Adrift at Sea —Dan’s blog on dankim.com

The last two weeks have been very busy.

Two weeks ago, I sold my house and moved back to New England. My uncle passed away on the day I sold my house in Virginia. This past Saturday, my friend Dave and I spent the day unloading a PODs storage container, which had been dropped off on Friday. It contained the majority of the contents I’ve kept from my house in Virginia.

On Sunday, we left for Pittsburgh. My father and I went to PIttsburgh, Pennsylvania, to help out my aunt and cousin. We were there to help clean out the house and get it ready for sale. My aunt is going to go live with her son, in California later this year. It was strange, being there for my aunt, father and cousin. In some ways, I’m more experienced in dealing with the loss of both a spouse and a little brother than my aunt and father were. It’s strange to think that even as one of the younger members of my family, I’ve had such experiences with loss.

In many ways, what my dad and I found in Pittsburgh doesn’t surprise me. My uncle, one of my father’s younger brothers, had saved everything that my father had sent him for the last thirty years, in many cases, in the original packaging that it was shipped in. My uncle had come to the United States and had lived with my father during college and had, in many ways, followed in his older brother’s footsteps. My uncle was a lot like a younger, more refined version of my father, with better taste in clothes, and one of my favorite relatives. I’m just glad I could be there and help my aunt and cousin.

Today, my parents and I drove down to Virginia. The reason we came down to Virginia was a happy one. My sister-in-law, Michele, is getting married. In some ways, this event is one of the last tasks I promised Gee I would see to. She asked me to take care of her sister, and as of tomorrow that task will be in Matthew’s hands. I like Matthew and his family—they’re good people.

The rehearsal dinner was at a restaurant called Legends. The food was excellent. Matthew’s family are a very likeable bunch, even if some of them are Republicans. I’m looking forward to seeing Michele get married. I wish her and Matthew the joy and happiness I found with Gee.

I guess in many ways, life goes on. Just as my nephew entered my life the same year I lost Gee, Michele and my extended family has grown, even as my uncle passes away.

Today has been a good day. It’s nice to have a really good thing to write about today. Verizon came by and hooked up the FiOS service today. Fiber optic internet service. I’m very happy with it. It is blazingly fast, especially compared to the Comcast service I was on previously.

I have to say that some of the people over at Verizon’s FiOS group have worked amazingly hard, above and beyond the norm, to get the service up and running. I’d specifically like to thank Danielle, over at the FiOS group, for getting all the snags in getting the service setup straightened out, and Joe, who did the actual install. They both ROCK.

Right now, my father’s computer, a Windows 2000-based box, is having a slight bandwidth issue, as the software firewall on it is acting as a bottleneck. Even though it is a fairly fast machine, a Athlon XP 2.0 GHz-based box, the software firewall appears to be causing a bottleneck. His machine seems to max out on the internet bandwidth tests at 5.x Mbps. My 12″ PowerBook gets 14.x Mbps on the same tests. Interesting…

My next step is to get Vonage up and running over the FiOS connection. That will probably happen sometime next week. I’ll keep you posted on how it goes.

The weather the past few days has been pretty strange. It has been unseasonably cool for Virginia in August, and much rainier than is usually the case. We’ve got green grass here in Virginia. Normally, by this time of year, the grass is dead and brown without some serious lawn watering. Earlier in the week, we weren’t really expected to get this kind of rain, but here it is.

My friend Supi Wolf, a lovely Thai woman, once told me that in her culture, when it rains heavily, it means the angels are crying. The day she told me this was June, 16th 2001, the day of Gee’s funeral. It poured that day. It makes me wonder if my angel, Gee, is crying about me leaving our home. Somehow, I think she is, but that they are both tears of sorrow and of joy—sorrow that I have to leave, and joy that I am moving on.

Rain has been there throughout my Life with Gee. The day Gee and I first met it rained. Almost six years ago, when I went down to meet Gee’s parents for the first time, it rained most of that weekend as well. It rained on the day I left Gee in Seattle, when she first moved out there, right after we got engaged. And it rained on our last trip together, to Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard—where we talked, dreamed and hoped of together retiring to someday. The rain was the one thing Gee missed most about leaving Seattle, and whenever it rains—the rain always reminds me of her.

I miss her very much still, and she is still very much a part of my life—in ways I can’t really explain. I think that Gee is keeping the promise she made on the day we got engaged—to never leave me. What most people don’t realize is that we got engaged on September 19th, 1999, twelve years to the day I lost my twin David. I think that Gee was one of the few non-Twinless that truly understood how much losing Dave changed my life.

These are the final few days I am spending in the only place Gee and I called home. The house is bare and empty—with just a few things I have left to take with me. There are no traces of Gee ever having been here now, and it saddens me. In two days time—this place—the first place I ever called home—where she and I met, courted, married and lived—will no longer be ours—and the heavens wept for my leaving. But, this is meant to be… I am moving on as I promised her I would.

This morning, I took the MBTA, Boston’s extensive subway system, into town. I had a few errands I had to run down at the harbor. I was on the Green Line and noticed that many of the trains had a running series of ads for the Apple iPod on the exterior. The even stranger part was how many of the passengers seemed to have them as well.

From my count, on the D Line train I was on this morning, twenty five people on the train, at various times, had iPods. Now the count may be off a bit, as some of the iPod owners had taken the suggestion from what has happened in New York, and are no longer using the noticeable white earbuds—as it reduces the chances of being mugged for the iPod. This was just on one train, inbound for most of the length of the D Line, and I can’t say whether it was just an oddity to have so many iPod users on a single train.

I guess, in the twelve years since I lived here, Boston has been invaded by the iPod people. I can’t really say anything, as it was only by chance that I didn’t have mine with me this morning. The iPod has definitely made an impact on society today. It has changed many of the ways we do things….and added a soundtrack to our lives so to speak. One of the most interesting things I saw this morning, was when a pretty young woman, a dancer by her appearance and build, took out her iPod to use the shiny chrome back as a mirror to check her makeup… I guess Apple has come a long way in five years.

On my way back out of town, one of the other passengers, a pretty woman named Stephanie, who is studying dentistry over at Tufts, and I had both commented on the how many iPod users there were.

Today, on my way over to see a client, I saw something that made me laugh. In Canton, right on Neponset Street, there is a Dunkin’ Donuts shop. In New England, Dunkin’ Donuts is the local 800-pound gorilla of donut shops—they’re based in Rhode Island. The shop is relatively new, as it wasn’t there last year as I remember it. The thing that made me laugh was how there was a police officer stationed at the donut shop—yes, stationed there. He was stopping the heavy morning rush-hour traffic on Neponset street, so the store’s customers could exit and enter traffic easily.

I guess that all the common stereotypes have some basis in fact—some tiny kernel of truth to them. I’ve seen a few strange things related to donut shops and the police, like the time a few years back, I saw five police cruisers at one Dunkin’ Donuts, at one a.m.—six officers sitting at the counter, including the shift supervisor—I could tell from his cruiser, as it is marked slightly differently from the patrol cruisers. Another one was the time I was on I-90 and was watching a state police cruiser with its lights on hurry into a service plaza on the turnpike. The lights were shut off as the cruiser pulling into the new Honey Dew Donuts drive-thru that had recently opened there.

I wonder if the good citizens of Canton realize they are paying an officer to spend a part of their morning at a donut shop. I can understand positioning an officer to help reduce congestion or improve traffic flow, but having one stationed at a donut shop strikes me as, at best, a questionable decision.

Once again I was in Annapolis, over at Performance Cruising. I had a few questions about the Telstar 28, and wanted to discuss them with Tony Smith. Tony and I talked for the better part of an hour and I was able to get a lot of my questions answered. I’ve changed my previous blog entry to reflect some of our discussion results.

As Tony and I finished up our conversation, Will came in and asked if I was interested in going on another sail. Tom and his father, who were the soon-to-be owners of the Telstar I had sailed on the previous week, were in town, and in the process of picking up their boat. As part of the owner orientation, Will was going to take them on a sail, to show them the ropes so to speak. Silly question—of course, I am always more than happy to go out sailing on the Chesapeake.

The boat we took out this time was number 304. This boat is one of the early prototypes and is an all vacuum-infusion build. It is a bit lighter than the production boats, which have the main hull and deck made of hand-laid glass. The 304 also had a rather temperamental Tohatsu 40 hp two-stroke outboard motor. After a bit of trying, Will was able to get the Tohatsu to cooperate, and off we went.

I took the helm and guided us out to the Chesapeake; while Will showed Tom and his father how the amas were deployed. He also showed them the control lines for the amas and nets. He also showed them how to raise and lower the centerboard and rudder, and where the controls for doing so were located.

Then he took the sail cover off the main sail. The sails on the 304 are the new laminate higher-performance sails that were recently designed for the Telstar 28s—very cool. After raising the mainsail and unfurling the genoa, we killed the engine and went off under sail power.

The wind today was even better than it had been last week. With it blowing a solid ten knots or so—we were able to do six-to-seven knots under sail. Will went over the furling and unfurling procedures, and gave Tom and his father hints about jibing and tacking the Telstar. With Tom at the helm, we spent some time letting him see how she handled under sail.

We then turned, to head back to the docks. The Tohatsu decided not to cooperate, and we had to sail the first part of the way up Back Creek. Fortunately, just as the wind was dropping off the Tohatsu decided to start, and we were able to motor the rest of the way back to the dock without trouble. This is probably why they’re not offering the Tohatsu as a stock engine…but the much more solid Honda four-stroke outboards.

At that point, we broke for lunch. After lunch, we came back to see a mast raising and lowering demonstration. The unique, patent-pending, mast raising system that Tony has developed for the Telstar is very impressive. A single person can easily raise or lower the mast by using the mast raising/lowering line, which runs through the base of the mast and connects to two other lines. This can be done with the furled foresail, furled mainsail and boom in place, but more typically, the boom, mainsail and foresail will be removed before the mast is lowered.

The Telstar 28 Mast Lowering Procedure

The procedure goes something like this:

• Lower and remove the foresail and mainsail.
• Remove the boom from the mast, via a pin at the gooseneck.
• Loosen the backstay.
• Run the mast lowering/raising halyard to the winch. Take four turns around the winch drum, and then tie the line off on a cleat.
• Disconnect the support struts for the roller A-frame. Attach the two mast lowering system lines to it.
• Attach the spinnaker halyard to a padeye by the forestay. Tighten the spinnaker halyard and disconnect the forestay.
• Disconnect the spinnaker halyard from the padeye. Secure the end of the halyard to the base of the mast.
• Take the roller furling line and tie it to the roller furling gear. This is very important, as if the roller furling line gets caught, it may damage the roller furling gear.
• Put the roller furling gear at the lower end of the forestay into a padded bag. This prevents it from scratching the finish or ports on the boat. The idea for the padded bag is one I came up with. Right now they suggest leaving a piece of carpet over the port and foredeck to protect the finish, but I like the idea of the padded bag as being more elegant a solution. It also prevents the roller furling line from catching on anything.
• Remove the two bolts at the base of the mast, which secure the mast to the mast foot.
• Ease the mast lowering line on the winch slightly, and tug on the backstay to start the lowering process.
• Slowly lower the mast, using one hand to ease the line on the winch. Watch to see that the mast doesn’t catch on anything, and that the roller furling gear drops into the fork at the base of the mast. Also keep an eye on the various lines and stays—to make sure none of them get hung up on anything.
• Reconnect the support struts on the roller A-frame.
• Once the mast is down, you can lash it in place. The rear arch over the transom, the H-shaped bracket at the mast foot, and the large A-frame arms at the bow support the unstepped and lowered mast.

Mind you, this is a rough description of the procedure, and if you own a Telstar 28 with the A-frame mast lowering system, you should probably check to see if I’ve missed anything. Will had Tom actually run through the process to get a better idea of what the process requires.

The Telstar 28 Mast Raising Procedure

To raise the mast from the unstepped and stored position, you simple reverse the procedure above.

The procedure goes something like this:

• The rear arch over the transom, the H-shaped bracket at the mast foot, and the large A-frame arms at the bow support the unstepped and lowered mast. Untie all the lashings on the mast.
• Run the mast lowering/raising halyard to the winch. Take four turns around the winch drum, and then tie the line off on a cleat.
• Disconnect the support struts on the roller A-frame.
• Slowly raise the mast, by using the winch to tighten up on the mast-raising halyard. Watch to see that the mast doesn’t catch on anything. Also keep an eye on the various lines and stays—to make sure none of them get hung up on anything.
• Continue raising the mast until the base of the mast seats in the mast foot. Do not over tighten the line, as the final seating of the mast will be done next…
• Cleat the mast raising line. Do not forget this step or the mast may drop suddenly and cause damage or injury to you or the boat.
• Use a screwdriver to snug the mast into seating completely, and align the bolt holes that are used to secure the mast to the mast foot.
• Insert the two bolts, which secure the mast to the mast foot, at the base of the mast and tighten them.
• Remove the roller furling gear at the lower end of the forestay from the padded bag.
• Untie the roller furling line from the roller furling gear, and stow it where you normally would.
• Untie the spinnaker halyard from the mast. Connect the halyard to the padeye near the forestay base.
• Tighten the spinnaker halyard, and then connect the forestay.
• Disconnect the spinnaker halyard, and tie it off wherever you normally would do so.
• Disconnect the two mast lowering guide lines from the roller A-frame. Reconnect the two support struts for the roller A-frame.
• Tighten the backstay.
• Attach the boom to the mast, via a pin at the gooseneck.
• Attach the foresail and mainsail.

Mind you, this is a rough description of the procedure, and if you own a Telstar 28 with the A-frame mast lowering system, you should probably check to see if I’ve missed anything.

One thing that is really nice about the mast lowering system is that it allows you to halt the process at any point, or even reverse it—by either tying off the mast lowering line, or winching the line in, as needed.

Some advice from Tony about the backstay: If you mark the backstay with at specific points with colored marks, you can know the height of the mast from the water, by looking at the marks and where they enter the water. This can be useful if you have to partially unstep the mast on a regular basis to pass under a low-clearance bridge. This way you can save some time, as unstepping it completely is not necessary.

The Telstar 28 Trailer

Then Tony and Will went over the trailer with Tom and his father, and the way to secure the Telstar 28 for transport. Tony pointed out that for fairly short, local portages of the Telstar, there really is no need to take the boom and sails off of the Telstar. For longer trips, it is highly recommended that you remove the sails and disconnect the boom from the mast.

The trailer for the Telstar 28 features several screwjack-type adjustable struts to support the amas, once the boat has been pulled up onto the trailer. It also has four larger, adjustable struts that are used to prevent the Telstar from tipping in case you need to extend the amas while it is on the trailer with. Most of the weight of the Telstar 28’s center hull is supported on two rests that are located where the two main bulkheads run across the hull. These two points are the strongest sections of the hull, and are the best for supporting the weight of the boat on the trailer.

This morning, I went over to Annapolis to take a look at a sailboat. The Telstar 28 is a trailerable trimaran that is made in Annapolis, by Performance Cruising. Designed by Tony Smith, the Telstar 28 takes elements from both his Gemini catamaran and his older Telstar 26 trimaran designs.

Gee and I had talked about sailing, and it has always been a dream of mine to sail around the world. I got hooked on sailing because of my twin brother, David. He taught me to sail a long time ago. There are several things I considered important while looking at sailboats.

The most important consideration was getting a boat that I could single-hand if I wanted to. There will be many times where I will want to go sailing by myself, and some boats aren’t really designed to be handled by one person. Another major consideration is, at least initially, I’ll be sailing with a fairly inexperienced crew, and I wanted a boat that is easy to sail short-handed. She also had to be simple enough that I could teach my friends and nephews how to sail her easily.

Also flexibility and reducing the ongoing costs were both important to me. Trailerable trimarans have much lower ongoing costs than a monohull, like the Jenneau Sun Odyssey 32, as they don’t require a mooring or marina slip. The ability to trailer the boat to various lakes and coastlines makes the trimarans much more flexible in where I can sail than the monohulls.

Another reason I’ve decided on a multihull is stability. The multihull designs tend to be much more stable than monohulls. I wanted a boat that would be comfortable to the friends and family I would want to have with me, and a monohull wouldn’t really work for many of them. Even when sailing in brisk winds, the trimarans heel only 10-15 degrees from horizontal—unlike the 20-30 degrees often found on monohull sailboats.

The Telstar 28 seems to fit the bill. The fairly compact cockpit, simple control setup, and smaller sailplan all make it fairly easy to sail short-handed, or alone. The multihull design has the stability I was looking for, and the pivoting arm ama design makes the Telstar 28 relatively easy to trailer. Also, the trailerable design means that a slip or berth is optional, not required, and makes winter storage much easier and less costly.

On to the Telstar 28

I’ll give you my impressions of the boat and describe the boat’s features and layout, as well as compare it to Corsair’s F28 and F31, two very popular trimarans I’ve also sailed aboard, and the Dragonfly 920, which I have not. I’ve also talked about the changes that I’d make to the design, based on my observations, and what equipment I’d add, based on my personal plans for the boat.

One nice about Performance Cruising, the people are down to earth and you can tour the factory, and see how they make the Telstar and her older sister, the Gemini catamaran firsthand. After the sail, I also had a chance to sit down with Tony Smith, the designer of the Telstar and talk to him at length about the boat and its design.

Tony is an English gentleman, and very open and straightforward about his boat designs. He was very willing to talk about the good, the bad, and the ugly, as well as some of the growing pains the design has had. For instance, the 9.9 HP engine mentioned in the early reviews, isn’t really powerful enough for the design, and the standard outboard they’re recommending is the 20 hp Honda outboard.

From my limited experience with the Telstar 28, the initial impressions are quite good. It’s a very easy boat to handle—both under sail and under power. Needless to say, I like the Telstar 28 a lot.

On the Water

When I arrived at Performance Cruising, I met with Will, Tony Smith’s son-in-law. We talked for a bit and waited for a couple from Oregon to arrive. The four of us went out on the Chesapeake for a test sail. The wind was about nine knots, but somewhat fluky, so we got to see how the Telstar performs under both power, using a 50 hp Honda outboard, and under sail, using the mainsail and genoa, and later the mainsail and a gennaker. We even were able to try out the autopilot, a Raymarine 1000, for a bit.

Will started the outboard, and pulled the Telstar 28 away from the dock. As I guided the her down Back Creek, to the Chesapeake Bay, Will extended the amas. It is quite easy to extend or retract the amas, even underway. Once both amas were extended and locked, he had us open the throttle, to show us how well she performed under power. We were able to get her up to about 15 knots, or that is what my Garmin 76CS GPS unit was reporting. We hit the chop from another boat at that speed, and yet the cockpit and most of the amas stayed completely dry.

Once out on the Chesapeake, we sailed for a bit with just the main sail and the genoa. As we got further out, Will asked us if we’d like to try the gennaker that he had onboard. Given how light the wind was, we were up for it. We furled the genoa and raised the gennaker.

Once we got the gennaker up, we allowed the Raymarine tiller autopilot to steer her for a bit. It did a fairly good job, but given how light and fluky the winds were today, I don’t think it was a really good test of the autopilot’s capabilities.

The setup of the autopilot was easy and quick. You plug the autopilot cable into the data/power connection on the port side of the cockpit. You put the autopilot into a socket on the port bench, and then connect the steering arm to a pin on the tiller. Turn it on and adjust your course heading using the buttons. The autopilot is linked to a fluxgate compass mounted below the deck. Apparently, there is a remote available for the autopilot, so you can set the course while sitting out on the amas in nice weather.

As we came back in, we dropped the gennaker, and went back to the outboard. I navigated the Telstar back up Back Creek, until we got to the Performance Cruising docks. Will easily backed the boat into an open slip.

The Exterior Layout—Simple and Straightforward

The foredeck has the bow pulpit and the anchor locker. There is also a retractable bowsprit, which is controlled by two lines in the anchor locker. There is a large cleat for the anchor rode, just forward of the anchor locker.

The coachroof of the Telstar has two large hatches. One is over the head compartment, and the other over the main saloon. The coachroof also has the mast step between the two hatches. The mast has the halyards, cleats and two halyard winches on it. There are handrails along the outboard edge of the coachroof and a narrow deck on the outside edge of the hull, which is also part of the folding ama system. While you can use the narrow deck to go between the small foredeck and the cockpit, I find that walking along the nets is just as simple.

The cockpit is fairly comfortable for four people, but any more than that, it would be crowded. There is a storage locker on each side of the cockpit, under the bench, which has the control lines for the amas and nets. The port locker also contains a five-pound propane tank for the stove in the galley. Mounted to the port side of the cockpit is the ignition and throttle control for the outboard auxiliary motor. There is also a covered port and pin for the autopilot. Mounted on the cabin bulkhead are the instruments and a compass. The boat we were on had Raymarine Tridata and Wind displays on the port bulkhead, and a compass on the starboard one.

Along the rear of the main cockpit is the curved traveler track for the mainsail sheet. Aft of the traveler track are two more seats as well as steps down to the transom of the boat. The transom comes right down to the water, and there is a swim ladder that folds down off the rear steps. On the transom, is the fuel locker for outboard motor. The control lines for the rudder are also located in this locker. The two seats, one on each side of the steps (so you can actually seat six in the cockpit area), would be a great place to supervise a new sailor from as he learns. Between the two seats, above the steps, is an arch, which is used to support the mast after it is unstepped.

While the cockpit of the boat we sailed was outfitted for a bimini and a dodger, neither was in place during out test sail. Tony talked about designing an enclosure for the cockpit on the Telstar, to increase the usable protected living space. The bimini and dodger are part of his future plans.

People can also sit in the amas, on the inboard decks or nets. If they are seated aft in the amas, they can still talk to the people sitting in the cockpit. The outer edge of the ama also acts as a backrest for someone sitting on the inboard decks. If they’re sitting on the nets, they can lean back against the ama support beams. Sitting on the amas is a fairly dry experience, unless you’re sitting up towards the bow. This isn’t usually the case on a trimaran, as sitting on the amas usually gets you soaked fairly quickly. The amas also give you plenty of room to fish from. The amas have lifelines mounted on the outer edge.

The Interior Layout—Bigger Than Expected

Even though the Telstar 28 is comparable to the Corsair F28 in size—it has almost as much usable cabin room as the larger Corsair F31, and significantly more than the F28. The Telstar’s cabin is comparable in size to the main cabin on the F31 CC—both have almost six feet of headroom, while the cabin in the F28 is so small that even I, at 5′ 4″, hit the cabin roof if I forget to duck.

As you enter the cabin, just off the companionway, there is a galley on the port side and a nav station on the starboard side. The companionway isn’t as steep as those found on some other boats. Behind the companionway, is the entrance to a single berth, which runs under the cockpit. Will was using this berth for storage, and I understand why, as it is a bit tight for use as a berth, but not unusable.

The galley has a propane two-burner stove/broiler, fueled by a propane tank in the port cockpit locker. There is also a galley sink with a hand-pumped faucet, which connects to the 17-gallon fresh water tank. Storage space is a bit lacking in the galley, but the layout is fairly sensible. The cabinets that are shown in the brochure and review photos are no longer installed. Will said they were fairly limited in storage capacity, but I think the loss of the organized storage is a problem.

The nav station has a fairly large chart table. The chart table is hinged, so you can open the front half while things are sitting on the rear half of the table. Unfortunately, there is nowhere to sit when working at the nav station. This might become a problem when working for longer periods of time. The real issue is that any chair or stool used at the nav station really blocks the companionway, and access into or out of the cabin. I wish there were more storage at the nav station.

The nav station in the boat we were on had a Raymarine VHF radio installed. The cabinet shown in the brochure was missing at the nav station as well. Since the cabinet was not available, the VHF unit was installed in the front of the nav station locker, below the chart table. The battery box and main electrical switch are also located in this locker—this may be a possible problem as I see it. Forward of the galley and nav station is the saloon.

In the saloon, the port settee can be used as a single berth, and the starboard settee can convert into a double berth. There is a dining table, that can seat six when unfolded, mounted on the centerboard case. Above the table is one of the two hatches. Just forward of the centerboard case, is the compression strut that supports the mast foot and distributes the load to the main hull. There is a bulkhead at the fore of the salon, which separates the head from the salon, and also acts as the anchoring member for the forward ama support beam.

The head is forward of the bulkhead. It runs the full width of the hull and has a curtain to give it some privacy. There is a small amount of additional storage forward of the head. The marine head is located along the centerline of the boat and empties into a 12-gallon holding tank, which can be pumped out or emptied into the ocean. The second of the two hatches is located here. The housing for the retractable bowsprit can be seen in the head. The brochure mentions that a shower can be installed in the head, but the boat we were on didn’t have the option. I don’t remember if there was a sink in the head, but I don’t believe that was the case.

Note: The F31 CC also has an aft cabin, but I personally find the aft cabin design somewhat unusable as the only two ways in to the aft cabin are: via a hatch, which opens onto the cockpit and will generally allow a lot of water into the berth and soak the cushions; or via a small tunnel that you have to remove the companionway treads to enter, which passes under the cockpit. This is much like the berth under the cockpit in the Telstar 28.

Telstar Design Differences

While I’ve described the physical layout of the Telstar above, there are some significant design differences in the Telstar 28, that separate her from the other trailerable trimarans, like the Dragonfly 920, and the Corsair F28. I will go into them here.

The Amas—Drier by Design

The Telstar’s ama design is quite different from the other trimarans I’ve sailed. The rigid inboard deck and high outboard side on the amas block much of the spray that you experience on most trimarans. The nets on the Telstar are quite small because of the inboard decks on the amas, much smaller than the nets on the Dragonfly 920 or Corsair F28. The Corsair F28 and Dragonfly 920 are much wetter boats to sail than the Telstar.

Another difference is the way the arms fold along the horizontal plane and bring the amas up against the main hull. Since the amas don’t pivot—the Telstar doesn’t submerge the ama’s hull-to-deck join and run the risks of leaking there. This is sometimes a problem on the Corsairs, which use a pivoting ama design. The sides of the amas on the Corsairs must also be painted with bottom paint, if you want to keep the amas retracted on the water for any period of time. This is not a problem on the Dragonfly, which uses a lateral folding system more like the Telstar’s, and the amas do not pivot. The ama struts on the Telstar appear to be considerably larger than the ones on the Dragonfly 920.

A benefit I see of the Telstar ama design is the amas seem to contribute to the stability of the main hull when they are retracted. They effectively make the boat a wide monohull when retracted. This may also be the case in the Dragonfly design. The amas are locked via a line in each cockpit locker, and a second line tightens up the nets.

From what I’ve been told, if the amas aren’t locked in the inboard position, they will try to return to the extended position, as they are designed to “want” to be extended. Will said that retracting the amas brings them lower in the water than when they are extended, so the buoyancy will tend to force them out. From what Will said, the forward motion of the boat will tend to hold the amas in the outboard position. The design of the Dragonfly amas appear to have them default to the inboard position, rather than the extended position, if not locked.

The amas on the Dragonfly and the Corsairs are more difficult to deploy from what I have seen. The bolts used in the Corsair system are not as elegant as the control lines used by the Telstar, and if the amas are retracted at sea, can easily be lost overboard—a significant design flaw which could put the Corsair at risk as I see it.

Centerboard and Rudder Design—The Right Direction

One reason the Telstar 28 handles so easily is the design of the centerboard and rudder.

Both the centerboard and rudder are designed to kick up if they hit an obstruction, as I understand it. This is a design advantage over the daggerboard design on the Corsairs, which will often snap when hitting an obstruction, and in rare cases may damage the daggerboard case, which can lead to the boat flooding. The Dragonfly 920 uses a kickup centerboard and rudder system from what I understand. The rudder is supposed to work quite well when it is up, but we didn’t get a chance to try that, so I can’t say with certainty.

The unique rudder design allows you to turn both the rudder and the outboard motor with the tiller when the Telstar is under power. This makes control of the boat, while under power, very precise and responsive. This also makes docking maneuvers quite simple, and gives the Telstar a very tight turning radius when under power. Will was able to demonstrate this when he docked the Telstar at the end of our sail.

Once the outboard is raised out of the water, and you remove a pin on the tiller, then only the rudder is controlled by the tiller. You reverse this procedure to motor under power again. Under sail, the centerboard, rudder and boat are well balanced, and the boat is almost as responsive as it is under power. The one question I have about the system is how durable the tiller design will be over time.

The centerboard is raised and lowered using a standard winch handle, and locked using another handle on the centerboard case. The controls are mounted on the centerboard case in the cabin. The rudder uses two control lines, located in the transom fuel locker, to raise and lower it.

With the centerboard and rudder up, the Telstar has a draft of a little over a foot. This is a bit less than the Corsair trimarans, which come in at 14 to 18 inches. The Dragonfly 920 requires about 18 inches as well. I like the idea of anchoring off the beach near my sister’s condo, and then wading in to her condo to get groceries for a weekend trip.

Note: The control and locking mechanisms for the amas, bowsprit, and rudder on the Telstar 28 use two control lines and are very simple and elegant to use.

A Modest Sailplan and Simple Control Setup

Another reason the Telstar handles easily is the modest sailplan and simple control setup. A typical Bermudan or Marconi rig, the Telstar can accommodate a mainsail, as well as a foresail and a kite. The halyard cleats and halyard winches are all located on the simple, non-rotating, double-spreader-equipped aluminum mast.

The main sail, 250 sq. ft., uses lazyjacks and traditional slab reefing, and has two reef points. The main sheet doesn’t require a winch, as it uses a simple block arrangement that attaches to the end of the boom and runs along a curved traveler track along the rear of the cockpit.

The foresails use a roller reefing system for ease of handling. The foresail sheet is run to one of the two main self-tailing winches, located atop the coachroof at the front of the cockpit. We were using a 274 sq. ft. genoa. The standard jib is a modest 184 sq. ft.

The retractable 4′ bowsprit is an option on the Telstar, and when used with a spinnaker or gennaker provides good performance in light winds. On our short sail, we used asymmetrical gennaker with a sock furling system. The sheet for the kite is run back to one of the sheet winches on the coachroof.

The Mast—There Can Be Only One

The Telstar’s non-rotating mast is mounted on the coachroof, between the two hatches. There are also two A-frames attached to the mast—the heart of the mechanism for lowering and raising it. From what I have seen, the mast raising and lowering on the Telstar seems to be far safer and easier than it is on the Corsairs. Using the special mast raising system—the whole mast stepping and unstepping process can be safely and easily handled by a single person, using a sheet winch. The Corsair system requires the trailer winch be used, and really requires two or more people. As I haven’t seen the Dragonfly system in action, so I won’t comment on it. The Telstar 28’s A-frame-based mast-raising system is an option, but you’d be an idiot not to get it.

The mast on the Corsair F28 is 38′ 4″ tall, and a much heavier design, being a rotating mast. The shorter and smaller mast on the Telstar, only 35′ 6″, also means that the mast is a much more manageable size. Will showed a video of the process, which had a man lowering and raising the mast, with the boom, furled mainsail and furled genoa still attached to it. Generally, the boom and mainsail will be detached before lowering the mast, but having the option to leave it rigged is nice, as you will see.

Another benefit to the design of the Telstar’s mast raising system is that it isn’t dependent on using the trailer winch to raise and lower the mast. In my opinion, this is a very critical difference. If you’re sailing a Corsair up a river, and come to a low bridge, you can not lower the mast to pass under bridges with limited clearance. The Telstar can continue upriver. Given the shallow drafts of the trimarans, the ability to step and unstep the mast, while afloat, can open up a lot more territory to explore. Also, there may be times where you need to work on the masthead, and being able to lower it can make that much easier when at a marina. This isn’t easily accomplished on the Corsairs.

One major difference between the Telstar and the other trimaran designs are the rigging attachment points. On the Corsairs, the rigging is attached to the amas, and when the amas are retracted, I believe the lateral stability of the mast is compromised. I believe this is the case with the Dragonfly 920 as well. On the Telstar, all the rigging is attached to the main hull. This arrangement may also reduce the adjustments needed to the rigging.

I also believe that having the rigging anchored to the amas can affect the stabilty of the mast while the amas are extended as well. The load on the rigging may change as the pressure on the amas changes, based on the sailing conditions, especially if there is any deflection or flex in the ama strut design.

Edit—I got a chance to see the actual mast lowering/raising process in person on my second visit to Performance Cruising. The system is very impressive. One thing I really like about the system is that you can actually halt the process in the middle and reverse it with no issues and little effort. The A-frame system is an incredible refinement compared to what the Corsair uses. Most of the risk and danger I’ve seen in the Corsair process is not an issue with the Telstar’s method, which has a patent pending.

Performance of the Telstar

Although the Telstar has a modest sailplan, only 434 square feet of sail with the standard main sail and jib, her performance is quite acceptable from what I’ve seen. With the gennaker up, we were able to make over four knots in six knots of wind. Not bad at all. The wind speed was based on the readings from the Wind display on the boat. The boat speed was based on readings from a GPS unit, as the Tridata unit hadn’t been fully calibrated at the time of our sail.

The main performance differences between the Corsair F28 AC and the Telstar 28 are in the rigging and sailplan. The Corsair has a higher performance rotating mast, which is also taller and carries more sail. The controls on the Corsair are laid out more for racing, and are more complex than those found on the Telstar. The Telstar’s SA/D ratio of 33.3 is fairly modest when compared to that of the Corsair F28 AC, which has an SA/D ratio of 40.9.

What are the drawbacks to the Telstar 28?

Some of these are points that have come up in my discussions with both Will and Tony, during my visit to Performance Cruising. Some are points I’ve thought about myself, but haven’t discussed with Tony Smith. I’ve also pointed out what I think will happen with regards to these points as well in most cases.

First, the boat is a fairly new design, being only two years old. The Corsair F28 is over ten years old. However, the Telstar’s design has its roots in the both the Gemini catamaran and the older Telstar trimaran. Tony Smith says he is still tweaking the design a bit, and I’m sure he will continue to refine it as more feedback from Telstar owners comes in.

Second, is the sailplan of the Telstar. It is a very modest sailplan. The mainsail and jib total a modest 418 square feet, compared to the 496 square feet of the Corsair F28. It could probably go with a taller mast and longer boom without much trouble. Tony said that the sailplan was intentionally conservative as the boat is designed to be enjoyed, and easy to sail.

Third, is the weight of the Telstar. It weighs about 3200 pounds. The Corsair F28 AC is 2690 pounds, 500 pounds lighter. Some of the weight is due to the larger cabin size, and some due to differences in the construction methods and ama design. As the design of the Telstar is refined, I’d imagine some of the weight will be shed.

Fourth, is speed. The Corsair will outsail the Telstar in the same wind. This is mostly due to the smaller sailplan, and partly due to the heavier weight of the boat. The waterline of the Telstar and the Corsair F28 are both spec’d at 26′ 3″. But, Tony has clearly stated that the Telstar isn’t designed to be a racer, but a comfortable cruising boat. As the Telstar 28 is currently designed, it has more than acceptable performance from what I’ve seen.

Fifth, is storage space and cargo capacity. The Telstar is fairly limited in storage space. The Corsair F28 has more storage space and weight carrying capacity, but is much more limited in cabin space. The Corsair F31 and Dragonfly 920 both have a larger cabins and more storage space, but they are considerably larger, harder to sail and considerably more costly. Also, the Telstar is the most affordable of the four boats I’ve mentioned here.

Sixth, is the main sail reefing system. The Corsairs all have a boom roller reefing system, which is much more convenient to use when compared to the slab reefing on the Telstar. While, the Telstar could probably be retrofitted with a boom roller furling system, I like the slab reefing system since it is simpler and has less that can breakdown on it. It also reduces the weight aloft a bit, when compared to the Corsair roller reefing system.

Last, the Corsair F28 has a wider beam, 19′ 6″, compared to the Telstar’s 18′. This makes the F28 a bit more stable, but with the greater sailplan, this is a necessity. The Corsair F28 also folds to a slightly narrow size, 8′ 2.5″, versus the Telstar’s 8′ 6″. This is probably due to the differences in the ama folding design and the widths of the center hulls. Personally, I don’t see this as a problem, as the Telstar is still very stable, and looks like it will trailer well.

Changes I’d Like To See In The Telstar 28

The changes I am suggesting are based on my observations of the Telstar, and are based on a single fairly short day sail. I haven’t had a chance to discuss them with Tony Smith yet, but intend to do so at some point. Most of the changes are safety-related, and many are specifically are designed to make the Telstar more suitable for open ocean voyages or extended coastal passages. Edit—I had a chance to talk with Tony Smith about many of these concerns and have updated this section to reflect our discussion.

Cabin Safety—Some good handholds are really needed in the interior, as the salon table isn’t really strong enough to act as one, and they’re a bit scarce inside the cabin. Good lee cloths or leeboards should also be added to the three berths in the salon. Granted, you’re not likely to be thrown from side-to-side as often as you would be on a monohull, but I’d imagine if you caught some heavy weather, the handholds and lee cloths would be appreciated, and could help prevent injury.

Electrical System—I’d like to see options for a second battery, or some solar panels—either mounted on the stern rail. Right now, if you have the 50 hp outboard, and manage to kill the single battery, getting it started could be a very ugly proposition. A second battery, or a way to charge the battery would give you some backup options. I spoke with Tony about this, and I’ve revised this section based on our discussion. I don’t feel that the risk of an electrical fire and its possible consequences is really much of a problem at this point. There are good solutions to minimize those risks.

Ground Tackle—Add a set of heavy cleats and line chocks on the forward ends of the amas—these would be good for setting up an anchor bridle. The forward cleats and chocks can act as a backup for the main anchor rode cleat, and can also be used for a second anchor or a tow bridle. They can also be used for spring lines or as for the bow and stern lines when coming along side a dock or rafting the Telstar to other sailboats. Tony suggested adding chocks or fairleads to the bow for the main anchor setup instead of a roller, partly because of the space limitations and partly due to the weight. He also advised against a manual windlass. Also, the stock 13 lb. Danforth anchor seems a bit undersized to me to ride out a serious storm.

Jacklines—There are two rails that can be used for mounting padeyes and jacklines on the coachroof, so I no longer feel that additonal padeyes on the coachroof are necessary. I think that a padeye in front of the companion way is still necessary, but easy enough to add, and would allow a set of jacklines for the cockpit. I still think that a pair needs to be added to the foredeck. Four jacklines, using these padeyes—one down the center of the cockpit, as well as one down each side of the coachroof, and the last down the center of the foredeck, would allow you to access almost the entire boat while securely attached using a six-foot tether. The Telstar brochure talks about “racing down large swells with a force 7 wind” and yet there are no solid provisions for jacklines. I can’t think of many sailors who would want to be out in 32-38 mph winds without being tethered to the boat.

Lifelines—Add a second line to the lifelines on the amas, as the gap between the top of the ama and the single lifeline is a bit taller than I am comfortable with. An option to use plain stainless cable for the lifelines, not the vinyl coated which is standard, would be good, as I believe the plain stainless cable will last longer and looks better. This is just my personal preference, but I do know that vinyl coated stainless may corrode significantly faster than uncoated stainless. The vinyl cover also makes them much harder to inspect for corrosion. I’m also willing to bet that the uncoated stainless lines are less expensive than their vinyl-coated counterparts. In my opinion, this is a relatively unimportant change, compared to most of the other safety measures. Tony mentioned that the lifelines are generally coated stainless, as they are only 1/8″ lines. The vinyl coating makes the lines thick enough to prevent them from cutting.

Navigation Lights—Add a tricolor masthead light as well as the white masthead anchor light. The tricolor masthead light would use less electricity than the two light setup currently used, and is far more visible when out on the open ocean—where you’re unlikely to be motoring. For motoring, the current bow pulpit-mounted sidelights and the white masthead anchor light would work quite well, and still have the advantage of greater visibility due to the masthead white light. The increased current draw for the two lamps is less than the three currently used, and doesn’t matter much as the engine is running and recharging the batteries. I’d prefer the new LED-based navigation lights, as they are very durable and weather resistant. OGM makes an excellent combination Tricolor/Anchor light, which only draws about six watts.

Padeyes—After taking another closer look at the Telstar, there are already several padeyes in the amas that can be used for cargo lashdown points. It might be wise to add some to the cockpit and the interior cabin and head. If one were to take the Telstar on an extended voyage, it is very likely that large jerry cans of water or other bulky items may be stacked or stored in the cabin or head. Without some padeyes on the interior, to properly secure the cargo, in heavy weather, they could easily become dangerous projectiles. Alternatively, the interior padeyes could be designed for the lee cloths and serve dual purposes.

Plumbing—The early reviews mentioned some equipment that would be nice to have—like a 25-gallon fresh water tank, and an 18-gallon holding tank. The option for a shower was also mentioned in the early reviews. Another option might be for adding a watermaker. Also, adding a macerator pump to the holding tank would be a good idea, as currently, there is no way to empty the holding tank without pumpout facilities. These are just nice options, which can seriously extend the time the boat can stay at sea. The watermaker is especially nice, as there is limited stowage on the Telstar, and multihulls tend to be fairly weight sensitive.

Sail Handling—Add the option for a second winch on one or both sides of the coachroof. This would give you much more flexibility if you choose to race, and also provides a good backup in case one of the others fails. Having another winch or two isn’t a bad idea if you’re planning on an extended cruise.

Why Change the Telstar 28’s Design

Tony Smith has designed the Telstar 28 as a very capable and versatile coastal cruiser. Tony’s open ocean sailing experience shows in the solid build of the Gemini and the new Telstar, but I feel there are some possible improvements in the Telstar’s current design. Without the safety modifications I’ve listed above, I don’t believe the Telstar is really equipped for the wide variety of weather and sea conditions that she will face if used as Tony intended. I think these modifications will make the Telstar 28 a much safer and more enjoyable boat—especially given what she will inevitably face if sailed to her capabilities. Of course, many of these suggestions would probably be have been made over the course of time, as the Telstar 28 owners give more feedback to Tony and Performance Cruising.

Most of the design changes I’ve suggested are safety-related, and their adoption will make the boat much safer in heavy weather—the padeyes for jacklines, the additional cleats and chocks, the interior cabin handholds and leeboards, the masthead navigation lights, and the improved ground tackle options. Most of the changes are relatively inexpensive modifications, if done at the time of manufacture, but would be much more expensive to retrofit. The additional lifeline, is partially a safety concern, but partially a cosmetic one as well, and not as important as the other changes.

Many of the remaining changes are geared to extending the duration the Telstar can be out—by increasing its ability to recharge the batteries, and increasing the supply of water. A few of the modifications are purely for comfort—shore power and the internal shower. The shore power option would allow her to become a comfortable live-aboard.

By my count, most of the safety-related design changes would only require the installation of an additional 20–24 padeyes for jackline anchors (8) and lash downs (12–16), an additional four heavy cleats and four heavy line chocks, the internal handholds—possibly a stainless steel rail running along cabin roof on each side, the leeboards/lee cloths, and a masthead tricolor light for the basic safety changes. The least important of the safety-related modifications are the additional lifelines—which could terminate at the two endposts.

I’ve studied the plans of the Telstar 28 and the photos, and all of the changes I’ve suggested won’t interfere with the current ama folding mechanisms as far as I can tell. The amas have sufficient clearance that the cleats and line chocks are definitely not an issue. The padeyes may or may not be, depending on the size and shape of the padeyes, and the specific locations chosen. Pop-up or socketed padeyes are also a possibility, but would increase the cost a bit.

I’d create an Extended Cruising Option Package, which included the additional main winch, the bow roller, the manual windlass and a heavier ground tackle setup. I’d also include the solar panels, the second battery, the interior padeyes (if not required for the lee cloths), and the watermaker in this package. The shore power, I would leave as a separate option as I believe that requires a fair amount of additional work and equipment.

The most difficult part of my suggested changes is relocating the battery boxes and main electrical panel. I don’t know the interior layout of the Telstar 28 well enough to suggest a new location. I am guessing that the current location was chosen to reduce the length of heavy wiring running to the outboard, as well as simplify the installation of the navigation and communication equipment. This is something I’d really like to talk with Tony about.

Things I’d Add For Extended Cruises

I’d add a GPS to the cockpit electronics, as a backup to the more traditional navigation methods. I’d also like more propane storage— two 10 lb. tanks, one per side. I’d add a watermaker. I’d add a Lifesling to the cockpit railing, and mount an EPIRB to the bulkhead.

I’d carry at least two anchors. The primary would be a 28-pound Delta anchor; with an all-chain 150’ rode. It would be set in the bow roller. I’d setup a bridle with two 15’ lines, spliced to a chain hook as an anchor snubber, and use the heavy chocks and cleats I’ve suggested be added to the amas to secure it. The bridle would be setup before attempting to set anchor, and the chain hook would be tied to the bow pulpit until needed. My secondary anchor would be a 25-pound Danforth; with a rode made of 50′ of chain and 200′ of nylon—this allows anchoring in 20-feet of water with a 7:1 scope with either the primary or secondary anchor. Most anchorages aren’t going to have tidal variations of 19’; so going aground is very unlikely. If I carried a third, it would be a traditional fisherman anchor.

I would seriously look at switching the gasoline outboard for a Yanmar D27 outboard diesel engine. Diesel is probably a bit more reliable in a marine environment, and the fuel is certainly less dangerous. It would probably also extend the motoring range of the Telstar. Tony told me the Yanmar is a rock solid motor.

I’d lash my Porta-bote to one ama deck for use as dinghy, and the life raft canister to the other. This keeps them both easily accessible but low in the boat, and fairly secure. Way down the list would be a couple of fishing rod holders mounted on the amas.

My Conclusions

Tony Smith designed the Telstar for cruising and the way the boat is setup reflects it. The Corsairs are much more geared towards racing, rather than cruising, and because of that focus on racing, are much more work to sail than the Telstar. The Telstar, with its much smaller sailplan and simplified control setup, is much easier to handle than the Corsairs. I haven’t sailed the Dragonfly 920, so I won’t comment on it.

Tony had sailed the previous Telstar 26 trimaran in the brutal and grueling 1978 Round Britain Race, and placed in the top third, even though it was the smallest boat entered. Another Telstar 26 has crossed the Atlantic both ways. I personally believe that the new Telstar 28 is quite capable of bluewater ocean passages, especially, if the modifications I’ve listed here are incorporated into the design.

Even with the modest sailplain, the Telstar 28 is not a slow boat. We were sailing at four-and-a-half knots in just six knots of wind. Not too bad for relatively light air with four people (about 700 lbs. as the couple were both fairly big, and I’m no lightweight either) and a 250 lb. outboard motor on-board. I can’t wait to see what she is really capable of, in the more consistent winds of Buzzards Bay.

As it has been over five years since I’ve sailed seriously, I was a bit rusty… to put it mildly. It is amazing how fast you remember stuff you’ve thought you’d forgotten, once you’re back in the right environment. I can’t wait to start sailing regularly again. I think the Telstar might be a good choice to start with.

Granted, some may say the Sun Odyssey 32 would be a more capable boat in terms of bluewater, but with a few modifications, I think the Telstar 28 would be very capable of handling long passages as well. I like the flexibility, simplicity, performance and capabilities I’ve seen in this trailerable trimaran.

Well, I’m in Virginia again for a bit. I got down here on Saturday…what a drive…New York traffic was really bad, with over an hour-long delay on the GW bridge. On Sunday, I met with my realtor, and I signed a contract for the sale of our home…I’m still not 100% about selling the place in my heart, but I know it is the right thing to do. The real estate market in Washington, DC, is pretty hot still.

I’m going to stay in Virginia for about another week to get the final things I need to do at the house done, but I should be back in New England next week. I will be back one more time in three weeks or so for the settlement on the house.

In some ways, the house seems very foreign to me now. The things that made it Gee’s home, aren’t really here for the most part. I think that the hardest part of moving for me will be the fact that where Gee is resting will be so far away. It’s not home for me anymore… I’m not quite sure where home is now—I hope I find out where home is again soon.

It is finally time to be moving on.

Well, I’m up in Boston for a bit. Drove up this morning…UGH, what a drive. The George Washington Bridge was backed up 80-85 minutes or so when I got to it, so I bailed on I-95 and took the Palisades Parkway up to NY 9W in Fishkill and grabbed I-84 east to I-90.

Originally, this was to be my trip to stay up here, but as things work out, I’m heading back to Virginia this upcoming weekend… I’ve got a few things to take care of still in Virginia, so I’ll be down there for about a week-and-a-half or so. I’m also hoping that I’ll have a solid offer on the house by then. Ideally, if I could sign a contract while I’m down there and stay an extra week and finalize the sale of the house, that would be what I’d like to do.

I’m still kind of wondering about the sale of the house. I know it is the right thing to do…but I’m still having a hard time believing it. Well, let’s see what happens.

I am outraged. Apparently Denver has just passed a law that makes owning a “pit bull” illegal. This law gives the city the right to seize and kill dogs based, not on bad acts or behavior, but purely on their appearance. I found this story through the blog A Stitch in Haste.

From the AP news story:

DENVER (AP) — A few weeks ago, two police cars and two animal control vehicles pulled up at the home of Stef’ny Steffan looking for her beloved 4-year-old pit bull, Xena. Seven officers hauled the animal off to the city shelter, putting her on death row. Xena became an outlaw after Denver won a court fight and reinstated one of the toughest pit-bull bans in the nation.

Since May, more than 380 dogs have been impounded and at least 260 destroyed – an average of more than three a day…

The reason I find this incredibly arrogant and stupid is that no dogs are born mean. It is generally the fault of the owner if an animal, whether it is a pit bull or a chihuahua, is vicious or dangerous. Many dogs of the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breeds, which are generally called “pit bulls” are gentle and sweet dogs. The other breed that often makes the news for being dangerous are Rottweilers. My friend has a Rottie and she is one of the sweetest dogs I’ve ever met.

Why should innocent dogs be seized and killed with no right to due process. Most of the dogs seized have not shown themselves to be vicious or dangerous. Why should innocent animals be blamed for the bad actions of their owners. While I agree that any animal that has proven itself to be a danger should be put down, but that is not what the Denver law states. It bases the ban purely on the appearance of the animal—Canine Racial Profiling if you will.

Politicians are often guilty of stupid and short-sighted knee-jerk reactions. This is one of the most blatant examples of it I have seen. I hope that the law is found unconstitutional and is overturned, and that the city of Denver is sued for compensation by all of the owners of the animals they have essentially murdered.

In the United States, there is a long tradition of innocent until proven guilty. If the same actions Denver is taking with regards to “pit bulls” was directed at people, the outcry would be enormous. Dogs have long proven their worth as both protectors and companions to their owners. That so many innocent dogs should be killed, for the sake of a politician’s need to be doing something, is tragic.

The real problem is the small percentage of owners, who either mistreat their dogs or intentionally train them to be vicious. These people are the problem, and this law really does nothing to deal with them. A breed-specific ban doesn’t prevent them from going out and getting another breed of dog, whether it is a Rottweiler, a German Shepard, an Akita or some other large breed, and turning it into a vicious animal. Will Denver eventually outlaw all the large breeds? This is political stupidity run rampant.

Today, I’m waiting for a truck to show up. It is pickup day for me. PODS is sending a truck to pickup the POD that I’ve had sitting in my driveway for most of the last year. A lot has happened since I decided to move. Yoon is back in Korea, and we’ve broken off our engagement. I miss her and I wish her well. I’ve finally started writing the book about My Life with Gee. My sister-in-law is about to get married. Gee’s parents have moved out of the house she grew up in, into a smaller condo. My friend, Megan has merged her law firm with another, and her former partner has left the company.

The whole moving process has been a difficult one. As I said previously, when I originally bought this place, I had planned on raising a family here. Now, I am leaving the first real home I’ve ever had. This weekend, I’m heading up to New England, to return to where I grew up. I hadn’t originally thought that it would be as difficult or as that it would take as long as it has taken. I’ve been sidelined by illness several times in the past year, and had to delay things because of it.

It will be strange, not being in Virginia anymore… I’ve gotten very accustomed to the way things are here in Northern Virginia. I’m not quite sure as to exactly what I’ll be doing up in Boston yet. Part of the reason I’m moving back is to help my father with his business, and to help my brother-in-law with his as well. The things I’ll miss most about here are many: having good Korean restaurants and stores nearby, my friends in Northern Virginia, Maryland and DC, being able to go to the cemetery when I miss Gee, driving on the Beltway, and going to the Smithsonian.

Even more strange, will be being back in New England. I haven’t lived there in almost 12 years. Most of my recent memories of New England have Yoon in them, and she was one of the major reasons for me to move back. It will be strange not seeing her there—I miss her.

In many ways, I’ll be very unsettled when I first get to Boston. I’m still very much Adrift at Sea when it comes to trying to figure out who I am without Gee, or what I am supposed to be doing since she has been gone. One of my priorities in when I get settled is to get Gee’s foundation off the ground. I’ve decided to kick start it with some of the money I’m getting from selling our home. While it won’t be as much as I’d like—it will be a start.

At least updating my blog will be much easier, since I’ll be on broadband once again. Being on dialup has been very difficult.

It will also be good to see Shortie again… I’ve missed having him around. He may be a bit neurotic, but he is the dog that Yoon picked out, and that Yoon and I adopted…he’s a good little dog though… funny that, never really liked little dogs before I met Shortie.

Yet again, the United States is doing something for the sake of doing something, rather than something that may actually affect the war on terrorism. In this case, I’m talking about the decision to conduct random searches of people in New York’s MTA system.

According to the news article on NewsWatch 50’s website, “Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said officers posted at subway entrances would not engage in racial profiling, and that passengers are free to ‘turn around and leave.’”

If the people selected are free to turn around and leave, how effective is the searching going to be? The subway sytem in New York City is large enough that within a few blocks there are multiple entrances to the system. What would prevent a suicide bomber from turning around and walking to the next nearest entrance? Eventually—since they are supposedly only searching every fifth person—he would be able to enter the system unchallenged.

The random searches are far more likely to infringe on the civil and constitutional rights of the majority of the public than it ever is likely to capture a terrorist on a suicide mission. Worse than that, the government seems to be saying that this is a security measure that will help prevent the kind of attacks that happened in London…giving a false sense of security.

One blogger is so sure that the random searches will fail to capture a terrorist, he has vowed to fly to New York and eat a pound of spaghetti off the floor of the subway station where it happened, if the new policy catches a terrorist with a bomb. Somehow, I don’t think that Mayor Bloomberg will be setting out a plate for him any time soon.

Unfortunately, this seems to be a strong and ongoing pattern with the United States’s response to all of the terrorist attacks since 9/11/2001. George W. Bush, and his Department of Homeland Security has actually done very little to truly improve the security of the average US resident from terrorists.

For example, the Transportation Security Administration recently fired an employee, who had been hired as a baggage screener. Bassam Khalaf was hired by the TSA as a baggage screener. However, his alter ego, the “Arabic Assassin,” rapped about flying a plane into a building, with lyrics like “My name is Bassam, a one-man band, I came from sand, affiliated with the Taliban.” You can read the complete story about this at MSNBC. If their background screening process allows a person like Bassam to work as a baggage screener—a position where it would be simple to allow someone to slip by with a a bomb intended for an airplane… how much can they have actually improved security.

Profiling doesn’t work, except to alienate a significant segment of the population we should want on our side. If Americans start profiling people based on their appearance, then we will alienate that demographic profile, and that may lead to more fertile recruiting for terrorist organizations than would otherwise be possible.

1. Profiling for young Islamic males is probably a bad idea, as this will alienate them and they are among the people we want on our side. If we alienate this population, the potential for one becoming a suicide bomber or terrorist increases dramatically.
2. Many terrorists do not fit the Islamic fundamentalist profile. Richard Reid was British, Germaine Lindsay was Afro-Carribean, the Chechnyan terrorists who downed several Russian airplanes have been mostly women, Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, and the Unabomber are all white male Americans.
3. Not all Arabs are Muslims. Not everyone who is Muslim looks Arabic. Most Arabs are not terrorists, or even terrorist sympathizers. Generalizing a profile of what a terrorist looks like will inevitably lead to a great number of false negatives as well as a great number of false positives.

4. More on this later.

The New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority has decided that random searches of people on the NYC MTA will help make the system more secure. However, the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights says that we are protected from unreasonable search and seizure. Nothing says you have to consent to a random search. But, it is highly recommended that you submit to such a search request. However, consenting to the search reduces the protections the Constitution grants you—submitting does not not give up any protections of your Fourth Amendment rights. It is a fine difference, but an important one.

For more on this issue, there’s a good post by Kip Esquire on how to preserve your rights if you are asked to be searched. You can read the full post here.

Mind you, this isn’t to say that I am against the idea of preventing terrorist attacks, but I don’t think the searches are the best way to go about it… I also do believe that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights need to be protected as well. Doing searches of people at random is bound to violate more civil rights than it is likely to find “hidden” terrorists.

One other thing I’d like to quote from one of Bruce Schneier’s posts.

Final note: I often get comments along the lines of “Stop criticizing stuff; tell us what we should do.” My answer is always the same. Counterterrorism is most effective when it doesn’t make arbitrary assumptions about the terrorists’ plans. Stop searching bags on the subways, and spend the money on 1) intelligence and investigation — stopping the terrorists regardless of what their plans are, and 2) emergency response — lessening the impact of a terrorist attack, regardless of what the plans are. Countermeasures that defend against particular targets, or assume particular tactics, or cause the terrorists to make insignificant modifications in their plans, or that surveil the entire population looking for the few terrorists, are largely not worth it.

This morning, when I woke up, the news about the terrorist bombings in London was on NPR. There’s an interesting take on the subject over at vitalsecurity.org, but I don’t necessarily agree with the point of view in that particular article. I do want to offer my condolences to the families of the people who were injured and killed by the cowardly terrorist attack. I think that terrorist attacks are among the most cowardly and reprehensible of actions.

Innocent people should not be killed. As far as I know, the Koran does not condone the wholesale killing of innocent people. The Islamic fundamentalists have warped the interpretation of the Koran as badly as the Christian right has warped the teachings of the Bible.

This attack leads me to believe that in spite of everything George W. Bush says about the war on terrorism, Al Qaeda is doing well. In many ways, George W. Bush has become one of the best recruiting motivations for Islamic fundamentalists. Osama bin Laden said that the United States would attack and invade an Islamic oil-rich country and occupy it. Unfortunately, George W. Bush has done exactly that with Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was not justified in many ways, and the reasons that George W. Bush gave for doing so have proven to be mostly false or greatly exaggerated.

George W. Bush insisted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, yet no evidence of that has been found. He also insisted that Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda and a supporter of international terrorism… and yet that too has yet to be proven. Yet, these were the main justifications for the war in Iraq and the subsequent deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis, American military personnel, Iraqi military personnel, and insurgents.

Was Saddam Hussein a dictator who deserved to be deposed? Yes, I believe he deserved it.

Was Saddam Hussein a danger to the countries nearby? Yes, I believe that too. He had previously fought several wars with Iran and invaded Kuwait.

Did the United States have the right to remove him from power? No, I don’t think what the United States did was justified. At least, not for the reasons given by G. W. Bush.

Did Iraq really have anything to do with George W. Bush’s War on Terrorism? No, I don’t believe so. The evidence found in Iraq following the invasion hasn’t shown Iraq to be a major player in international terrorism.

Did the invasion of Iraq give the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists more motivation? Yes. I do think Islamic fundamentalism got a strong boost from G.W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. In fact, the invasion of Iraq was predicted by Osama bin Laden as I stated previously.

London, and the United Kingdom, has a much longer track record of dealing with terrorism than the United States. Most of their experience is due to the Irish Republican Army and its related splinter groups. However, the IRA seems to be much more courteous about their terrorist attacks, especially in recent times, as they’ve tried to minimize innocent civilian casualties. If a distributed coordinated attack like this can happen in London, it is very likely that a similar attack would be at least as successful in the United States.

The other problem with terrorism, and Bush’s “War on Terrorism” is that the money isn’t really being spent in an effective manner. A lot of the things done in the name of Homeland Security, are really not going to be effective in reducing terrorist activity. There are too many projects being done in the name of Homeland Security that have very little to do with actually improving the security of the United States and its people. Even more ridiculous are some of the “security measures” that have been instituted by DHS and the TSA.

Today, a friend of mine, Cindy, left on a road trip. She’s in the process of moving to Albuquerque, New Mexico. I think this is one of her first long road trips, and I’m hoping she and her friend, Hana, will have a good time.

The trip from here to Albuquerque isn’t that bad. They’re planning on taking a relatively leisurely six days for the trip.

I wish her luck in her new job in New Mexico. May she find the state as beautiful as I did.

*edit* She and Hana had a wonderful trip…and Cindy’s getting settled in to her new place. The only down side is that her PB died on the last day of the trip.

Five years ago, when I got married in November of 2000, I was hoping to be a father by now. As it turns out, it didn’t work that way. I had hoped to start fatherhood by teaching my children many of the things I learned were important from my own father. Love, trust, honesty, compassion, respect and honor are among the things I learned from my father, in various ways.

Today is Father’s Day. I would like to tell you something about my father. My father is one of the people I love and respect most, although I don’t always show it. He has a Ph.D and is a chemical engineer. A lot of his inventions affect the world we live in today, although many of us don’t even know it. His work in non-polluting automobiles is in many ways the reason we have air that is breathable today. He has worked as a consulting engineer most of my life, but was one of the youngest chief research engineers at Esso. He believes in using engineering and technology to improve social conditions and society. In many ways, I think he is an idealist, although he would probably deny it.

There are a lot of things I admire about my father, and a few things I wished were different. There is one trait of his that I both admire and wished were different. He is a workaholic. This was always tough when we were children. It was sometimes very difficult to see my father, and know that he is at home, but that he isn’t there for us. He doesn’t have any real hobbies or do anything besides work, and play with his grandsons.

Growing up, my father and I didn’t always get along well. This is probably due to the fact that in so many ways, I am very similar in many ways to my father. My aunt always says, “You’re just like him, so like him.” One thing I did do when I was growing up, is I worked with my father. In many ways, it was one of the only ways I could spend time with him. My twin once asked me why I still worked for him, when my father and I would drive each other crazy. I replied, “When we’re working together is about the only time we’re not fighting, and he actually listens to me.”

He’s mellowed with age… like a good single malt whiskey. Watching him with Nicholas and Max, sometimes, I’m envious. He is much closer to his grandchildren, my two nephews, than he was to my twin and me.

I’m about to go back to Boston, and leave this life in Virginia behind. I will again be working with my father, and I look forward to it. But, today is Father’s Day, and I am still in Virigina. So, I just wanted to wish my father, and all the other fathers I know, but especially my father, a very happy Father’s Day.

Happy Father’s Day Doc.

Apple is switching the Macintosh to the Intel CPUs. Does it matter? Should we care?

Yes, it does matter. The reasons Apple is doing this have to do with the future of the Macintosh computer. Not today, but where it will be five years from now. The PPC architecture that is currently found in Macs has been stagnating. The reasons Apple had for selecting the PPC architecture back in the early 1990s no longer exist.

Should we care? No, I don’t think it really matters what CPU is at the heart of the Macintosh. The Mac is more than just the hardware. The main reason that people buy Macintosh computers has little to do with the actual CPU inside the box. They buy it because of OS X’s stabilty and security. They buy it because of the way the applications work well together and have a very consistent user interface. They buy it because the hardware is elegant and appealing visually. They buy it because it works.

These are the mostly the same reasons people buy iPods. iPods are not the least expensive MP3 player by any means, yet they command a lion’s share of the MP3 player market, both HDD-based and flash memory-based. They just work.

I also believe that one of the primary reasons they switched to the Intel CPU for future development is the PowerBook. Right now, there is very little to differentiate the PowerBook from the iBook, and the iBook line is cannibalizing the sales of the lower-end PowerBooks, especially the 12″ model.

The PowerBooks are also falling behind their Intel and AMD-based counterparts in terms of power and processing capability. The price premium that the Apple PowerBooks command is getting harder to justify. Apple will probably update the PowerBook series to the Intel Pentium-M or the “Yonah” CPU in the beginning of next year, if not earlier, to help differentiate the PowerBook line from the iBooks, and to bring the processing power back in to parity with the Intel/AMD-based Windows laptops.

The adoption of the x86 architecture shouldn’t noticeably affect the “feel” of the Macintosh. If Tiger has truly been developed to be platform independent, and the Apple Applications, like iLife have been developed as universal binaries, I see no reason why a user would even notice the change in the underlying CPU architecture.

Yes, some applications, like Final Cut Pro, will suffer due to the lack of the Altivec Velocity Engine, but will the performance loss due to the missing Altivec processor outweigh the gains made by the significantly faster processor core. I don’t think so… I think it’ll be pretty much a wash.

In terms of security. The majority of the viruses, trojans, spyware and other malware are highly dependent on the existing Windows API structures. I seriously doubt that Mac OS X will be signicantly more vulnerable on the new CPU architecture. After all, Linux and BSD have been running on the x86 architecture and do not suffer from the extreme levels and numbers of vulnerabilities that plague Windows-based machines.

Two years is a long time to be waiting. There is little we can do to guess what final CPU and architecture the “high-end” Macs will be using in two years time. In the short term, there are major benefits to Apple, as the growing portable computer market is extremely valuable and the switch to the Intel CPU architecture will bring their portables back in to a position where the slight price premium is once again justifiable.

Change is scary. Many people are worried about the change in the CPU architecture as it is a major change. In many ways, it is a change for the better. IBM had no roadmap for faster CPUs, and they had not developed anything that was suitable for a portable. Intel does. The reasons for choosing the PPC architecture 12 years ago no longer really exist. The accellerated evolution of the x86 architecture due to the rivalry between AMD and Intel has left the stagnating PPC architecture development behind.

I would like all the readers of my blog to hold a moment of silence. This moment, 11:00 A.M. on June 11th, marks the fourth year since my Gee died. It has been a long four years, and it is difficult to realize that she has been gone over twice the time that I spent with her. Her impact on my life continues, and I imagine that it will until I am again by her side.

I would also like to celebrate the memories and life of the woman I married. She was in many ways what every man should look for in the woman he marries, or what every woman should look for in the man she marries. She was my best friend, my strongest supporter and my closest confidante. I do hope for all of those who read my blog and website, that you will someday find a person who you both love and are loved by in the way Gee and I shared.

My friend Gayle, gave me a passage, and I thought I’d post it here today, to celebrate the memory of the woman I married, to mourn her passing and to begin once again on my journey of moving on.

With Sympathy

The pain is real.

There is no such thing as pleasantness in someone’s death.

The one we love is gone, and the memories and experiences of life together remain.

We weep as Jesus wept. We mourn.

But the Apostle Paul tells us that we are not to mourn as those who have no hope. For in Christ, the hope of eternal life is a reality.

We know that what Paul says is true, but there is sorrow in our hearts. We know the promise, but we grieve at the loss.

This expression of sympathy comes with love.

May God comfort you in His everlasting arms. May His peace fill you. May His promise of eternal life sustain you.

Time moves on. Move on in Christ’s hope. Because Christ lives, we shall live also.

In some ways the hardest part of missing Gee, since she has gone, is the feeling I get that I am some how missing memories that I should have with someone who was such an important part of my life. So many experiences that I feel she and I should have shared, but did not get a chance to.

Although I am not an exceptionally religious or spiritual person….I truly do believe that one day Gee and I will be together again. I told her, four years and one day ago, that “a love as strong and true as ours, mere death is no barrier to.” I believe that I will see my beloved Gee again. But it is now time for me to go… to move on as I promised her I would.

As Woo said, “Yet we get to know her, love her and be loved by her…how privileged are we?” Sleep well my beloved, and know that you are missed.

Lately, I’ve been thinking about the way the justice system in the United States works. I’ve come to the conclusion that the whole thing needs to be re-worked. Not the actual courts, but the much of the law, the ideas of what constitutes crime, the idea of punishment, and the idea of the rights of the convicted.

There are many reasons I have come to this conclusion. First, I don’t think that mandatory jail sentences for certain crimes makes much sense. Granted, being against mandatory sentencing is political suicide, but then I’m not a politician. The whole idea of mandatory sentencing is strange, especially with regards to the war on drugs. More on this later.

In this country, we have gone too far to protect the rights of the convicted. The real people, who often pay the price, are the victims of the crimes. They are victimized by the criminal, and then again by the justice system. People convicted of crimes in the United States have little real reason to reform themselves, or change their behavior. The modern prison system is a pretty good deal for many criminals, who come from the underprivileged classes—to be in prison costs the convict nothing but their physical freedom, and carries many benefits.

When someone is sent to jail or prison, what is really happening. Think about it. Here is someone who has decided to not contribute to society, and decided to break the laws that make our society work. Yet, here we are rewarding them.

• A prisoner gets three square meals a day, a roof over their heads—in essence guaranteed room and board, something that most of the working poor in this country can’t even afford.
• They usually have access to a weight room—essentially health club privileges—which the average person has to pay for out of pocket.
• They also have guaranteed medical care, which, from what I’ve read, even covers procedures that most private insurance companies would not. This is another major incentive for criminals to commit more crime… as there is no such thing as affordable health care in the United States, and we are the only industrialized nation that I know of that does not have universal coverage.
• They have access to cable television in many cases, also something that the average law-abiding person also has to pay for.
• They have access to libraries and education, through the prison system, again, generally something that people have to pay for, either through their taxes, or through tuition.

In fact, in most prisons, the prisoners are not taught a viable trade, but do have the opportunity to learn how to become much better criminals. In many cases, the prisons are evolutionary proving grounds for honing their criminal skills.

Now, given what I’ve stated above…what real motivation does the ex-convict have to stay out of prison. Outside of the prison system, he is now forced to pay for his room and board, has to pay for gym or health club facilities, cable TV, education, and health care. He often has little in the way of viable trade skills, and no real career options, as many businesses are reluctant or unwilling to hire an ex-con. Is it any wonder that they turn back to a life of crime relatively quickly.

Some crimes do deserve mandatory sentencing. Violent crimes, with real victims, such as car-jacking, armed robbery, kidnapping, assault and battery, rape, murder, manslaughter, are few I can think fall in that category. Societal crimes like drug dealing, identity theft, and fraud—which also have real victims or encourage violent crimes—should also require mandatory sentences. The people who commit these crimes are a true danger to the society around them, and require incarceration. Many of these crimes should require restitution.

Then there are crimes like drunk driving and drug use, which although serious, incarceration of the offenders is less than useful. In the case of drunk drivers, incarceration often shifts the burden of supporting the dependents of the drunk driver onto society, and does little to solve the problem. I’ve got a post about the whole thing located here.

The situation for drug users is also very similar. Rehabilitation is probably a much better solution than incarceration, for many of the reasons I’ve stated earlier. Light drug users, once imprisoned, often become hardened criminals. I don’t have any specific references to this, but I will try to find and post some. During the “War on Drugs,” mandatory sentencing for drug offenders became the politically correct thing to do. I’ve read horror stories where people convicted of light recreational drug use were serving longer sentences than repeat offenders, convicted of violent crimes. This makes little sense to me. Again, I’ll see if I can find the stories and post links to them.

Some laws also need to be revised. I’ve read that it is a far greater offense to download or upload a “ripped” song from a CD than it is to actually shoplift the physical CD. Something about that strikes me as wrong-headed. Again, I’ll see if I can find the article on this. Identity theft is another area the law needs to be re-written…but it should be called what it actually is… fraud. I’ve written several articles about this in my blog previously and won’t go into here. There are other areas as well, but I’m going to leave them for another article.

The prison system should be reformed. Prisoners should be forced to pay for their room and board, their health care, cable television, education, and health club facilities, just as any law-abiding resident of the United States is forced to do. Not only would this greatly reduce the cost of the prison system to taxpayers, but it would teach responsibility to those incarcerated within the system. It would teach them that they are responsible for their own well-being and to the society around them. We need to stop coddling and nurturing the criminals. If they are not willing to pay for the services and goods….let them do without. I do not believe that our society has a responsibility to care for criminals who have opted to shirk their responsibilities to our society, and have essentially opted out of our society by doing so. They have chosen their path—let them walk it.

The prisoners should also be given the opportunity to learn a realistic trade. One that can provide them with at least a reasonable chance of making a living and contributing to society once they have served their sentence. I believe one major reason many criminals commit crimes upon leaving prison, is that they have no other skills or trade to fall back on. Many service industries, and trade jobs can be taught to prisoners. Carpentry, electrical, masonry, and plumbing, are all trades that are generally required by the society as a whole. They should also be forced to pay for this education, through community service, or through a slight garnishment on their future wages.

A second tier of maximum security prisons should also be established, for the criminals that are not willing to be reformed, and those who are too violent or dangerous for general society. Let them create their own society with in the walls of such an institution and let the institution trade for the goods and services that they require. A modern penal colony of sorts.

There was an article on a new device that is supposed to help prevent drunk driving. The device is a $600 sensor that can be installed in a steering wheel that is supposed to measure the driver’s blood alcohol level through their skin. The article about the new device is located here. I think this is the wrong approach to preventing drunk driving.

Part of the problem with drunk drivers is behavioral. Many do not consciously decide to drive drunk necessarily, but do so out of habit. This does not relieve them of the responsibility of their actions, and I believe that we need much stronger laws against drunk driving. The automobile industry is also partially to blame, as a car could easily be designed to be much more difficult for an impaired person to start. I also believe this can be done without increasing the cost of the automobile considerably.

Part of the problem is the way this country deals with both alcohol and driving. I think that if we reversed the ages for the two behaviors, we could reduce the drunk driving accident rates. In this country, you can get a driver’s license as young as age 16 in many states, and I believe in some as young as 15. However, you can’t legally drink in this country until the age of 21.

The problem I see with this is most people will have relatively little experience driving by the time they are allowed to drink legally. This lack of experience in driving, combined with the lack of experience in how much alcohol can affect their coordination can lead them to underestimate the level of impairment caused by their drinking, as well as overestimate their ability to handle driving while drunk.

If the ages were reversed, I think that five years is enough time for people to understand the problems alcohol can cause, and the level of impairment that can result from drinking. Also, people who are learning to drive will tend to underestimate their ability to drive, and would probably be less likely to drive when impaired. However, because of the culture in the United States, where getting a driver’s license is a rite of passage, I doubt this will happen.

I also think the problem with most of the ignition interlock systems is that they are too complicated and too dependent on quantitative measurements of blood alcohol levels. They use expensive electronic systems which really may not effectively measure the level of impairment in the driver. The problem with using a quantitative blood alcohol measurement is that it does not actually determine whether the driver is actually impaired or not. Some people are easily affected by a slight amount of alcohol, some are not. One woman I know is basically impaired after a half glass of wine. I doubt that her blood alcohol level has reached the legal limit of .08%. Another person I know, due to his metabolism and genetics, can drink quite a bit and basically show almost no impairment.

The other problem with these electronic devices is that they only work for alcohol, and do not determine the level of impairment of the driver. If the driver is on cocaine, marijuana, heroin, PCP, LSD or prescription drugs, these electronic devices will not detect their impairment due to these drugs. Also, these devices will not detect if the driver is impaired due to fatigue, low blood sugar, anger or other extreme emotion.

One ignition interlock, which was invented in response to the death of a son, at the hands of a drunk driver, has addressed these concerns. This device has the advantage that it actually tests the reactive hand and eye coordination of the driver, rather than the blood alcohol level of the individual. It is also a relatively inexpensive device, as it is electro-mechanical, rather than electronic. The cost of buying and installing this device is less than $100. Reuters did an article about it a few years ago as you can see in this link.

My interest in this device, and reforming legislation in this country to require the mandatory installation of such a device into the vehicles of convicted drunk drivers is extremely personal. The inventor is my father, and the son who was killed was my identical twin, David.

The only real way that drunk driving will start to go down in this country is if the legal consequences of drunk driving are such that it prevents or greatly reduces the ability of the drunk driver to do so again. Imprisoning the drunk driver shifts the costs of their crime onto society, rather than solving the problem. Revoking their license also does little to solve the problem, as most drunk drivers will drive without a legal license.

The law needs to require the installation of some sort of ignition interlock. Further deterrence can be achieved by requiring a large sticker or tag on the vehicle, which clearly identifies the vehicle as that of a convicted drunk driver. Severe penalties should also be established for anyone who aids or abets a drunk driver in circumventing the ignition interlock system.

According to the article about the new invention, nearly 40 percent of all traffic fatalities are caused by drunk driving accidents. The article states that an estimated 16,654 people were killed due to drunk drivers last year alone….over five times the number killed in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Isn’t it about time the government stepped in and did something about these highly preventable deaths.

Just recently, several high profile people have switched to the Macintosh computer as their primary work platform. These switchers have caused the Mac to become a high-profile issue, as the reasons they are switching involve security issues on the the Windows platform. They are tired of the problems and maintenance associated with working on a Windows-based platform.

These are very much the same as the reasons I switched to a Macintosh as my primary workstation in 2003. Now, in terms of full disclosure, I have been a Macintosh user for over twenty years. I have also been a Windows network engineer, a Windows systems administrator and an Exchange and Lotus Domino mail administrator. I have been involved with the MS-DOS and Windows-based machines for almost twenty years as well. My arguments for switching to the Mac are as follows.

Most users are not skilled IT professionals, and not aware of the precautions that must be taken to protect a Windows machine properly. This includes installing and updating a good antivirus software package, installing and updating a personal firewall, and routinely running anti-spyware packages. Often, a single anti-spyware package isn’t sufficient to protect a machine. As for the people saying that it is merely user error that causes Windows-based machines to have many of the problems with viruses, spyware and trojans…this is exceptionally short-sighted thinking.

These precautions being necessary aren’t the fault of the user, but are due to the design of the operating system. Most OEM installs of Windows XP come with a default password that is blank for the Administrator user. Also, almost all users on Windows XP systems are “admin” users and the OS does not require applications making modifications to the system settings to have the user enter the password, but gives the programs administrative privileges by default.

Without these precautions, a Windows XP SP1 box has an average survival time, on the internet, of less than seven minutes, which is less than the time needed to download the service packs and security patches required to secure the machine against most attacks. Windows XP SP2 machines have improved the survival time to the point where they are not completely disabled by viruses, spyware, trojans or other malware, but are still affected to some degree by them. So these machines also still require the same security precautions.

On the other hand, Mac OS X, which is based on a BSD UNIX variant, has far fewer vulnerabilities by default. Also, the OS requires an admin-level user to authenticate when programs require higher system level access. Applications and processes do not run with “admin” privileges, unless the user authenticates them. This greatly reduces the ability of the malicious programs to propagate themselves or to damage the system. Currently, there are no viruses, trojans or spyware for the Mac OS found in the wild. There have been several “proof of concept” trojans, but none that are found on the internet.

The Mac GUI is one of the most usable user interfaces, and the Mac OS supports most of the major application suites. Word processing, spreadsheets, accounting software, e-mail, websurfing, photo and video editing are all easily within the capabilities of the OS. Many common Windows software packages are also available for the Mac. Adobe Creative Suite, Macromedia Studio, Microsoft Office, Quicken, Quickbooks and many others are among those that are available.

The Mac also has some software packages that have no real analogue on the Windows platform. The most important of these is iLife, which is Apple’s media suite for digital photography, music and video. Last year, an entry to the Sundance Film Festival was produced entirely using software from the iLife suite. The total production cost was $218.32.

The Mac OS X platform also has the ability to run most of the Linux-based open-source software packages with little modification. Nessus, snort, nmap, and most of the other common network security utilities will run on Mac OS X with little or no modification. If there is a need to run the few Windows-only applications out there, most can be run via an emulator package like Virtual PC or GuestPC.

All of this can be done on a platform that requires less time for routine maintenance, in order to stay a viable working platform. I can spend more of my time working, and less of my time trying to keep the system running. I don’t see a downside to it.

Yes, the hardware is slightly more expensive, but with each successive update to the OS, it gets more efficient and runs more smoothly… something that cannot be said for the Windows-based platform, where each successive OS generally requires newer or upgraded hardware. The hardware also generally takes longer to become obsolete. The average Windows-based PC is replaced every three years; the average Windows-based notebook, every two years; the average Mac is replaced every five-to-seven years; and the average Mac portable every three-to-four years. These aren’t hard numbers, but based on my years of experience with both platforms.

The one area where the Windows platform truly outshines the Mac is in gaming. Most games are not available on the Mac platform, or do not perform as well on it as they do on the Windows platform. Most games released for the Mac are available a few months to years after they are available on the Windows platform.

There are some things in your life that remind you of home. For some, it is the scent of baking bread, for others it is the sound of dogs barking, and for others it is the smell of salt on the wind blowing in from the ocean. For me, the first time I really ever had something that reminded me of home was a voice. The strange part was the voice belonged to someone I had never met.

It was on July 9th, 1999. I was calling a woman I had never met, to ask her to lunch—a blind date, setup by someone I’ve never met. I didn’t have much in the way of expectations for this blind date, as I had been told that I was going to be going out the “not-pretty” sister. I can’t say that looks are the most important thing in a person, given my own, and those of some of my best friends…but in blind date terminology, “not-pretty” is generally a kind way of putting things.

I remember this phone call as if it just happened. I dialed, and a woman answered the phone, “Hello?” I replied, “Is Gee there?” and she responded, “Yes, this is Gee.” When she said that, I heard a voice that sounded like home to me….a voice I had waited all of my life to hear. We spoke for almost an hour. Finally, I asked her to lunch the next day, July 10th. I had delayed asking her to lunch for as long as I could, just to hear more of her voice.

A few minutes later, I called my friend Brad, and told him that I had just spoken to the woman I was going to marry. When he asked me how I could possibly know that, I told him that I had just heard the voice I have waited all of my life to hear—a voice that sounds like home.

Next month will be the month I finally leave this place in Northern Virginia. I have lived here for almost eight years. For many of those years, this building was just a house…a place I stored my things, and I went to sleep. In April, 2000, that changed. When Gee moved in, this place finally became a home for me. It was only after she arrived that pictures went up on the walls, and rooms became places to live, play and work.

Moving has been very bittersweet. This home is where I met Gee, where we courted each other, where she stayed before we drove to Seattle, where she lived, where she and I battled her cancer and where she spent her final days. This house, in many ways, is the first place I’ve ever called home, and it has been difficult to leave it. My Gee is buried a few minutes away from this house, and I go to visit her often. In some ways, I will miss being able to visit her, as she is still an important part of my life.

I’m fortunate that my family has been very supportive and understanding of how difficult this move has been for me. It is back to my family that I am going…I think Gee would understand that there are many reasons I have to do this…the greatest of which is that I need to do it to move on.

It’s May 21, 2005. In three weeks, it will be June 11th, a day that marks that marks four years have passed since Gee died. In some ways, it feels like it was yesterday. I will leave this area, at least for a while, after celebrating Gee’s life, my time with her, and mourning her death on that day. I hope one day, I find something that sounds like home again.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve noticed that more and more cars are becoming computer networks with wheels. This is not necessarily a good thing. Computers can be very difficult to work on and even harder to troubleshoot. Cars with distributor caps, points and rotors required a lot more maintenance than today’s electronic ignition systems…. but you could often figure out what exactly was wrong with them, and often fix them yourself.

A recent article about one of the more popular new cars, the Toyota Prius, came to mind. A few days ago, there was an article on Ars Technica about the Prius and how there is a software problem that has affected about 30 of the 2004 and 2005 models. It seems that this software bug causes the cars to just stall out on the highway. In some cases, the cars will not start again after this, and must be towed to the dealership for a software update. This strikes me as particularly dangerous.

A couple of years ago, I saw a story on the BMW 745 series, where the on-board computer which controlled most of the interior functions of the car would go haywire. The phone and the climate control would fail, and you couldn’t get them back up and running without a trip to the dealership. The car would stall out, even if there were still plenty of fuel, when the computer thought that the fuel tank was empty. This also struck me as pretty dangerous.

A car is supposed to be a reliable piece of technology. The computers that run modern cars haven’t had the bugs worked out and that is a serious worry. Having a car come to a fairly abrupt halt on the highway, because the software on the car has failed, hasn’t killed anyone that I’ve heard of, but it is only a matter of time.

The use of computer chips, and more sophisticated software to provide new features is a convenience when they work. When they fail, they seem to just up the repair costs by an order of magnitude, and the diagnosis is often much more difficult than a similar problems on simpler system.

Enough is enough… technology is great…but there has to be a limit to it. When technology starts making our lives more complicated and less livable, I think then the technology has gone too far. In many ways, simpler is better. To the product manufacturers I would say, don’t add technology to a product for technology’s sake… only add it if it will truly increase the value of the product to the consumer. And if you decide you must add technology to a product…make sure that it is at least as reliable as what it has replaced. I don’t think that is too much to ask.

There was an interesting article on www.csoonline.com about whether we should declare a victory in the War on Terrorism. It is an interesting argument if you consider it from a return on investment viewpoint. Since much of the additional money being spent on the military and the Department of Homeland Security isn’t going to increase our security by any significant amount, wouldn’t it be better spent increasing the actual quality of life of Americans as a whole.

Americans still face one of the largest deficits in history of the country. Some of the money could be spent on reducing the deficit, instead of additional security measures.

Health care is still a major issue for most Americans. Many Americans still need some form of affordable health care insurance, and given that a majority of personal bankruptcies are caused by health care costs, it might make sense to address this issue. It can be argued that nine of the ten leading causes of death in the are medical in nature, and research into these causes would go a long way to reducing the death toll from these causes.

The last of the top ten causes of death is accidents. A majority of these are automotive in nature, and a majority of the automotive accidents are drunk-driving related. We could pass legislation to greatly reducethe number of deaths due to drunk driving by requiring ignition interlock systems in the vehicles of drunk drivers and passing severe penalties for people who help them circumvent the devices.

Wouldn’t it make sense to make these simple changes, given how many lives could be saved. Far more people die per month to the top ten causes of death than died in the all of the terrorist attacks on the US combined. This is not to say that we, as a country, shouldn’t be vigilant and keep an eye on security, but that the vastly increased amounts of money might be better spent elsewhere.

I do believe that September 11, 2001 was a tragic and unprovoked attack on this country. But, I also believe that we need to set our priorities to do the most good for the greatest number of people.

Here is the argument from the article:

Let’s assume, first of all, that the ultimate goal of security is to prevent the loss of lives. In this risk management approach, then, the first thing to look at is the leading causes of death in the United States. The total number of deaths from all attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, was approximately 2,988, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. The top 10 causes of other deaths in the United States in 2001 were the following.

1. Heart disease: 700,142
2. Cancer: 553,768
3. Stroke: 163,538
4. Chronic lower respiratory disease: 123,013
5. Accidents: 101,537
6. Diabetes: 71,372
7. Pneumonia/flu: 62,034
8. Alzheimer’s disease: 53,852
9. Kidney disease: 39,480
10. Suicide: 30,622

The 9/11 deaths were classified within a category called assaults/homicides, which was the 13th leading cause of death at 20,308.

The next thing to look at is spending. As I write this article, the president has just released his proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2006. The projected budget for the Department of Defense is $419.3 billion, and the projected budget for the Department of Homeland Security is $34.2 billion. Since 2001, defense spending has risen by more than 40 percent, and the Department of Homeland Security budget has roughly tripled. But even those billions of dollars fail to tell the whole story. Other agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation, also spend money in pursuit of homeland security. The Department of Energy spends money on nuclear weapons’ activities. And since 2001, Congress has approved billions of dollars for military and reconstruction costs in Iraq and Afghanistan that are not included as part of the Defense budget.

CSOs know how to best allocate available resources to guard against the most likely threats. We should be vocal about the need to apply that same logic to our nation’s security.

To be sure, there has not been another terrorist attack in the United States since 2001, so presumably all that additional money has prevented other lives from being taken because of terrorism. But what about the other leading causes of death? Could the money spent on additional defense and homeland security have saved more lives if it had been applied in other areas?

For example, eight of the top 10 causes of death are health-related. If one classifies suicide as a mental health problem, then nine of the top 10 causes of death are health-related. Could those billions of dollars have saved more lives if they had been spent on health research or on making health care available to a larger percentage of the population?

Or what about the other top 10 cause of death: accidents? Consisting primarily of automobile accidents and work-related deaths, accidents amounted to more than 100,000 deaths in 2001. In fact, more people were killed in motor vehicle accidents each month in the year 2001 (and still are) than were killed in the 9/11 attacks. Could more lives have been saved if those billions of dollars had been spent increasing automobile and traffic safety?

Congress is now addressing the problems brought to light by the ChoicePoint, Bank of America, DSW, T-mobile and other recent stories. The question is whether Congress is addressing the right problem. I’ve already discussed how the data aggregators need to be held liable for protecting the data, and for ensuring its accuracy and validity. However, once the data is stolen from the data aggregators, there must be laws to reduce the ability for criminals to use the data for illegal purposes. The actual theft of the data is a relatively small problem compared to the criminals using the data. If the data is never used, the actual problems with it being stolen are minimal.

Protecting the data from being stolen is necessary, but it is only part of the solution. If the government and the financial institutions make it very difficult for the data stolen to be used, the rewards of stealing data will drop significantly, and make data theft a less tempting crime.

Where does the liability for the data use lie… Does it lie with the consumer? No, obviously not. The consumer is often the last to know that the data has been stolen. Why should the consumer be responsible for the actions of someone else.

The real responsibility lies with the companies that act based on that data. Banks, financial institutions and stores should be responsible for verifying that the information an applicant uses to apply for credit, loans and other financial resources actually belong to the individual applying. They, and not the consumer, whose identity was stolen, should be also held responsible for any losses that occur. This only makes sense, as they are the ones who are responsible for approving the transactions—they should also bear the risks of those same transactions, should their scrutiny of the identity used fall short. Isn’t it the responsibility, and thus the liability, of the vendor who approved the financial transaction to verify the identities of their customers

The way the current laws are written, the banks, credit card companies, and other financial institutions can go after the identity used by their customer… even if the identity in question was stolen. It then falls upon the person, whose identity was stolen, to prove, often at great expense, that they were not the individual involved in the transaction. What makes this scenario even more ridiculous, is the judgement of some courts that the person whose identity was stolen has no right to sue the involved financial institutions, as they are not a customer of the institutions, even though their identity is the one involved.

The current laws and regulations also allow the banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions to report these fraudulent transactions to the credit reporting agencies, and essentially libel the consumer whose identity was stolen with little or no recourse for the customer. This compounds the injury to the consumer, whose identity is stolen, as they didn’t actually do the things the financial institutions are reporting, yet they are the ones affected by the false reports. Correcting such mistakes is often time-consuming and costly for the consumer…

Congress should take a long, hard look at making the companies who profit from both the collection and sale of personal data, as well as the banks, stores and other financial institutions—who profit from the financial transactions of consumers—responsible for their actions. Congress should also look to shield consumers from the actions and mistakes of these same companies as well as the thieves who use the stolen data to steal identities.

Bruce Schneier has an excellent article on this same subject, which you read on his blog.

I haven’t been posting to the blog recently as I’ve been busy re-designing my main website. The old design was over two years old, and had some serious issues. The templates I have for it had a problem as well, and wouldn’t always update the site properly at times. I am currently working on a re-design of my Weblog’s theme to match the main site’s new design.

I do have a few stories in my journal program, MacJournal, which I have to edit a bit, but will post as soon as I get a chance.

Please feel free to take a look at the new site, and send me an e-mail to tell me what you think of it.

Dan

It has taken me a few years to see the joy and happiness of Easter once again. Spring is the season of re-birth, and Easter is an important symbol of spring. I was recently received a story in e-mail. It was from a friend I haven’t seen in about five years. He and I e-mail each other, but I haven’t had a chance to see him since my wedding. The story is about a soldier who was finally coming home from the war—very fitting for our times, given the current war in Iraq. Here is the story:

A soldier was coming home from the war. He arrived in San Francisco and he called his parents.

He said, “Mom and Dad, I’m coming home, but I’ve a favor to ask. I have a friend I’d like to bring home with me.”

“Sure,” they replied, “we’d love to meet him.”

“There’s something you should know,” the son continued, “he was hurt pretty badly in the fighting. He stepped on a land mine and lost an arm and a leg. He has nowhere else to go, and I want him to come live with us.”

“I’m sorry to hear that, son. Maybe we can help him find somewhere to live.”

“No, Mom and Dad, I want him to live with us.”

“Son,” said the father, “you don’t know what you’re asking. Someone with such a handicap would be a terrible burden on us. We have our own lives to live, and we can’t let something like this interfere with our lives. I think you should just come home and forget about this guy. He’ll find a way to live on his own.”

At that point, the son hung up the phone. The parents heard nothing more from him. A few days later, however, they received a call from the San Francisco police. Their son had died after falling from a building, they were told. The police believed it was suicide.

The grief-stricken parents flew to San Francisco and were taken to the city morgue to identify the body of their son. They recognized him, but to their horror they also discovered something they didn’t know, their son had only one arm and one leg.

The parents in this story are like many of us. We find it easy to love those who are good-looking or fun to have around, but we don’t like people who inconvenience us or make us feel uncomfortable. We would rather stay away from people who aren’t as healthy, beautiful, or smart as we are.

It reminds me of something Brad said at my wedding five years ago. Brad was the best man at my wedding to Gee. His toast that day described two things he saw in his life, one was about me, and the other was about Gee.

He said that he wanted to tell the people gathered there, that out of all of his friends and family, I was the first person who forgot that he had crutches. I had never thought about it that way. To me, Brad saying this was one of the greatest compliments I’ve ever been paid. He was thinking about the time when he was learning photography. I was the one who taught Brad black-and-white photography. He said that late one evening, when we were working in the darkroom, which was in the basement of my family’s home, I had asked him if he could run up and grab two Cokes for us from the kitchen. At first, he thought I was joking, but then he realized that I had meant it… that I was thirsty, and to me—him running up to the kitchen, and getting the Cokes wasn’t out the question.

His other story, was from the time right after Gee had started her first round of chemotherapy. He had called the house to see how she was doing, and when he called, Gee picked up the phone. She heard how tired he was, and said, “Brad, how are you, you sound tired?” Brad, who had been calling to see how she was, replied, “Wait, that’s my line.”

His point to these two stories was that he hoped that we, throughout our marriage, would overlook the faults in the each other and care for each other, even when we things were most difficult. I’d like to think that Gee and I succeeded. Finding people who accept you for who you are, without any conditions, is probably one of the rarest gifts life can bring you. Gee and I were lucky to share a love like this—something few people find.

Most people don’t understand the power of commitment. This is a story about my My Life with Gee, and how our commitment to each other affected us.

Five years ago, Easter Sunday, Gee, her parents, and I were at Maryview Hospital, where her father is on staff. We were waiting to find out what was going on—why this beautiful woman I loved was so jaundiced. She had just moved back to Northern Virginia, after a short time in Seattle. I was the reason she had decided to move back.

It all started about a week after we drove cross-country, I noticed that Gee’s color was off—something wasn’t right. As she had been planning on visiting her parents, I told her to ask her father about it. Her father is a doctor. She drove down to visit them, and when she got there she called me. I asked to speak to her father, and I told him that I thought something was wrong, as her color was off. Gee just didn’t look okay to me. Ever since I had met her, nine months before, I knew exactly what she looked like—she had become the most important person in my life, and my first priority. He said she looked fine. I said she looked jaundiced…that her color was off. He said he’d keep an eye on it.

Four days later, Monday, April 17, I got a call from Gee’s father, Dr. Kim. He told me that he was taking Gee to the hospital for some tests. During the course of the weekend, Gee had become very noticeably jaundiced, and he wanted to find out what was going on. The ultrasound showed that Gee’s bile duct was being blocked by a growth on her pancreas, causing her jaundice. The mass fairly large, about the size of a golf ball and the doctor took a biopsy of it. It turned out to be pancreatic cancer—an aggressive, nasty adenocarcinoma. It was very unusual in someone Gee’s age.

About a week later, Gee’s father came to talk to me. He asked me if I wanted to cancel our engagement—that with her illness, he would understand if I did. Apparently, in Korean society, because one of the purposes of marriage is to have children—to start a family, the discovery of a serious illness was often a reason to cancel an engagement.

I said to Dr. Kim, “Gee’s illness hasn’t changed who she is, how I feel about her, or what she has come to mean to me. And why would I abandon the woman I love, just when she needs me the most.” I went on to say that I saw no reason to cancel my engagement to Gee—that when I had asked her to marry me seven months earlier, I had made my commitment to her—for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health. In our hearts and minds we were already committed to each other—to us—our upcoming marriage was just a formality, a celebration of our life together to share with our friends and family.

Later, in May, Gee told me her parents were asking her to postpone our wedding. I told her I would take care of it. I went down to visit her parents, and I spoke to Dr. Kim, my soon to be father-in-law. I told him that the wedding was the one thing that Gee had been counting on, been planning for almost eight months, and it was something she was so looking forward to. I insisted on having our wedding on time, as scheduled—it was what I wanted, it was what Gee wanted. I told him we had done too much planning to postpone the wedding, and that Gee and I wanted to have it on November 4, 2000, as we originally planned—that it wasn’t to be discussed again.

What I don’t think her father knew, but I had found through my research about pancreatic cancer, is that there was only a slim chance that Gee would make the wedding if we postponed it at all. The type of cancer she had, a pancreatic adenocarcinoma has a very low survival rate—that the overall survival rate was less than 1% at 5 years with most dying within the first year. I told Brad my fears, but asked that he not say anything.

On the Friday before she died, Gee told me, that she knew she would not have made it as far as she had if she hadn’t met me That because of our love, our commitment to each other, her life was complete—that her only regret was that she had to leave me to continue on without her. She wished that she could keep the promise she had made when we were engaged—to never let me be alone again.

Gee and I had almost 14 months together from when she was diagnosed—in many ways, Gee had beaten the odds. It was more time than I expected, but less than I had hoped for. My time with Gee, my Life with Gee will always be one of the most amazing periods in my life. It was intense, stressful, happy, joyous, sad, and heartbreaking. I am a better person for having had Gee in my life. On this Easter Sunday, I wish you all a chance to know a bit more about My Life with Gee.

Just recently, the GOP idiots up on the hill have decided to revisit the case surrounding Terri Schiavo and her husband’s attempt to remove her feeding tube. His position is that Terri would not have wanted to live in a permanent vegetative state, and that she should have the right to die with dignity. He has been fighting her parents for years in the courts, as they believe she should be kept alive at all costs.

I understand the issues involved in the Schiavo case, better than most, as I had to make a similar decision in 2001. I understand Michael Schiavo’s pain, and his wish for his wife’s suffering to end. Fortunately, my wife’s parents also believed that she should not suffer. I also understand why Terri’s parents hope for her recovery—their desperate desire to see their daughter live again. But in truth, I think that Michael should be given a chance to say goodbye to his wife, and to decide whether she should continue her existence or be allowed to die with dignity. Michael is, after all is said and done, the man that Terri chose to spend her life with—as his wife. If the GOP wants justification for my beliefs, they need to only look to the Bible, which says:

“In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself…For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” (Ephesians 5:28-31 NIV translation)

As far as I can tell—there are no federal issues here, there are no federal laws involved in the case—yet Congress has decided that their time is better spent interfering in what should be a fairly private matter. The Republicans, and their neo-conservative allies believe they have the right to interfere in private decisions, especially those regarding life-and-death. They oppose any form of abortion or right-to-die with dignity, yet are in favor of capital punishment—even in the case of children and developmentally challenged convicts. They have been executing a war in Iraq that has resulted in untold thousands of deaths, with no real justification—just the lies of the current administration.

I don’t believe, even for a moment, that the Republicans care about Terri Schiavo or her life. This is a cheap, and hypocritical ploy to pander to the interests of the religious right. They are grabbing headlines to keep themselves in the public eye—taking a pointless moral stand which does little to affect the welfare of the public at large—while avoiding any real issues.

I find it particularly pathetic that this administration should take the time and money to hold hearings on Terri Schiavo, and on steroid-use in major league baseball, when there are so many more pressing issues that need to be addressed. The problems with Medicare, health insurance, drunk driving, and Social Security are all still here—and still need to be addressed.

For the past decade, the Republicans have been taking issues of morality—many of which should be private issues, such as Bill Clinton’s sex life and Terri Schiavo’s right to die—and making them into political issues. Yet, they consistently avoid taking any real hard looks at the ethically questionable actions of themselves and their peers—such as the lies and misinformation that led the US into an expensive and mis-directed war against Iraq. They even attempted to change the ethics rules to protect one of their own from the consequences of his alleged illegal actions.

Unfortunately, for the United States and the world as a whole, we have somehow elected these morally bankrupt and ethically questionable people into power over our country. I just wish they would do what we have elected them to do—govern our country—and not waste taxpayer money on issues of no real relevance to the welfare of the American public.