Category: Politics

Cybersecurity Bill Too Vague?

ssegraves

In most American households the internet has quickly become the source of news, information, and in some cases, communication. So, the bill introduced by John Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat and Republican Olympia Snowe from Maine is surprising because it gives the ultimate authority over the U.S. internet infrastructure to the President, allowing him to turn off access if need be. There is certainly a need for control when a virus or DDoS attack threatens government systems but the vague language of the bill appears to give more control than necessary.

The purpose of a Denial of Service attack is to take a website down by overwhelming it with [fake] traffic. If the government’s intent is to prevent such take downs by simply unplugging the website, then they are fulfilling the goal of the attack, even if it is by proxy. Sure, there are other reasons to take a site or portion of the internet down, as in the case of viruses being programmed to steal important data off of government machines, but the take down should be limited in scope. By painting with a wide brush the writer’s of this bill have given too much power to a single person, rather than focusing on addressing threats, it lays out triage techniques to combat the issue.

There is more in the bill as well, including starting a scholarship program for Federal IT workers. You can read the bill in its entirety below.

0402 Rockefeller Cyber Security Bill

 

On the Tea Parties

ssegraves

Around 750 “tea parties” are taking place around the country today in an effort to protest the taxation changes being made by the Obama administration. This is one of those issues that has turned into a boxing match between the left and right based media (I guess most issues are now). The tea parties are loosely based around the events that took place before the Revolutionary War, where “No taxation without representation” was the slogan. Today’s events differ because they focus on tax rates and government spending. This is a poor idea, or at least poor execution of an idea.

Sure, a government on its way to spending itself into a debt wholly owned by foreign nations is a bad idea, but focusing on tax increases for the wealthy is no better. The tea parties should instead be focused on bringing attention to what the government is doing with our money, maybe even making the slogan “No taxation with poor representation”. The officials are elected by us but make decisions based on their own prerogatives rather than the needs of the people.

The argument that Americans do not mind paying taxes is one that has been coming out of the media lately and it too is a poor one. Most Americans do not mind because it is simply a way of life and for the most part the actual payment takes place without them even noticing. The truth of the matter is, most Americans get a refund at the end of the year and have no idea that it is because they paid in too much to the system. Start taking more out of people’s paychecks and making the refunds smaller and the number of Americans who do not mind taxes is sure to take a dive.

Back to the tea parties, Paul Krugman, who I am constantly agreeing and disagreeing with, writes that the right-wing is a bunch of crazy people who are embarrassing themselves with their antics and maybe he is right. If the conservatives in this country want to avoid a social democracy then faux-protesting a slight tax hike is not the way to do it. This is not to say that what the government is doing is right, by all means, it isn’t. The idea is not to change tax rates, it is to reduce spending. If spending is reduced, then budgets are naturally cut and as a result, the tax rate stays steady or better yet, falls.

What this country needs is more students of history because then maybe we’d have our memories jogged on how things were done when the Constitution was drafted and what the role of the Federal government should be.

This Week’s Links | April 3, 2009

ssegraves

I dropped the ball last week and did not post any links, mostly because I had been out of town and did not bookmark anything. This week’s links will try to make up for it.

  • Four Fannie Mae Execs to Get Big Bonuses – There seems to be some disconnect between the media and this story. AIG execs get bonuses and they are essentially burned at the stake, but a government backed agency gives out bonuses and the story is a blurb. People should be more up in arms about this than the AIG debacle.
  • Colleges Duck Tough Cuts, Keep Hiking Pay and Tuition – An interesting and, in my opinion, necessary opinion piece in USA Today about the cost of college tuition continuing to rise all while schools give out raises. We’re taking something that we claim should be the “right of everyone” and turning it into a corporation. There is little reason to cut spending when the money flows in, except for the fact that federal money is dwindling.
  • The Pioneer Woman Cooks! – I was browsing some food blogs during lunch (the best time to do it, to avoid the hunger it causes) and came across The Pioneer Woman. Her writing is interesting and she makes Texas favorites look easy.
  • Why to Startup in a Bad Economy – This was posted in the latter half of last year but I think it is just as relevant today as it was then.
  • Facebook Fallout: Is it time for Zuckerberg to go? – I’ll admit that I am not as big of a user of Facebook as I was in college. My interest peaked and now I only occasionally look up old friends and see what they are doing. After multiple redesigns and the usability taking a nosedive, I just lost the desire to visit the site. Maybe it is time for Mark Zuckerberg to go.

Leave a comment with your thoughts!

What Do the Europeans Want?

ssegraves

Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy seem to be dead-set on getting their way at the G20 summit in London. Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, and President Obama have sort of joined forces to push their agenda for economic recovery, which includes more bailouts. Merkel, the German Chancellor, has said multiple times that she wants nothing to do with bailouts on a global scale. The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, has also echoed those sentiments.

This is an impasse of sorts. Both Germany and France have experienced government intervention in the free market and have first hand knowledge of the effects of economic socialism, yet both Brown and Obama are not taking notice. Merkel seems to be jumping up and down and waving her arms at a person across the room while the person just stares past her. Her qualm is not with doing more socially, it is with taking money from healthy companies and markets and injecting it into dying companies. It is a form of evolutionary ethics and no one is taking notice.

Europe also has its own best interest at heart. If the Obama plans for more government healthcare and less military bases abroad actually come to fruition, the European way of life takes on a completely different form. For years Europe has been dependent on U.S. bases abroad to subsidize their domestic policies, if the money was to significantly reduce or dry up, the governments would be forced to make cuts and in some places completely remove programs that people rely on. This is not a cut and dry issue by any means, but Merkel and Sarkozy are trying to make it obvious that the path Obama is proposing is not the correct one. What Obama decides to agree on puts in motion what happens next here in the U.S.

Consuming Differently

ssegraves
IMG_4590
Wal-Mart in Dallas, originally uploaded by Stephan Segraves.

I believe I have asked this question before but the point needs to be raised again. The economy is in the toilet and people and businesses are suffering, but does the fact that some of these companies were created out of bad habits mean that they deserve to fail? If a company is losing money is it not the company’s responsibility to change that fact? Sure, there are arguments out there that claim the government should step in, which it has in some cases, but my thesis is more focused on companies that have come to fruition out of our seemingly incessant need for “stuff”.

Looking at some examples is probably the best way to make the issue clear. Wal-Mart is a great example. They have built a business out of a false need for all kinds of, what some people would call, junk, and not just any old junk, cheap junk. Sure, they stock produce, meat, electronics, and other useful items but there are whole rows of consumer demanded garbage. If Wal-Mart is concerned with surviving through the economy, would not the smart thing to do be getting rid of waste? It seems obvious but for some reason it is not a priority.

Part of this is consumer habits, we are a nation of junk consumers. I’m guilty and I am pretty sure you are too. The difference between now and 20 years ago is that now we want our junk at a lower price, even if it means cutting jobs here. Maybe our culture needs to think back to 1950s lifestyle and look at pictures from era Life and Time magazines, home and work life were simpler. And what is wrong with that? The struggle is digging ourselves out of hole when the mentality is, “why get out, we’re already here”.

What if U.S. culture moved back from the mega-store to the local store, from the Lowe’s to the local hardware store? What if Target and Wal-Mart downsized and stopped carrying junk? For one thing, the green movement would rejoice in the street for weeks, but there would also be some semblance of simplicity. Do not get me wrong, I am not suggesting a stop in consumption, I am advocating consuming differently, focusing on what’s important, and reversing a trend that has been ingrained in our minds by culture. I think it will help the economy in the long run and I think people will flourish from it. The flip side is that companies who cannot adjust to the change in consumption behavior can and will fail, and maybe they should.

The notion of quantity over quality has been a growing phenomena, with pockets of resistance everywhere, but for the everyday Joe, it’s life. It is time to focus a little more on quality, even if it means cutting consumption somewhere else, because such behavior would stimulate growth in small businesses that specialize in quality products. Simplicity and quality, I do not see the negative. Do you?

What Happens if We Save Them and Fail

ssegraves

With all of the talk about bailing out the auto-industry I started wondering what would happen if we bailed out the Big 3 automakers and still they failed. It is a very real possibility. Pushing money to a problem and committing government “oversight” to something does not ensure an entity’s ability to thrive, just look at Fannie and Freddie.

If Washington rescues Detroit and the auto companies fail anyway, then we have essentially shot ourselves in the foot. Sure, Washington can continue to print money, devalue the currency and attempt to pay off debt with more debt but in the long run it just will not work.

I understand that a lot of people would lose their jobs if we do not do something about the automakers, but I also understand that we can do something and still have a lot of people lose their jobs. This fact is little talked about and seems that it is one of those things that “we can worry about later”. Yep, let the later generations pick up the pieces…

Peter Schiff Had it Right in 2006 and 2007

ssegraves

Peter Schiff, the President of Euro Pacific Capital, Inc. and adviser to the Ron Paul campaign, did a number of interviews during 2006 and 2007 in which he talked about the poor savings rates among Americans and how such poor performance would lead us to where we are now.

He was laughed at and talked down to while he said these things, yet here we are with our economy in the exact position that Schiff describes. Maybe he saw these things coming to a head while at Lehman Brothers, maybe not, either way he is a very smart man.

On Proposition 8

ssegraves

This is not a for or against post on Proposition 8, instead, it is a post on the fundamental aspects of our society and democracy at work.

There is a large amount of protest occurring in California over the referendum and in some cases it is turning very nasty. The opponents of the proposition, who lost in a 52.3% for to 47.7% against vote, are claiming that this process is unconstitutional and wrong. There are numerous comments that I have seen stating that the majority should not represent the minority and that this country is awful. Let’s examine the issue here.

If we believe in democracy and the democratic process then we need to stand back and look at the big picture. In May of this year, the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22 which prevented California from recognizing same-sex marriages. This move by the Supreme Court went near the fringes of what the court’s role is, to uphold and interpret the law and Constitution. Proposition 8 is a little different in that will actually amend the California State Constitution to restrict marriage to a man and a woman. Whether you agree with that or not, it was voted on and passed. This is where I get confused, enough signatures were attained and enough votes were reached, why does the argument continue?

The idea that since the “minority” did not get their way we should overturn the law is a little extreme by all counts. In that case, the Republicans lost the Presidential election but since their guy didn’t make it to office, they should protest, complain, and stir up violence in the streets. That is an absurd way to go, is it not?

Another example is the town where I attended college, Lubbock, TX there was a big push for legalizing the sale of alcohol within city limits. Residents, who happened to be students, were able to get enough signatures to place the measure on the ballot. The city voted and the measure failed. The students did not stand outside of churches and berate those who voted against the measure, nope, they waited until the next year and tried again.

Democracy works, if we let it, rather than attempting to manipulate the system simply because we do not get our way, no matter how near and dear the issue is to our hearts.