands of new saints diminish the value of the existing ones?

Scott
(I hope I don't go to Hell for that...)