How best to save ourselves, from ourselves? (v2)

Regrettably, tragedies like the one in Newtown, CT invariably bring us back to the discussion on gun control in America. It seems far easier to criticize gun owners alone, than to reconcile that we might care poorly for our fellow man in times of need or distress.

As someone who has served in our nation's defense in uniform and as a civilian, and is a student of world history with respect to armed conflict, I have long held the belief that an armed society is likely to be a far more polite society (nods to Heinlein). As recent events in Newtown, CT might belie, that notion is probably somewhere between fact and theory largely due to our friends and neighbors who have cajoled, invoked and legislated incredulous levels of political correctness over the past 50 years. And yet, even I am moved to consider that firearm ownership could use some limits.

To be sure, firearm activities have their place among firearm owners, principally around shooting ranges for purposes of training, and responsibly maintaining an owner's proficiency AND safety. Sport hunting activities may have a place as well, although I think we've effectively evolved past the hunter/gatherer stage in our species. Still, I've never understood the notion that firearms were collector's items beyond some purely historical point of view.

And predictably, firearm aficionados regularly trot out the second amendment as a sticking point to equally predictable referendums on gun controls, as almost always arise out of events like these. Of course as Americans, our history is littered with storied accounts of militia warfare dating back to our founding. But with few exceptions, those events were based upon a call to arms by our collective nation in a culture that was seemingly far more respectful of friend (and foe), and of the notions of property and civility.

Sadly, I believe the events in Newtown actually bespeak a larger, more human problem. Gun advocates frequently offer up the worn chestnut, "Guns don't kill, people do." (a truism). And truthfully, in most cases it seems, anyone bent on killing will find and use the most convenient tool to accomplish the task. Guns simply require less effort on the part of an assailant, and are more efficient for the ghoulish task at hand. Especially rifles with high capacity magazines.

Banning weapons of warfare like assault rifles and the ammo and magazines that are used by them would probably go a long way towards reducing the likelihood of a repeat event like the one in Newtown from taking place again anytime soon. But bans on handguns and single action rifles (and the ammo for them, even in the largest magazines; appx. 15 rounds), which are principal in armed protection of persons and property would, I believe, unnecessarily impinge on citizens' second amendment rights.

But not everyone is reacting to these events with emotional outcries against firearms, in toto. As opposed to gun controls, some have offered that the real problem is that our healthcare systems (and to some degree, our society in general) has failed these 'people in distress'. Those people seem to believe that there should be mechanisms to prevent 'some people' from ever owning or accessing a firearm. And while I can't question the wisdom of such a philosophy, I cannot in good conscience recommend supporting any efforts towards that goal.

Unfortunately, any policy, process or mechanism specifically designed to separate someone that is deemed 'in need of mental or emotional assistance' by others, from their firearms will directly threaten the second amendment rights of all people, including those who may themselves not EVER commit an act of violence. No matter how well intentioned such an approach is likely meant to be, it is a poor solution and will face enormous opposition, since any such, even policies and programs built with the best of intentions will be eventually abused by some with ill or careless will about others' freedoms.

Unfortunately, the notion of using law to separate anyone from their constitutional liberties for any reason short of a felony conviction eventually puts all our liberties on the table, and puts our rights in the hands of those with the mendacity to think that they know best. Any policy, process or mechanism designed to deprive any group of people from their rights (including the right to gun ownership / possession), risks being abused by the less than well intentioned. If you doubt that, you need look no further than pro-life advocates of the far right.

Our founders could never have imagined the world we've created from their bold venture. And I'm unsure if they would be moved enough by events of the present to change their original propositions. Absent divine knowledge or temporal clairvoyance, we must cling to the precious tenets they bequeathed us as the shepherds of our future, trusting in their wisdom. And to that end, we must stay the course set for us.

Hopefully, somewhere in the mix between fear and faith lay a willing balance on the subject.

Contemplating the current crisis...

I've been following the recent uprising in the American marketplace with some interest of late. That interest has drawn me into more than one discussion in some social media forums, most notably Facebook (FB).

Now, FB being what it is, far too often it encourages exposition better served in a blogging forum rather than a discussion forum. But that seldom stops most people (myself included, on occasion).


Lately on FB, quite a bit of discussion arises around photos of protesters who post with text based commentary about their situation relative to the current economic situation. Typically, these images are of those who identify with a group known as the '99%' (those without wealth). However, this morning, one image began circulating of an individual who is of the '1%' who espouses identifying with the '99%'. This has stirred up a bit of controversy.

A good number of my FB acquaintances (who all acknowledge that they are not Milton Friedman or the like), are themselves opining about the current state of the union. And like tensions amongst the protesters in NYC, feelings are running rather high online as well, on both sides of the debate (not that anyone I know has more money than they know what to do with). And several about this most recent photo.

If I was wallowing in wealth, I don't know that I'd want to have to choose. Let me participate in a process that is fair to all (including the wealthy). That's truly what the social contract is about. Not that the wealthy can't be wealthy (lucky bastards), but that they're carrying their fair share of the societal burden (and that they're not getting rich on the backs of those carrying an unfair percentage of the social burden).

The largest part of the problem (as I see it), is the 'Leona Helmsley' syndrome ('only little people pay taxes'). The wealthy (at lest the ones I know) often subscribe to the notion tha they shouldn't have to carry the burden of services they themselves don't consume. While there's an argument to be made there, the problem is that the wealthy who happen to feel that way don't seem to realize that they likely got that way on the backs of those who do. And that while capitalism does allow for the extraction of *all* profit from *every* exchange instead of limiting the transaction to a 'fair profit' (subjective), that leads to the creation of a financial aristocracy, manifesting in 'class warfare' (e.g. protesting); and to do so long term will lead to the inevitable downfall of every economic system that operates on it.



That's why the current social contract is invalid.

H-1B workers outnumber unemployed techies - InfoWorld.com

The U.S. said it is "prepared to demonstrate to the court the manner in which the defendant's (Visions Systems Group, an IT firm in South Plainfield, NJ) schemes, along with similar schemes by similar companies have substantially deprived U.S. citizens of employment." The government then points out that "in January of 2009, the total number of workers employed in the information technology occupation under the H-1B program substantially exceeded the 241,000 unemployed U.S. citizen workers within the same occupation."

The U.S. government's brief doesn't explain to what extent fraud is responsible for tech worker unemployment, or cite sources for its data. Estimates of the size of the tech labor force depend on what government labor categories are included.

While I don't disagree in the least, it will be interesting to see where more information on the data the U.S. is using to make this case. Cases like this may be more prevalent thanks to an amendment to the recent stimulus bill U.S. Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) presented and helped pass requiring any firm receiving TARP money to meet a higher standard for employing H-1B workers by automatically categorizing those firms as 'H-1B dependent', a status which "include attesting to actively recruiting American workers; not displacing American workers with H-1B visa holders; and not replacing laid off American workers with foreign workers."

Although I am on record as not having a lot of faith in 'good faith' measures where it's already been shown to be a flawed approach (as in the H-1B program), I *do* like tying requirements to TARP money (just a shame they didn't tie bonuses to it as well...)

Maybe Obama should send some TARP money Microsoft's way as well...

Powered by ScribeFire.

Chrysler lenders aim to stop sale | BBC.com

Some people just have gall. Others have stones that would make William Wallace proud.

Creditors object to the way the restructuring benefits the United Auto Workers union, which is an unsecured creditor, for the $10.6bn Chrysler owes to its retiree healthcare fund.

In addition, they say the anonymity request is because they feel they are unfairly becoming the focus for a political backlash.

Unfairly, eh? Hmm.

An interesting perspective. I suspect that legally, these lenders may be technically correct. In fact, having worked for some time in the investment banking industry, and having also processed bankruptcy filings in the credit collection industry, I'm pretty confident they are.

However, I wonder if the bankruptcy courts might consider this precedent-setting approach germane: The debt obligation that Chrysler has incurred with the UAW Healthcare Fund has been 'secured' in advance through the years of prior labor contributions by the employee who is now entitled to those benefits? And perhaps there is no more 'senior' standing than that. Your mileage may vary, but it's certainly food for thought.

Perhaps someone could file an Amicus Curiae ("friend of the court") brief on this point of view...

And I'd be just as concerned about 'political backlash' if I were part of a overt effort to force Chrysler into bankruptcy just because I'm holding prioritized debt instruments from Chrysler as a 'Senior Secured Creditor'. I'm quite sure that, instead of gross grandstanding about the egregious profits they've made over the years, they're now worried that people will find out that in order to collect on their current 'winnings', they'll need to disenfranchise all those workers whose labor has enriched the inherent value of their current holdings.

Oh, and not that I'd be surprised but, if I were the judge on this case, I'd want to see the police reports on those 'death threats' before I gave that claim much traction.

Then again, we do live in interesting times.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Response to:The Truth About Teens Sexting - ABCNews (GMA)

Cell phones have certainly become more powerful computing devices, enabling most of the functionality we take for granted on our desktops - e-mail, text messaging, web browsing. And with that power comes the same perils we encounter at the desktops -- spam e-mail (and texts), and undesirable web content. Still, parents who give their young children and teens cell phones often do so solely so that *they* can communicate with them, and so they can respond or reach out in an emergency; not as a covert communication channel for them to circumvent adult supervision as has been demonstrated quite often in the media recently. From needing to 'crack the teen texting code' to the problems of 'Sexting', these problems are simply the symptoms of larger social issues heightened by the relentless advance of technology.

While parents want to trust their children implicitly, we cannot forget the powerful forces at work on them in social communities beyond our reach. Between peer pressure from not-so-well-intentioned peers, and media/marketing campaigns that might foster values that may not be in the best interests of their age group, it's fairly likely that their unfettered access to limitless technology will inevitably be abused.

The recent phenomenon of cyber-bullying and Sexting have risen out of the boundless nature of the technologies of the telecommunications and internet industries, and the perceived certainty of secrecy, permitting youth to commit actions covertly which they would be less likely to do in the open. Most parents wouldn't let their child stay on the telephone for anywhere near the amount of time they admit to spending on texting. So why permit hours upon hours of communication just because it's in a different, unobservable venue?

Today (Wednesday, April 15th, 2009) on GMA, New York attorney Parry Aftab has suggested parents install Google Desktop to mine their PCs for evidence of undesirable behavior. While inspecting one's own computer is a reasonable move, this suggestion is fraught with its own perils. An application like Google Desktop is a complex utility, and if improperly configured, can transmit sensitive or confidential personal information via index files on the PC to servers located within Google itself, resulting in trading one problem for another. While Google claims that such data is encrypted and protected according to its published privacy policy, the application (like many) has a history of internet related vulnerabilities**, so it's simply not an application one should use without some education and forethought in its use.

A better response is simply to recognize that unlimited text and data packages are most likely unnecessary and inappropriate for most children or teens, and promote abuses like the ones we hear about almost daily. Telecom service providers would seem to have fostered this problem by targeting families with children and teens with incredibly inexpensive 'unlimited text and/or data plans' that make not buying them seem ludicrous. But giving in to children/teens unwillingness to refrain from using available text and data services to prevent exorbitant telecom bills is the same as giving in to extortion.

Most children and teens can't acquire or afford these devices on their own, and wouldn't likely have them at all if parents didn't feel the need to be more closely connected with their kids in this day and age. But that doesn't mean you need to let the 'tail wag the dog'. A bargain (affordable text/data services) isn't a bargain if it creates a bigger problem than it solves. And if that unlimited plan weren't in place, there would likely be a much more obvious indicator of your child or teen's behavior on the monthly bill, not unlike the routine grades they get from their school. Even though most basic plans may include a paltry number of included text messages in their monthly rate, sending just one photo from a cell phone without a data plan can send your bill skyrocketing.

However, unlike most genies that get out of the bottle this one can be put back. Limiting chatting to 'landlines' or on the computer where it can be documented or monitored makes more sense for most of the ages we're talking about. And while photos taken with cell phones can be downloaded and transmitted via traditional mail and text applications from the desktop, they are more likely to be detected in hidden in undeleted cache files. Something the average technologically savvy teen is probably keenly aware of.

Also, we're fortunate that not all phones these days have the same features or use the same storage media anymore. Many older phones used to have infrared communication ports (like the television remote), allowing two devices to transfer files and data between them. As the price of digital memory has fallen and become more ubiquitous, this feature has become less common in new phones. And the wide diversity of media formats significantly limits the ability to transfer files and pictures from device to device since most devices can only access one piece of storage media at a time and only one format of media. History proves time and time again that the attraction of a feature or service is inversely related to the level of inconvenience one has to engage in to use it. So, between these two 'advances' in technology, opportunities to continue engaging in the transfer of undesirable Sexting-related files are likely also reduced.

Will kids and teens find ways around these speed bumps? Probably, especially if they think nobody's looking, or nobody cares. These aren't issues of civil liberties, nor are they about fear mongering. Parents do have the right to decide what their children are or are not mature enough to handle (within legal limits). It's about parents being 'parental', and not letting the economies of capitalism and technologies inform poor choices at a time in children's lives when they perhaps need reasoned guidance the most.

---

**4/27/09: ref: www.schneier.com

Last month, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (I'm on its board of directors) filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission concerning Google's cloud computing services. On its website, Google repeatedly assures customers that their data is secure and private, while published vulnerabilities demonstrate that it is not. Google's not foolish, though; its Terms of Service explicitly disavow any warranty or any liability for harm that might result from Google's negligence, recklessness, malevolent intent, or even purposeful disregard of existing legal obligations to protect the privacy and security of user data. EPIC claims that's deceptive.

Insults and Injuries to the American workforce

White House says U.S. needs H-1B visas to avoid 'competitive disadvantage'

In a filing with the appeals court late last month, the Obama administration offered a defense of the H-1B visa program while repeating many of the same arguments used by the Bush administration in defending the ruling in the initial case. "The inability of U.S. employers, particularly in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, to obtain H-1B status for highly skilled foreign students and foreign nonimmigrant workers has adversely affected the ability of U.S employers to recruit and retain skilled worker and creates a competitive disadvantage for U.S. companies," the government argued.

Interesting. On one hand, we have President Obama saying that he's all for improving our educational system so that American citizens can be qualified to compete in the global economy; but is perpetuating the Bush-era rhetoric saying that American corporations cannot be competitive without the benefit of the same foreign workers who have been shown to displace American workers; who have been shown to work for lower wages and fewer benefits than corporations can get away with paying those American counterparts.

To un-categorically state that corporate America cannot compete without the luxury of technologically skilled foreign workers is to insult the existing unemployed American technology workforce. The truth is far more likely that corporate America simply cannot continue to pursue the same types of egregious profit margins that drove Wall Street into the ground without an underpaid, over-leveraged H1B workforce.

If banks are being scrutinized because they're being capitalized with taxpayer dollars, why isn't all of corporate American being viewed with the same eye toward their discriminatory employment practices? Those practices have had as much of a negative effect upon the U.S. economy as scurrilous financiers. And it's well proven that wages earned by foreign workers more often leave the economy than stay. Whether the loss is through talent returning home or through dollars sent abroad to families, the net long term effect is roughly the same.

We have foreign students coming to America, to reap the benefits of what is ostensibly the advanced facilities and educations that American institutions provide, only to turn around and convert student visas to H1B visas to take jobs that could otherwise be filled by American citizens. Unfortunately, this is also reinforced by the reality that fewer and fewer younger Americans are entering the high tech and research industries. Perhaps you wonder why?

I suspect the answer is actually 'Why bother?' Why bother entering a field where you not only have to compete for employment against your fellow American classmate, but against a legislatively imported workforce as well? While there are far more unemployed technologists than the 65,000 positions H1B visas would replace in total, I find it difficult to believe that corporate America is incapable of finding 65,000 American workers capable of doing the jobs that they claim only H1B visa holders can do.

Extending the duration of H1B visas in lieu of the less covert, more toxic approach of increasing the cap limit as corporate America has been lobbying for is still a backdoor cap hike, no matter how you slice it. As the Obama administration continues to try and draw lines of distinction between themselves and their predecessors, this failure is one that anyone with 'one good eye and a spoonful of brains' will not miss.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Can Obama Keep IT Jobs in the U.S.? - InsideTech.com

Obama initially proposed a $3,000 tax credit this year and next for every net new job created. Still, outsourcing executives say that’s not enough of a financial incentive to keep jobs in the U.S. “An average salary for a software developer in the U.S. is $75,000 and it’s $8,000 in India,” says Mary Jo Morris, president of World Sourcing Services for Computer Sciences Corp. (CSC).

Pretty much says it all, doesn't it? Sure, anyone with any kind of business acumen understands why jobs are going offshore. If I were the CEO/CIO charged with cutting costs, then the CBA (Cost Benefit Analysis) for sending jobs where there was a 90%+ savings is an argument that sells itself.

But there appears to be a larger landscape to be observed here, and corporate citizenship is part of it. How much does a company owe to the citizens and shareholders of the country it benefits so greatly from? Would it be nearly as profitable and prosperous if it were incorporated elsewhere? Would it continue to enjoy the 'inside' advantage if it weren't an American corporation?

And these are only some of the reasons why we need to be telling our legislators:

Microsoft Layoffs Kickstarts Major H-1B Debate - THG.com

“Microsoft has a moral obligation to protect … American workers by putting them first during these difficult economic times,”

Wow - What a concept. Milton Friedman is probably spinning like a lathe.

Of course, having been strongly opposed to the abuses of the H1B visa program for years now, I'm totally inclined to have Senator Grassley's back on this. But its just as likely that the Free Trade pundits in the Obama administration (and our 'allies' who benefit greatly from this program) will sound the trumpets against this tack on the grounds that its too protectionist.

Protections Set for Antiabortion Health Workers - washingtonpost.com

The rule empowers federal health officials to pull funding from more than 584,000 hospitals, clinics, health plans, doctors' offices and other entities if they do not accommodate employees who refuse to participate in care they find objectionable on personal, moral or religious grounds.

---

Alright, somebody gimme a frakkin' break! (Yeah, Yeah. I'm a BSG fan...)

One of the most fundamental rights we have as free citizens is the right to choose where we work, and what kind of work we choose to do. Naturally, this line of thought might lead us to understand that such matters are not just limited to 'health care'.

So, this would seem to lead most reasonable people (there's that term again) inexorably (cough, cough) towards the perspective that while an individual may indeed choose *what work* they wish to perform as their life's trade and *where* they wish to perform that trade, these freedoms *logically* extend also to those individuals (and businesses as 'members' of the community) who are employers. Employers alone decide what services they will or will not provide, and that the employee is *not* inherently privileged to make that decision after they've accepted employment with any given institution or organization.

Forgive the analogy, but it is unlikely that a vegan employee could simply refuse to serve the burger that every customer has a reasonable right to expect at McDonald's because it offends their moral or religious values. If a care facility offers particular procedures, then EVERY employee hired should be obliged to deliver those services as a reasonable condition of employment in that organization.

Mind you, this perspective still does not enable an employer to discriminate in hiring based upon those values of the potential employee except to the extent that those values would render the applicant unlikely to perform the duties of the job; but any legislation addressing this issue should insure that businesses retain the right to require standards of performance standards predicated upon the needs of the business. A business should not have to stop performing a service because it hired someone suddenly unwilling to perform. The onus should be upon the employee to understand the employer's expectations and their ability to meet them before undertaking employment. Or quit.

Last time I checked, an individual's religious and moral freedoms didn't extend to enabling them with control over their employer's right to determine the services they will provide as a business. If a worker's values are inconsistent with any given business' expressed plan, their freedoms should simply extend to their right to choose to work elsewhere.

So, if the government wants to 'protect' the rights of the individual, let them also make sure they don't trample the rights of employers to determine the scope of their business, and their right to meet the needs of their chosen customers. Pulling funding legislatively like this is religious and moral extortion by the government, based upon the values of a questionable majority of control, and is grossly ill advised.

The regulation, which would cost more than $44 million to implement, was aimed at enforcing several federal laws that have been on the books since the 1970s and were aimed primarily at protecting doctors and nurses who did not want to perform abortions in the wake of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, (Health and Human Services Secretary) Leavitt said.

Time to watch both Obama and McCain on this one. And prompt your own legislator to amend this piece of legislation accordingly.

Belgian woman wages war for Al Qaeda on the Web - International Herald Tribune

A truly interesting article:

"Now, even as El Aroud remains under constant surveillance, she is back home rallying militants on her Web site - and collecting more than $1,100 a month in government unemployment benefits."

Who should MDs let die in a pandemic? - SecurityInfoWatch.com

To prepare, hospitals should designate a triage team with the Godlike task of deciding who will and who won't get lifesaving care, the task force wrote. Those out of luck are the people at high risk of death and a slim chance of long-term survival. But the recommendations get much more specific, and include:

- People older than 85.

- Those with severe trauma, which could include critical injuries from car crashes and shootings.

- Severely burned patients older than 60.

- Those with severe mental impairment, which could include advanced Alzheimer's disease.

- Those with a severe chronic disease, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease or poorly controlled diabetes.

An interesting article, even if it is necessarily pragmatic. Still, not one that would enthuse me if I were a citizen still in our workforce but with a chronic illness, like Multiple Sclerosis, or Cystic Fibrosis, or other 'hidden diseases'. Decide for yourself.

---

8/11/08 Footnote: Seems the underlying article is no longer there. Here is another of similar quality.

4/27/08 Update: Located the original article. Updated header link.

Response to John McCain...

Sir,

Sadly, there is no longer simply 'a biggest challenge that America faces'. The problem has become too diverse and multifacted to sum up in a sound bite encapsulation.

Indeed, the state of our economy is a significant concern to all Americans. Many have lost or are losing their homes and dreams due to unscrupulous and predatory lending practices. Many have lost or are losing their jobs to unfair hiring practices (e.g. H1B Visas) and profit-driven offshoring practices. Many of our aged and infirm are being forced to choose between bankruptcy or death by pharmaceutical and insurance companies whose sole focus is the bottom line (e.g. Tier4 drugs), without regard to the social injustice they bring to bear on the citizens who depend so critically upon their products and services. And as a consumer economy, we depend far too much upon the good nature of other nations. Considering our standing in the world, that is a recipe for demise of our country and our way of life as we know it.

Democracy was a wonderful discovery, and on the whole its implementation has demonstrated a propensity for prosperity where it emerges. I believe those who recognize its virtues will embrace it. Those who do not, will not, and cannot be induced through force or coercion. And as we know, those nations or factions that are threatened by it will respond with violence and fear. Through the machinations of others, our nation has been spread too thin globally. We have committed economically (promoting a Nuclear India, and permitting/encouraging commerce with a socially abusive China) to agenda that do not serve the interest of America or the world in which we live. And our noble men and women in uniform remain in harms way without a plan to meet our obligation to reasonably minimize or negate that risk while seeing our commitment to Iraq through to the formation of a functioning sovereign government, eventually retuning our soldiers to missions worthy of our national heritage. And as an experienced soldier, you of all candidates know full well the virtue and wisdom of pulling back and regrouping when the best laid plans clearly demonstrate a lack of progress, and wasting of limited resources (e.g. Afghanistan and Bin Ladin).

As the quintessential democracy, we embraced Emma Lazarus' 19th century invitation to accept other countries 'tired, poor and huddled masses'. And in doing so, over time, America has become stronger through the inevitable diversity it has fostered. However, having left open our 'golden door' to an unchecked influx of illegal immigration, we have also left ourselves open to economic ruin through the unending drain upon social and public services, and violent retaliation from those who do not share our social values, or our national allegience. Lip service and convenient flag waving is insufficient evidence of loyal citizenry.

As a global citizen, we have failed our neighbors in serving the interests of our world on the environmental front, a war just as vital as any we prosecute in any finite sovereign nation. Admittedly, the industrial revolution was instrumental in the development and expansion of the global economy to be certain. However as any scientist will tell you, the unchecked growth of any single influencing factor in an environment will destabilize that environment, threatening all life within it. We have an obligation to reduce our negative impact on our world, to reduce our dependence upon foreign energy sources, and lead other nations by that example.

The answers to some of these issues, and others, may be found through a process of expanded higher education and education loan debt forgiveness through targeted public service or specific trades; increased economic incentives for technological development; tougher policies (not economic incentives) to keep jobs and dollars at home; 'fair trade, not free trade',

Is There Really an IT Labor Shortage? - Baseline.com

Not only are there more than enough new graduates pumped out of universities each year to fill the country’s available technology jobs, but some like Wadhwa believe that there are many more experienced IT workers out of the market who are unemployed or underemployed or unemployed due to age discrimination or those who left IT during a period of unemployment following a bust cycle. Additionally, there are many more business users who could be trained in IT skills if necessary. Wadhwa believes these workers could be easily “skilled up” in the event of temporary shortages.

An excellent article on the truth of employment in the IT field in the US, and why the H1B Visa isn't really in our nation's best interest. These observations about rampant age-ism in global IT are spot on accurate, and have become one of (if not the) biggest stumbling block for greying technologists.

Ways of the wayward - IHT.com

"Obama acknowledged when he arrived in the Senate that he got more attention, his big book deal and his celebrity because he is not white. He was only the third black senator elected since Reconstruction.

But as he campaigned here Tuesday, he was outraged at Ferraro's comments. 'They are divisive,' he said. 'I think anybody who understands the history of this country knows they are patently absurd.'"

Can't have it both ways, buddy. Then again, Florida and Michigan should never have penalized by denying their delegates, and the national party should have stepped in and managed the attempted date change. Now, Clinton's campaign is in peril and she wants those delegates back.

Maureen Dowd is spot on about the Clinton(Ferraro)/Obama debacle (and a lot of other stuff). Astute readers will find her on IHT.com and at the Washington Post.

Can A Photo ID Be Required To Vote? - Washington Post

The right to vote in this country is one of our most sacred privileges. It comes to us at the cost of many lives, both American and not, female and not, white and not. It is a privilege granted only to those who are entitled to it, and that entitlement is bestowed through citizenship alone. Therefore, the responsibility of proving one's citizenship falls equally upon all who wish to claim their due rights. All a photo id is meant to do is insure that the person who presented the credentials of citizenship is who they say they are.

Therefore, in order to prevent an economic or politicized distribution of this right, I believe that the ability to obtain proof of one's citizenship should not be an economic burden to any individual, but should be each state's service to its citizens. Or perhaps federalize it, and then delegate such service to the U.S. Library of Congress, subsequently making the information available via the Freedom of Information Act. This effectively 'levels' the playing field for all who require the information.

As for the cost of a 'voter ID', the economically disenfrancished quite likely don't have the wherewithal to have a car, so the cost of a driver's license isn't at issue. This would limit the overall burden upon a state agency to fund such an instrument for those who have no need for other forms of ID, especially if the cost of obtaining proof of citizenship has been minimized or negated through federalization of such a system.

And before anyone claims that the economically displaced remain disadvantaged under such a system, there are agencies which exist to assist the homeless and disadvantaged with making such requests of state and federal service agencies for receiving their due benefits, including records and documentation.

NYPD warns of homegrown terrorists - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com

Citizens who quietly band together and adopt radical ways — not just established overseas terrorist groups like al-Qaida — pose a serious threat to American security, a new police analysis has concluded.

Hmm... So, let's see if I can identify any 'groups' that might meet this definition:

The Society for Creative Anachronism - They dress in funny clothes, dance, wear medieval armor, beat on each other for sport, and think they're subjects of a monarchy (all for educational purposes). Have been since the 60's. Totally rad, man!

The National Rifle Association - They assemble and collectively dare to believe that the founding fathers clearly intended for every citizen to be imbued with inalienable rights to arm themselves against oppression and tyranny, including oppressive and tyrannical governments. That's pretty radical, no? Ok, but they're not so quiet about it either. Just ask Charlton Heston.

American Association for Retired People - One of the most powerful voting blocs in America, most of whom probably live in Florida or Arizona. And all they want is affordable medical care. That's definitely radical. Just ask your congressman. Or Jack Kevorkian.

Who knows? Are you a member of a radical organization that might be threatening the very fibre of our nation? Check your credentials at the door.

Band's lyrics cut in Webcast -- chicagotribune.com

Where I'm from, it is often said that you "dance with the one that brung ya'". In this same light, it is of little surprise that people often presume that politicians who fund campaigns with corporate donations will invariably wind up in bed with and favoring those who made their victory possible.

But in an interesting turn of events, AT&T, the world's largest telecommunications provider, has been put in a less than glowing spotlight, having been associated with the censoring some of anti-Bush rhetoric from the rock band Pearl Jam at Chicago's recent Lallapalooza festival in AT&T controlled internet webcasting. Subsequent information has also revealed that Pearl Jam wasn't the only act that was censored. AT&T pleads 'mea culpa', and says it was a contracted service that actually performed the censoring. Even if that's true, like politicians, it's time to remember that they're the ones that brought them to the dance.

MySpace won't give names of sex offenders - MSNBC

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper said “it’s sad that MySpace is going to protect the privacy of sex offenders over the safety of children.

Then again, I always say, "Perspective is a burden only to those who have it." (No, I really do say that... Ask anyone who knows me.)

It should come as no great surprise that when any class of citizen becomes involuntarily disenfranchised from their civil liberties, you can bet yours is just as likely to be the next one up at bat. Something I suspect MSNBC readers like 'USAF_Intel' didn't think about when giving into their personal (or professional) instincts.

I dare say nobody likes the notion that any portion of our society has devolved to the point that they are willing to prey on our children. However, if they're online, then they're on the outside (of prison), which means they've paid their debt to society. This in turn means that they (once again) have the same civil liberties that you and I do (although probably somewhat diminished by persistent court orders regarding the offender's PHYSICAL proximity to the class of their prior victims). Otherwise, they're entitled to the same protections as the rest of us, including your children.

As a professional in the information security industry, I walk this line nearly everyday; the line between the interests of the individual and those with the power to abuse it; between those who flagrantly ignore our social norms and those who are tasked to insure normalcy. As the Valerie Plame case has recently revealed, far too many people in positions of authority wield it with enormous impunity.

If people wish to be concerned about something, then perhaps they might consider the cavalier attitude of law makers (as seen above) at circumventing the laws that supposedly apply to them as well. I'd bet that that most attorneys wouldn't care to be openly subject to the sterotypical perceptions about attorneys, even though a great many of them are fine examples of what attorneys should always have been. If that were the case, I suspect we'd likely have a lot fewer lawyers these days.

Granted, having one's own privacy violated is far easier to endure than having one's child violated, I agree. But violating a sex offender's right to privacy as a citizen restored will not prevent them from violating your child. If you're so inclined to condemn the Internet as a haven for predators, then I suggest you go outside right now, and whack down all the bushes in your neighborhood becuase they might afford a predator a place to obscure themselves. Trust me, our world would become a rather barren place.

It is not our government's job to raise our children for us, nor is it MySpace's responsibility to do the government's research work for them (on the cheap, I might add, since background checks are not free). Far too many lazy and/or overworked parents have abdicated that responsibility at a great cost to everyone's civil liberties thus far.

We each should endeavor to remember that those same laws which were created to protect 'you from me' are already working overtime to protect us from ourselves. It's time to stand up, speak out, and protect our rights. Even if it means protecting those of others you can't abide. And when you do, you'll be preserving the rights of those children you're so worried about as well.

Thousands of immigration marchers rally across U.S. - CNN.com

Flags are funny things. As an icon of a nation state, they are meant to represent the identity of that nation in a tangible form, proudly conveying the personality of that state, and over time becoming synonymous with its values and history. And none are more omnipresent throughout the world than America's own stars and bars.

I was standing in a ground floor lounge of my university when the protest march came down Jackson Blvd. here in Chicago. The room has windows that run from about waist height to the vaulted ceilg some fifteen or twenty feet above me, designed to give the occupant a sense of openness. Nevertheless, the sea of protestors filled the street, overflowing the curbs had the unnerving effect of making me feel like I was truly 'in the midst' of this march. From the relative safety of this vantage point, I could see almost everyone who passed our windows. Some whites or perhaps more accurately, caucasions (how does one distinguish between the numerous 'white' races of Europe?), but mostly hispanics.

I was struck by the number of people who were waving or carrying the American flag. But more importantly, I was struck by how I felt about that observation. For those I perceived as latinos, I found myself wondering where these flags would be in three days time?

Chicago's demographics reflect an enormous and ethnically diverse population, a significant portion of them of latino descent. And often times, on the various and sundry holidays of their native community, you can see many youths (latino and others, but largely latino) racing up and down the boulevards, proudly (almost defiantly) flying the flag of their homeland. And yet, these are quite possibly the same people who are now marching down Jackson claiming the protection of the American flag.

But where is the American flag in their daily American lives? Why do I so seldom see an American flag flying from a house or on a car in this community unless its somehow meant to conveniently demonstrate what comes off as a passing loyalty. Why is it that so many come to this country looking for something better, only to try to recreate what they left, here? I recognize a desire to preserve one's heritage, but can so many honestly believe that a choice to move to another country for a better life wouldn't mean leaving some (or much) of what they were trying to get away from, behind?

Modern sociologists often claim the term 'melting pot' is outdated, preferring pluralism to assimilation, advocating multiculturalism in its stead, especially with regards to America immigration. I don't claim to know which may be 'more right'. But 'convenient patriotism' is something I've no stomach for.

Vista's legal fine print raises red flags - TheStar

When Microsoft introduced Windows 95 more than a decade ago, it adopted the Rolling Stones "Start Me Up" as its theme song. As millions of consumers contemplate the company's latest upgrade, the legal and technological restrictions may leave them singing "You Can't Always Get What You Want."

Read on...