I've been waaay busy to blog, but now I've got a tech blog on my jobs website, and with the election year here, what self respecting blogger with political opinions could resist? This is destined to be either one of the most entertaining presidential campaigns ever, or the biggest snorefest since I don't know when. But in case it's the former, I have to take part. So look for me to start commenting on candidates in the next week or so. And I won't forget current events. See ya soon.
Geradin
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Saturday, September 23, 2006
The more things change...
The more they stay the same. Throughout this war we've heard administration officials saying that the U.S. is not violating the Geneva conventions. And we've seen over and over again that its just not true. Time and again the U.S. has been caught mistreating prisoners of war. U.S. troops have been caught performing atrocities AGAINST THE PEOPLE WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE LIBERATING!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't get me wrong. I think it's great that we are putting our commitment to upholding the Geneva conventions in writing. But it was already in writing, and we were not abiding by those laws. In order to protect officials who had broken that law a clause was added guaranteeing they would not be prosecuted. It's another example of the administration saying, "We are on a mission from God and anything we do is justified." That attitude is a large part of the problem, both with our troops and with our sagging relationship with many (most?) of our allies.
What is the answer? If he would listen to some of the people outside his circle of "yes men" he might begin to look beyond what he wants to the consequences of what he does. Unfortunately, President Bush seems immune to criticism. That's a hazard in people who consider themselves to be on missions from God, but George W. is in a position to do serious harm, more harm than almost anyone else in the world. And at the moment, it looks like he is pushing the Muslim world into war with the western world in general, but most especially with the U.S.
President Bush, please start considering the long term consequences of your actions, and find some advisors who are willing to disagree with the group.
Don't get me wrong. I think it's great that we are putting our commitment to upholding the Geneva conventions in writing. But it was already in writing, and we were not abiding by those laws. In order to protect officials who had broken that law a clause was added guaranteeing they would not be prosecuted. It's another example of the administration saying, "We are on a mission from God and anything we do is justified." That attitude is a large part of the problem, both with our troops and with our sagging relationship with many (most?) of our allies.
What is the answer? If he would listen to some of the people outside his circle of "yes men" he might begin to look beyond what he wants to the consequences of what he does. Unfortunately, President Bush seems immune to criticism. That's a hazard in people who consider themselves to be on missions from God, but George W. is in a position to do serious harm, more harm than almost anyone else in the world. And at the moment, it looks like he is pushing the Muslim world into war with the western world in general, but most especially with the U.S.
President Bush, please start considering the long term consequences of your actions, and find some advisors who are willing to disagree with the group.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
WIC Realizes Times Change
Gov't adds fruits, veggies to WIC list - Yahoo! News
Wow, it only took 1/4 century for them to notice that knowledge has advanced, and their food list is woefully out of date. But instead of adding to the food list, they are substituting the fruits and vegetables for portions of the foods already provided...while that is a step in the right direction, it isn't ideal. Low income families could use much more help. I'm glad we're helping those in need, but can't we do more?
Wow, it only took 1/4 century for them to notice that knowledge has advanced, and their food list is woefully out of date. But instead of adding to the food list, they are substituting the fruits and vegetables for portions of the foods already provided...while that is a step in the right direction, it isn't ideal. Low income families could use much more help. I'm glad we're helping those in need, but can't we do more?
Blogged with Flock
Monday, July 24, 2006
A problem? I'm not so sure.
Newsvine - Group Decries Bush's Law Interpretations
The American Bar Association is issuing a report denouncing president Bushes exceptions. Exceptions are comments written by the president explaining his perceptions about the law he is signing. The problem the ABA has is that not only does president Bush write more of them than any other president, he uses them as policy statements explaining why he may choose to ignore them at some later date. He's not the first to do that, just the most prolific about it.
The ABA sees this as a problem. Personally, I see it as potentially the most important writing this president does. I voted for Bush. The first time because I believed in The second time because I thought (and still do) that the other guy would be worse. But that doesn't mean I believe President Bush has done everything right or that he can do no wrong. I believe he has made many mistakes and is leading this country into a dictatorship. His exceptions to laws he signs can provide insight into what his future plans are.
Either he doesn't realize what he's doing, or he thinks it's his God given duty to take us away from the Republic our forefathers created. It doesn't matter which. What does matter is that he is doing things that are infringing on our personal rights, and is going to keep on removing personal freedoms until he is out of office. President Bushes law interpretations provide a window to see what he is thinking when it comes to the law, the government and the citizens. That is important for those of us who are as concerned about personal freedom as we are about preventing another WTC bombing.
Blogged with Flock
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Didn't we just go through this?
"Hunter, in opening remarks at the hearing, suggested that Congress must not grant detainees access to the military's courts-martial system, which would afford them certain rights, such as immediately being informed of charges against them and immediate access to legal counsel."
From: CNN.com - House chairman: Pentagon must remain tough on terror suspects - Jul 12, 2006
What a concept. Suspected criminals should know what they are accused of. Barely a week after a judge threw out 2/3 of SCO's lawsuit against IBM because SCO would not tell IBM what they had done wrong (comparing it to telling a shoplifter at Macy's, "I'm not telling you because you know what you stole"), a US congressman is saying that suspected terrorists don't deserve the basic rights that any judicial system founded on the premise of "innocent until proven guilty" should give any suspect. I don't remember congressmen saying Timothy McVeigh shouldn't be told what he was accused of, or that he shouldn't get a speedy and fair trial.
I don't care what we suspect them of, these people deserve to be treated as human until they've been proven guilty. That is a basic part of the US legal system and cannot be ignored if we are to be true to ourselves and the ideals we claim to believe in.
Blogged with Flock
Does the president have new clothes?
US to comply with Geneva Conventions - Yahoo! News
After 5 years of pressure at home and abroad President Bush and his administration finally realized that there is no good that can come of their chosen policy towards suspected terrorist detainees. After the defeat in the Supreme Court last week they have finally admitted that the detainees are prisoners of war...well, not exactly. They've admitted that they have to take the prisoners out of limbo and are treating them according to the rules established by the Geneva conventions.
So what does it take to convince our president that he was wrong? Apparently getting it pounded into his head by most of the free world, a majority of the US citizenry, and last, but not least, the US Supreme Court. If nothing else, you have to give the President credit for sticking to his guns.
One thing that concerns me is President Bush's public persona as a sincere Christian. I believe in God, and I believe we have God given responsibilities, but a lot of what I see George Bush doing does not appear very Christ-like. Granted that the leader of a nation cannot "turn the other cheek" to terrorists, it seems that a leader who makes his faith such an important part of his public persona should strive to treat all people as Christ would treat them. That means that you only go to war when it is the last possible option. When at war you make it clear to the generals and admirals that all prisoners will be treated with dignity and respect, and make sure that they pass it down to all the soldiers under them. And when soldiers do commit attrocities (if the war is very long it will happen) they should be dealt with quickly. Fairly, but quickly. None of that has occurred in the war in Iraq, and that should concern all of us.
Blogged with Flock
Monday, July 10, 2006
Is our society sick?
Two college football players are accused of raping an 11 year old. 7 others may have been involved. The circumstances described indicate she was not willing. The 7 other players told a lawyer she was tall and appeared older. So? She ran out of the apartment and grabbed a couple off the street for help. That is not in the definition of consenting, it doesn't matter how old you are. I have to reserve judgement until more details are available, but it sounds like an excuse made to get out of trouble.
Blogged with Flock
With friends like these...
Once again the U.S. military has put it's worst foot forward. And the reason it keeps happening is becoming clearer with each incident. These are a few of the reasons I see for our militaries continuing failure to treat the citizens of Iraq as people:
1. As United States citizens, many soldiers already believe deep down that they are better than any one who is not from the United States
2. Our countries leadership, with its belief that it is our God given duty to protect the world from itself, strengthen that belief.
3. The agreements that were made with Iraq that exempts U.S. military from Iraq law gives an impression that US soldiers are above the law.
These are not the only factors, perhaps not even major factors, but the fact is that 4 soldiers are believed to have raped a fourteen year old girl and killed her and her family. A fifth soldier was either aware of the crime or a witness and didn't report it. These men should be handed over to the Iraqi government and made to face whatever punishment Islamic law requires. Yes, I said Islamic law, not Iraq law. I'm sure that the government we put in place has much nicer, more humane punishments than the law of Islam. And I do not believe that such horrific crime deserves humane punishment. It deserves punishment as violent and sadistic as the crime itself.
The situation in Iraq has become so bad that a doctor whose estimate of the girls age differed from that of the official report would not give his name for fear of reprisal from the military. We are supposed to be there helping the people. Somewhere someone has made terrible mistakes, and we are becoming as bad as the fiend we removed.
Remaining in Iraq is no longer a matter of only being there until the government is ready to control the country. It is now a matter of getting out before we make it impossible for them to.
If you haven't heard this story, here is a link:
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Just touching base
There's been so much going on in the world and I've been so busy it's been tough to find time to breath. Immigration issues, the war in Iraq, Irans Nuclear program, Mac's almost all running Intel processors, and much turmoil on the religious front.
Can you say "Da Vinci Code"?
And then I had a very convincing false heart attack. Cat Scan, Angiogram, and no problems with my heart found. No high blood pressure, blocked arteries, or even gas. What happened? We may never know.
But look for me to be back and regularly posting soon.
Can you say "Da Vinci Code"?
And then I had a very convincing false heart attack. Cat Scan, Angiogram, and no problems with my heart found. No high blood pressure, blocked arteries, or even gas. What happened? We may never know.
But look for me to be back and regularly posting soon.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Why is $1.99 too little for TV episodes?
You have to wonder what the executives at CBS and NBC are thinking. Shoot, even what they're thinking at ABC. On Amazon.com the first season of "Desparate Housewives" costs about $39 U.S. dollars, or about $1.69 per episode (less if you include special features in the cost). Apple charges $1.99 per low res episode that only looks good in a small window on your computer, or on an iPod screen. It's an easy bet that the anyone who buys the iTunes episode will eventually want to watch it on their TV. Even if someone breaks the DRM and makes it possible to burn the episodes to DVD the picture will be almost unviewable on a TV screen. Which means they will have to buy the DVD set for a decent picture. And if they're a real fan, they'll want the DVD for the extra features, too. That means the network gets to make money three times per episode (not counting syndication): Original airing, iPod version, DVD version.
Add to that the fact that the iTunes version lacks cost of pressing DVD's and distributing them and 1,000,000 videos have sold in 20 days, and putting episodes on iTunes seems like a no-brainer. Of course, network executives haven't always been noted for their intelligence.
Add to that the fact that the iTunes version lacks cost of pressing DVD's and distributing them and 1,000,000 videos have sold in 20 days, and putting episodes on iTunes seems like a no-brainer. Of course, network executives haven't always been noted for their intelligence.
Friday, September 09, 2005
The aftermath of hurricane Katrina
It's tempting to go into a lengthy description of the events that started just before Katrina hit land and will continue into the foreseeable future. But anyone reading this now is aware of most of them. Anyone reading it in the future should have no trouble finding detailed accounts of them. So I will hold fast to my main purpose, putting my thoughts, hopes, and fears regarding the controversies surrounding the governments action, or some would say inaction, after Katrina hit land.
The whole situation was poorly handled, yet reading the Wikipedia article on the situation in New Orleans before and after Katrina hit, I don't know that anyone would have done better. Most of the problems were actually years, and maybe even decades in the making. Levies and retaining walls that should have been updated and reinforced long ago. Disaster plans that failed to accurately assess the results of a category 4 (or 5) hurricane and officials who failed to fully appreciate the number of policemen and soldiers or the number of relief workers necessary to keep order and assist victims following a disaster of such proportion. I'm glad that, after doing some quick research beyond Wikipedia, it appears to me that the delays and problems were much more likely due to poor planning and a failure to understand the likely result of Katrina hitting New Orleans than to an actual racist attitude pervading the government. But the fact remains that the majority of the victims were black, and it's not very far to leap to see a racist agenda in the handling of Katrina.
Why is it that in a time of disaster, a time when we should be pulling together more than any other, we are purposely wasting energy perpetuating racist stereotypes that we all know are not true? Why, instead of attacking the president, aren't we encouraging him to take action, and taking action ourselves? Why are we looking for reasons to hate each other almost as hard as we are trying to help the victims of Katrina? Yes, the situation was handled horribly. Yes, most of the victims were black. But in my heart of hearts I hope and pray that what I feel to be true really is. This entire horror of a rescue effort was a result of poor planning, not racism. That difference may not matter to those who died, but it is direly important for those who survived.
Forget race. Love people.
The whole situation was poorly handled, yet reading the Wikipedia article on the situation in New Orleans before and after Katrina hit, I don't know that anyone would have done better. Most of the problems were actually years, and maybe even decades in the making. Levies and retaining walls that should have been updated and reinforced long ago. Disaster plans that failed to accurately assess the results of a category 4 (or 5) hurricane and officials who failed to fully appreciate the number of policemen and soldiers or the number of relief workers necessary to keep order and assist victims following a disaster of such proportion. I'm glad that, after doing some quick research beyond Wikipedia, it appears to me that the delays and problems were much more likely due to poor planning and a failure to understand the likely result of Katrina hitting New Orleans than to an actual racist attitude pervading the government. But the fact remains that the majority of the victims were black, and it's not very far to leap to see a racist agenda in the handling of Katrina.
Why is it that in a time of disaster, a time when we should be pulling together more than any other, we are purposely wasting energy perpetuating racist stereotypes that we all know are not true? Why, instead of attacking the president, aren't we encouraging him to take action, and taking action ourselves? Why are we looking for reasons to hate each other almost as hard as we are trying to help the victims of Katrina? Yes, the situation was handled horribly. Yes, most of the victims were black. But in my heart of hearts I hope and pray that what I feel to be true really is. This entire horror of a rescue effort was a result of poor planning, not racism. That difference may not matter to those who died, but it is direly important for those who survived.
Forget race. Love people.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Intel on Mac
It's amazing the things that have changed in just the last 48 hours when it comes to computing. Apple has finally done what pundits and users have begged for for years and years. They're dumping IBM and embracing Intel. What does that mean? Maybe not much, when it comes to the average user. Since they've licensed a technology they are calling Rosetta which will allow Intel based Mac's to run PowerPC based code seamlessly the change will be as painless (or even more painless) than the transition from OS 9 to OS X. For developers it means more work, but from the buzz I've seen from developers at the Apple WWDC who have had the opportunity to play with an Intel based Mac it won't be nearly as bad as they feared. Many things will just recompile, but even those that will require non-trivial conversions will be much, much easier than first expected.
So should I scrap my plans to buy a new Mac in the next few months? Nah. The PowerPC's will be supported through at least one more iteration of the OS, and developers will probably be developing for them at least that long. But I can't wait to get my hands on an Intel Mac Powerbook running at 4.7GHz - with a dual core processor. :)
So should I scrap my plans to buy a new Mac in the next few months? Nah. The PowerPC's will be supported through at least one more iteration of the OS, and developers will probably be developing for them at least that long. But I can't wait to get my hands on an Intel Mac Powerbook running at 4.7GHz - with a dual core processor. :)
Friday, June 03, 2005
Human rights
It's been a busy time for me, but not as busy as it has been for Amnesty International and others looking to further damage the US military's credibility. As if they needed help. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay are dark spots on the US image, both at home and abroad. I'm enough of a patriot to question the conclusions of AI - not that agreeing with them makes you less a patriot than I - but I have to admit that there are some good points being made against the treatment of the "detainees" at Guantanamo Bay.
Are they military prisoners? No? Then they must be afforded the same legal rights as any other non-US citizen suspected of committing a crime in or against the US. Of course, if they are military prisoners, they must be accorded all the rights given to them by the Geneva Convention. There is no middle-ground. This isn't multiple choice. Either they are, or they aren't, prisoners of war.
Even in the current Limbo they are being kept in, there are basic elements of decency that must be adhered to if we want anyone to believe we are the "guardians of democracy." Respect, both for the person and their beliefs, is paramount. Without it we can claim no superiority, no greater righteousness, than the cowards who flew planes into the World Trade Center. Nor can we claim to anywhere near equal the courage and righteousness of the passengers who fought the terrorists, causing them to crash the plane, or the Iraqi citizens facing assassination by suicide bomber to vote, or to become a part of the Iraqi police force or military. Every day these people risk their lives to help us bring them to autonomy, and we repay them by doing stupid things that add fuel to the fire of the religious zealots seeking to kill them and drive us out of the country.
It's time to take whatever action you are able. If you've never written your senator or representative, now is a good time to start. We can make a difference by letting our elected officials know how we feel. Write them, tell them what you think of our treatment of "detainees" Write the president. Don't let the politicians lay blame at the feet of the military, pretending to have no say in what the military does. The military is under the government, and the government must control the military. Don't let either of them forget it. Human lives are hanging in the balance, on both sides of this war on terror.
Are they military prisoners? No? Then they must be afforded the same legal rights as any other non-US citizen suspected of committing a crime in or against the US. Of course, if they are military prisoners, they must be accorded all the rights given to them by the Geneva Convention. There is no middle-ground. This isn't multiple choice. Either they are, or they aren't, prisoners of war.
Even in the current Limbo they are being kept in, there are basic elements of decency that must be adhered to if we want anyone to believe we are the "guardians of democracy." Respect, both for the person and their beliefs, is paramount. Without it we can claim no superiority, no greater righteousness, than the cowards who flew planes into the World Trade Center. Nor can we claim to anywhere near equal the courage and righteousness of the passengers who fought the terrorists, causing them to crash the plane, or the Iraqi citizens facing assassination by suicide bomber to vote, or to become a part of the Iraqi police force or military. Every day these people risk their lives to help us bring them to autonomy, and we repay them by doing stupid things that add fuel to the fire of the religious zealots seeking to kill them and drive us out of the country.
It's time to take whatever action you are able. If you've never written your senator or representative, now is a good time to start. We can make a difference by letting our elected officials know how we feel. Write them, tell them what you think of our treatment of "detainees" Write the president. Don't let the politicians lay blame at the feet of the military, pretending to have no say in what the military does. The military is under the government, and the government must control the military. Don't let either of them forget it. Human lives are hanging in the balance, on both sides of this war on terror.
Friday, May 06, 2005
The game's the thing
Illinois may soon institute state ratings for video games to protect younger players from inappropriate material. Game industry pacs are calling it an infringement of 1st amendment free speech. I call it a good idea - if parents want their children to play the latest Grand Theft Auto, that is their choice, whether or not I agree with it. But a 10 year old shouldn't be able to walk into the local game store and pick it up. Requiring an adult to be the actual purchaser of the game is not a problem. A free speech issue it isn't, and won't be unless adults are prevented from purchasing the game - and it might not be one, then.
Free speech is not carte blanche to say and do whatever you want, it is your right to tell the government what you think about it without being thrown in jail, tortured, and/or executed. It is your right to voice your opinion. It's not a right to say anything that comes into your head. Ever heard of slander and libel? How about the laws (upheld as constitutional by the courts, IIRC) that prevent you from shouting fire in a crowded movie theater? To claim that any and all communication is constitutionally protected goes against reason, logic, and 200 years of precedent.
What would make a game like Grand Theft Auto or the upcoming "The Warriors" protected? Are they social commentary? Not that I can tell - but others may prove me wrong. Are they politically or socially inciteful? Again, I don't see it. But they do make money. By the truckload. Should that be a consideration when deciding what is protected speech? I don't think so.
Free speech is not carte blanche to say and do whatever you want, it is your right to tell the government what you think about it without being thrown in jail, tortured, and/or executed. It is your right to voice your opinion. It's not a right to say anything that comes into your head. Ever heard of slander and libel? How about the laws (upheld as constitutional by the courts, IIRC) that prevent you from shouting fire in a crowded movie theater? To claim that any and all communication is constitutionally protected goes against reason, logic, and 200 years of precedent.
What would make a game like Grand Theft Auto or the upcoming "The Warriors" protected? Are they social commentary? Not that I can tell - but others may prove me wrong. Are they politically or socially inciteful? Again, I don't see it. But they do make money. By the truckload. Should that be a consideration when deciding what is protected speech? I don't think so.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Sometimes privacy IS less important
Police in Toronto have begun to release photos related to a case of sexual abuse of a young girl. She was used for pornographic pictures, and the police had no more clues to follow. It didn't take long for a number of people to recognize a Walt Disney World hotel in Florida, and now they are releasing a photo of a young girl who was not abused, but is sitting on a couch apparently used for the other photos. I hope they find the girl and her abuser, and I applaud the police for this bold step. I do not want my personal information and image, or those of my family, published far and wide for anyone, but if it were my daughter, I might allow her picture to be shown. How many other girls might be saved if my daughter's picture led to the capture of a sexual predator? I would have to consider it if I were in that position.
I am not saying the parents of this little girl should release her picture, only that they should consider it. And I would not blame them one bit if they didn't. Releasing it could have serious repercussions for them, and especially for her. It's not an action to be taken lightly, if at all.
In this world of ever-present information on ourselves and others, I hope we can always recognize that there is a time when privacy comes second - and I hope lawmakers will know and understand that it is up to the individual to decide when that time is.
I am not saying the parents of this little girl should release her picture, only that they should consider it. And I would not blame them one bit if they didn't. Releasing it could have serious repercussions for them, and especially for her. It's not an action to be taken lightly, if at all.
In this world of ever-present information on ourselves and others, I hope we can always recognize that there is a time when privacy comes second - and I hope lawmakers will know and understand that it is up to the individual to decide when that time is.
Friday, April 22, 2005
So you call yourself Catholic
It amazes me that so many U.S. Catholics feel that they can disagree with the Pope on just about everything, and still be Catholic. I was raised Catholic, and I know that the Popes rarely issues infallible decrees - but come on people! If you don't want to follow the Pope's less than infallible decrees, become Presbyterian (Anglican for our friends in Great Britain). It's Pope free Catholicism. If you really feel a need to have a Pope, you're sort of stuck with Papal decrees. So decide how you really feel, and act on it. Don't just sit there and moan because you don't like the way the Church wants you to live your life.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Iraq, do any of us understand?
I was using my "Stumble Upon" extension for Firefox to find new and interesting sites to read and bookmark when I stumbled across http://bushflash.com, a decidedly anti-Bush site. Most of his problems with President Bush have to do with the war in Iraq. The problems he has are legit, for the most part, but he seems unwilling to look at any viewpoint other than his own.
Sure, Bush's cronies are taking full advantage of the profit opportunities brought out by the war, but one purpose of the war that is largely ignored by everyone (perhaps purposely) is the need to keep terrorists out of the country. In that goal, the Iraqi war has been a huge success. Instead of terrorists planning the importation and detonation of a 'dirty bomb,' they are going to Iraq to push out the American soldiers. This is a rather cold blooded approach, since it guarantees you will lose soldiers and civilians and directs violence and mayhem away from
us to another country, but it has been effective so far.
Many things about this war are wrong, and I applaud sites like bushflash.com for keeping an eye on things. But we need to remember that there are also valid reasons to take war to Iraq. We have the option to join battle with terrorists on our turf or somebody elses. Self serving and cruel as it may sound, it is almost always better to fight on somebody elses turf. It focuses atention there instead of here.
And when it comes to terrorism, I would much rather they be there, if at all possible
Sure, Bush's cronies are taking full advantage of the profit opportunities brought out by the war, but one purpose of the war that is largely ignored by everyone (perhaps purposely) is the need to keep terrorists out of the country. In that goal, the Iraqi war has been a huge success. Instead of terrorists planning the importation and detonation of a 'dirty bomb,' they are going to Iraq to push out the American soldiers. This is a rather cold blooded approach, since it guarantees you will lose soldiers and civilians and directs violence and mayhem away from
us to another country, but it has been effective so far.
Many things about this war are wrong, and I applaud sites like bushflash.com for keeping an eye on things. But we need to remember that there are also valid reasons to take war to Iraq. We have the option to join battle with terrorists on our turf or somebody elses. Self serving and cruel as it may sound, it is almost always better to fight on somebody elses turf. It focuses atention there instead of here.
And when it comes to terrorism, I would much rather they be there, if at all possible
Saturday, April 16, 2005
The beginning
Not much to say in the beginning. I'll be posting random thoughts on random things, from computers to politics to religion to whatever.
One thing that's bothering me, though:
How can congress pass bankruptcy reform that does not allow expenses charged to you by identity thieves to be dismissed? Then two days later "congress turns attention to identity theft." Yeah, some attention. Leave your constituents roasting over a slow fire, then pretend to care by talking about the problem you chose to ignore. Show some balls - make the credit card companies tighten the requirements to get a credit card and show corporations that having Swiss cheese security guarding customers data will not be tolerated. Hold them liable for at least a portion of debt incurred due to identity theft made possible by lack-luster security. Let victims of identity theft at least be relieved of a significant (say at least 50%) portion of the debt the thief gifted them with.
Corporations are not part of our governmental system, or at least they're not supposed to be. Don't let them run the country, because what is best for them and what is best for the country is not necessarily the same.
Well, I guess I did have something to say after all.
Later
One thing that's bothering me, though:
How can congress pass bankruptcy reform that does not allow expenses charged to you by identity thieves to be dismissed? Then two days later "congress turns attention to identity theft." Yeah, some attention. Leave your constituents roasting over a slow fire, then pretend to care by talking about the problem you chose to ignore. Show some balls - make the credit card companies tighten the requirements to get a credit card and show corporations that having Swiss cheese security guarding customers data will not be tolerated. Hold them liable for at least a portion of debt incurred due to identity theft made possible by lack-luster security. Let victims of identity theft at least be relieved of a significant (say at least 50%) portion of the debt the thief gifted them with.
Corporations are not part of our governmental system, or at least they're not supposed to be. Don't let them run the country, because what is best for them and what is best for the country is not necessarily the same.
Well, I guess I did have something to say after all.
Later
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)