Wow. Just Wow.

So - It's been almost four years since I (apparently) had anything to say here. But the events of the last 24 hours have been historic, and warrant critical observation.

For background, I am a white male, formerly from Kentucky (now living in Virginia), 55 years old. I am a veteran, married to a a disabled spouse, renting rather than owning at the moment, with extensive student loan debt, and not a lot of disposable assets, trying to purchase a home, and by all indications, will have to work until I am 72 in order to afford to retire (especially sitting on a 30-year mortgage). Based upon the turnout for the victor of the electoral college vote, you'd think I'd be a happy camper. 

However, the other side of the coin presents that I am also a defense contractor with a Master's degree in Cyber-related disciplines, two cars and a motorcycle, a truck and another motorcycle (I inherited on the passing of my last sibling), and a trailer for my sometime hobby. From this perspective, life doesn't appear to suck too much. But last night's election results will likely change that last bit for me, considerably. Both personally, and professionally.

President-Elect Trump, soon to be the Entertainer-in-Chief, has sold the White American Underclass a bill of goods. And they swallowed it, hook, line and sinker. Make America Great Again. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs. And be afraid of those who are different (immigrants, especially Muslims). All illegal aliens are criminals (while an accurate statement from an immigration point-of-view, Trump's POV is that they're all drug-addled or drug-dealing felons who will steal your jobs, rape your sons and seduce your daughters). This all made for a very acrimonious campaign cycle.

The fact is, industrial jobs that went overseas aren't coming back. He/We can't change the tax laws enough to offset the value of cheap labor in foreign markets. Even if we could cajole American firms to bring back their offshore capital, it will just be to marginally support the consumer economy we have become. He/We can't reinvent the American manufacturing sector because manufacturing requires raw materials that we've pretty much spent. If you look at a map of the world of raw materials, the majority of cheap Iron is coming from Chinese-run, coal-fired forges (the U.S. is 8th in production of Iron/Steel). China produces 32 times the Iron we produce in the U.S. And 91% of the rare earth minerals used to enable the technological wonders of Silicon Valley are mined in China. Importing those materials to the U.S. to reinvigorate a 2nd generation industrial complex and the manufacturing sectors would require end product pricing that simply will not enable us to be competitive in world markets. And even if we're not exporting, then we'd saturate the U.S. market with our own non-tariffed products in pretty short order, if we could even afford to buy them with our rapidly diminishing wages. Our products are coal and oil, two things we can readily sell abroad (or use to continue diminishing our dependence on foreign influence; but if we are buying our own rhetoric about global warming, probably shouldn't.

So - Cars, Appliances, Steel for construction of buildings and infrastructure: Largely gone for good. Coal, bad idea. Being from Kentucky, I get it. But it is a losing proposition. You can't make mining it safe, and the use of it sets the planet on a path to self-annihilation. Oil? It's like sitting at the casino table too long. It's a long-term gamble that won't pay off in the end, because all it does is buy time to a conclusion that won't come out in our favor. The rest of the world will sit quietly until we run out, then we're stuck. And again, it also keeps us (all) on that global path to environmental doom. These are not answers. They're desperate, cloying attempts to recapture the global dominance which, in our shortsightedness, slipped our grasp.

As for the social issues that Trump has brought to the fore, while I agree that the path to citizenship should not be amnesty for those who have already broken our existing immigration laws, I do not believe that everyone who comes to our shores is here simply to take from others, lower our standards of living, or threaten our way of life (whatever that has become these days). Given the size of the Muslim cohort, I do believe that there is some 'Six-degrees of separation' between many Muslims and those Muslims who mean to do us harm. However, I do not believe that every Muslim who has immigrated to America (or converted; don't forget, there are many who have) is an inherent threat to our country, or personally knows someone who is. Yes, we should be more diligent, do a better job at screening on both ends of the pipeline into our country. Yes, we should be deporting illegal aliens based upon violent or drug-related criminal records (here or in their home country). But building a wall will be a ridiculous expense we can ill afford when we cannot yet care for our own.

And while we do possess great military might, we are not Rome, nor is Trump an Alexander the Great. Our allies as well as many of those unfriendly to the U.S. have all amassed armaments sufficient to keep anyone with a shred of wisdom at bay. The days of Empire building are over. And if we retreat or pivot back to an isolationist policy, I doubt we will ever find ourselves enjoying the role of sole superpower of this world ever again, unless we foolishly choose (or provoke) a return to the dark ages and start over.

Personally, last night's political victory for the unwashed white minority feels more like a splenetic hemorrhage by those simply unable to engage the world as it has become, for better or worse.
Trump has knowingly set the under-educated, under-employed segment of white America on itself (and everyone else), turning us into the proverbial 'Crab Bucket'.

Facebook sells stake in business - BBC.co.uk

Facebook has sold a 1.96% stake for $200m (£126m) to a Russian internet firm, a move that values the social networking website at $10bn. Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg said he had been impressed by Digital Sky Technology's (DST) "impressive growth and financial achievements".

I understand the needs of capitalization, but this move is a foolhardy one on the part of a significant presence in the social-internet scene. Along with China, Russia and other Eastern-bloc countries are a primary source of SPAM, Malware and *targeted* data-mining attacks against western (read: U.S.) citizens and business interests. Where better to obtain e-mails and inside target info than the world's largest social network? And how better than to buy one's way in?

I would love to be wrong, but I'm going on the record here and now and forecast a significant uptick in Russian-originated SPAM and spear-phishing within the next 18-24 months, predicated primarily upon this imprudent transaction. Any previous advice to be vigilant about confidential information in public profiles is to be redoubled.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

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:

The new Cold War - IHT.com

"The next American president will inherit many foreign policy challenges, but surely one of the biggest will be the Cold War. Yes, the next U.S. president is going to be a Cold War president - but this Cold War is with Iran.

"For now, Team America is losing on just about every front. How come? The short answer is that Iran is smart and ruthless, America is dumb and weak, and the Sunni Arab world is feckless and divided. Any other questions?"

Sadly, this is all too true. Obama wants to talk, and Clinton doesn't. And as the author rightly points out, talking (or not) is best done from a position of power or leverage (something we have neither of at the moment). And without it, the only way to get some of either is to either give up something we don't care to, or exercise options we don't care to. Neither are particularly enticing options at this moment in time.

Sadly, Obama seems more likely to be the one to give ground on the Middle East than Clinton. And with Syria and Iran in cahoots with Hezbollah to subvert Lebanon, and with the U.S. already being "not liked, not feared and not respected," giving ground doesn't really seem to be a profitable option. I mean, really? What's to be gained?

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',

A Tsar Is Born: Putin - TIME Man of the Year

"Stalin's ghost appears to Putin in a dream, and Putin asks for his help running the country. Stalin says, 'Round up and shoot all the democrats, and then paint the inside of the Kremlin blue.' 'Why blue?' Putin asks. 'Ha!' says Stalin. 'I knew you wouldn't ask me about the first part.'"

"...just as Yeltsin rewarded Putin for his loyalty, now Putin is doing the same for his anointed successor, Medvedev. There is already a new Putin joke: Putin goes to a restaurant with Medvedev and orders a steak. The waiter asks, "And what about the vegetable?" Putin answers, "The vegetable will have steak too."

Time claims that their Man of the Year designation is not an honor or an award, yet their writeup of their interview with Putin goes far to present him in admirable light. I agree that Russia has never seen better times, and Yeltsin and Gorbachev were both miserable failures upon the global stage, but despots are still despots. You decide.

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.

Indian PM says tough talk ahead on U.S. nuclear deal - Boston.com

Manmohan Singh said India would not be bound by "extraneous" conditions attached to the deal when it was passed by the U.S. Congress this month, rejecting efforts to constrain New Delhi's policy toward Iran or its own nuclear weapons program.
...
"India will find it difficult to and cannot accept any such conditions beyond those already agreed to in the understandings with the United States," he told parliament in a debate.
...
Singh said the law reflected India's arrival on the world stage "as a power to be reckoned with."
...
Experts say India has already produced about 50 nuclear weapons and plans to reach up to 400 in a decade. Many fear selling India fuel for civilian energy use will free up New Delhi's indigenous uranium stocks for weapons.

Hmm... I was also saying that India already had enough resources to handle their civilian energy problem themselves, if they weren't so busy diverting it to weapons use. Now, we've just made that more feasable.

USATODAY.com - Chirac to announce decision on disputed labor law

"The crisis has wrecked government ties with unions, and made labor leaders unusually united. It has radicalized youths, heightening already widespread fears about globalization and reviving suspicions about bosses and capitalism - possibly causing a long-lasting setback for the cause of reform."

Hmm... So it seems I'm not the only one who's concerned about jobs leaving the country, or being taken by underpaid foreign nationals. Granted, I think I'd fight too, if I'd grown up in a system that pretty much guaranteed me a job to retire from. However, its a terribly fine line to tread between corporate protectionism (given the ability to fire anyone under a certain age without explanation or cause), likely to foster more churning at the lower age brackets; and endeavoring to stimulate the employment sectors.

Ah, capitalism at its finest.