Speedy Turnover?

Bush agrees to speedy turnover in Iraq By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer AMMAN, Jordan - President Bush said Thursday the United States will speed a turnover of security responsibility to Iraqi forces but assured Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that Washington is not looking for a "graceful exit" from a war well into its fourth violent year. (Yahoo News)

Question. Why, suddenly, is the President of the United States, who, until just before the election said that cutting and running was a bad thing, now declaring that a speedy turnover (what ever that means) is in the United States best interest?

Do not mistake my question. I think that 1) it is well past time to get out of Iraq, a country the United States had no moral or frankly legal authority to invade in the first place and 2) it is time for the new government in Iraq to start acting like a government or get out of the way and let the chaos that is currently swirling have its way and then die down.

What is surprising, at least to me and many others, is that the current administration did not see any of this coming, or if they did, ignored it. In the last 10 years, we have seen the chaos that ensued from the death of a tyrant of a phony made up country of diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds. The world witnessed the warlords take over and the genocide ensue. Iraq was no different other than it was the United States that over set the ruler and caused the chaos to move faster than it otherwise might have. And to what goal? This is where we have to wait for history to weigh in, but I suspect, in the end, the goal will be show to be nothing but a controlling interest in Middle East oil. There can be no other justification (and I use the term very loosely because I do not see it as being a justification for an immoral act).

Further, the incoming Congress of the United State, voted in to replace the Republican mess that the current administration is only leading, is still not with the program. Everyone is pussyfooting around the issue of a timetable. This is not acceptable. There is nothing keeping the United States in the region. Nothing. Bring the troops home by the end of Fiscal 2007. That should be the deadline. And while you are at it, pull them out of Afghanistan as well. There is nothing to be gained by having large numbers of red coats searching for guerrilla soldiers. Surely the War of Independence taught that lesson.

One Step Closer to National ID

U.S. to implement passport requirement By BEVERLEY LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The Homeland Security Department will require virtually all air travelers entering the United States after Jan. 23 to show passports — even U.S. citizens. (Yahoo News)

Well, this is not exactly news. DHS has been promising this step for close to a year now. A couple of questions jump to mind though. Feel free to follow along.

As I asked back in October (Can You Prove You Status) most American citizens lack the critical documentation to get a Real ID drivers license, but can get a passport. Now, here is the first question. Since passports are issued by the Department of State and the Real ID program is run by DHS (who also officially guard the borders) why is a passport more acceptable than a drivers license that meets the Real ID program standards? Go with me on this for a moment...assume that there is such a thing as a Real ID drivers license. Or, why is a passport more acceptable than an HSPD-12 ID which is supposed to be even more stringent to get than a Real ID drivers license?

Next question, from Chertoff's own mouth:

"Right now, there are 8,000 different state and local entities in the U.S. issuing birth certificates and driver's licenses," Chertoff said. Having to distinguish phony from real in so many different documents "puts an enormous burden on our Customs and Border inspectors," he said.

Yet this requirement does not put an enormous burden on the people at the State Department? Or, more correctly, assumes that the State Department is ready and prepared to meet the demand for new passport applications. The only difference of course is the people at the State department do not have you standing and waiting at a border control point and can take their time verifying that your identification is real. But again, we come back to a core point. Do you have that identification to begin with.

If you plan to travel at all in 2007, and you do not have a passport, you better submit your paperwork now. It took me six weeks to get mine in March of this year and I was not going anywhere until August and really did not need one. I suspect there will be a large number of people stuck on the wrong side of the border on January 24, 2007.

Balance Sheet Liability?

Linux users to Microsoft: What 'balance sheet liability'? 'I took great offense to Ballmer's comments,' says one CIO Eric Lai November 21, 2006 (Computerworld) -- While Microsoft Corp. may cast the Nov. 2 patent cooperation agreement it pushed on new partner Novell Corp. as a way to protect corporate users of the SUSE Linux operating system from potential lawsuits, CIOs today said they weren't worried in the first place. (Computer World)

The firestorm that Steve Ballmer stirred up last week with his comments about Linux owing Microsoft continue and for a surprise, in very strong, anti-Microsoft directions. Everywhere from /. to the mainstream press, Microsoft's posturing is seen as little more than that: posturing, spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) and in some cases, as stated in this article, making people really think about the real choices they have in deploying technology today.

Facts are, you really do not need Microsoft in the server room for most core server room functions today. Open Source/UNIX solutions are viable, especially core functions for DNS, DHCP, email and web services - many of which predate any Windows operating system and others integrate so tightly that unless you know your back office is not running Windows, you would not know what it is running. And that is how it should be.

On the desktop, progress is being made. This blog is typeset in a simple text editor application running on Fedora Core 6. I switched to Fedora as my desktop, almost exclusively, about a year ago and really have not looked back (sorry, until someone Open Sources Visio, I still need Windows, and there are a couple of vendor web sites that only work with IE, but I am complaining to the vendors about that limitation). To run Windows, rather than rebooting, I open a virtualized session, do what I have to and then shut it down. Faster than dual-boot and more efficient.

The last bastion of Microsoft only solutions will quickly fall as vendors realize that the cost of the operating system is trivial. It is the maintenance of that operating system that is the long pole. As an IT manager, I do not like being forced to upgrade my operating system when it is working quite well thank you for what 90% of my office is doing with it. Microsoft has reached the end of their functional life. Now we watch as they attempt to remake themselves and they are already behind the curve. Unfortunately, they cannot yet be counted out of the race.

Real Madrid spells it out

Beckham told to skip TomKat wedding By CHRIS LEHOURITES, AP Sports Writer 2 hours, 9 minutes ago LONDON - Not even David Beckham can get a day off to attend a friend's wedding. The soccer star-pop idol wanted to stay in Rome for an extra day to watch Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes tie the knot, but Real Madrid didn't like that idea. (Yahoo News)

Good for Real Madrid. In an era of me first athletes, here is a club that enforces how they expect their players to behave. He is washed up as a player and MLS would be foolish to touch him, but they will just for his star value and as a result will get the public relations nightmare that has beset all major sports in the United States.

Hypocrisy Strikes Again

Commentary: Town makes it illegal to fly a foreign flag POSTED: 3:58 p.m. EST, November 20, 2006 By Ruben Navarrette Jr. Special to CNN SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- This is where we've arrived in this country: You have the constitutional right to burn an American flag, but you can get into trouble for simply flying a foreign one. (CNN)

Again, we have a city that just does not get it. While Mr. Navarrette points out that the First Amendment gives people the right to fly the flag of another country, more importantly, Title 4 Section 7 say exactly how the flags of other countries are to be flown in relation to the American flag. So while the town of Pahrump, Nevada (which sounds like a bodily function) may think they can pass an ordinance to require other countries flags to be flow in submission to the US flag, what they are functionally doing is violating Federal law.

Think about this for a moment. What if a city in Mexico (or Iran) passed a similar ordinance. How would the town council of Pahrump, Nevada feel then?

Ballmer gets it wrong, again.

Ballmer: Linux users owe Microsoft He says the open-source operating system infringes on his company's intellectual property Eric Lai November 16, 2006 (Computerworld) -- In comments confirming the open-source community's suspicions, Microsoft Corp. CEO Steve Ballmer today declared his belief that the Linux operating system infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property. (ComputerWorld)

Over the course of his employment with Microsoft, Steve Ballmer has said some pretty inflammatory things, but I think this just about takes the top prize and is nothing more than arrogance. Microsoft has not been able to find a way to keep Linux and other Open Source systems out of the corporate data centre and it is finally beginning to dawn on them that Vista and Longhorn are not the "gift" to IT that the hacks inside Redmond have convinced them they are, so in an effort to smother the competition, they are going to buy it.

SCO has already tried the "sue the users" route, and it cost them the company. Novell, who should know better, even BOUGHT the rights to the UNIX name and then handed them over to the Open Source community. So Microsoft knows exactly what they are doing. This is not the first time they have tried to enforce their view of the world on the rest of the industry, but this time, they may actually get their way. What is truly sad about his comments is that rather than working with the community and prospering, this could be the beginning of the end. The European Union and its member countries have already begun asking hard questions about the need for Microsoft and its products and even in the United States, there is a slow shift away from the "Microsoft" solution to a solution that actually solves the problem. In the end, it really is too bad, because as Red Hat has proven, it is not the software that makes you the money, it is the service and support of the systems it is running on.

What is even more ironic is that there are already exploits on the Net for the most recent round of patches. I do not know what could be more indicative of the true power of the community than that?

For Better Sleep, a Bedroom Makeover Could be in Order Nov 13th - 7:20am PHILADELPHIA - Seventy-six percent of Americans have trouble sleeping, according to a poll conducted last year by the National Sleep Foundation. (WTOP News)

I am not sure what is going to keep me up at night longer, the fact that there are people out there trying to find a market for their potions or that more than four pages was devoted to this article? Yes, we are sleep deprived, that is not a surprise, between too much caffeine, too much alcohol and far too much to worry about, this is pretty much a given, but now I have to worry if my bedroom is set up correctly or that my sheets are stealing my energy? Sounds like a crock to me.

Why Vista? Still waiting for an answer.

Making Your Move to Vista: What You Need to Know Scot Finnie and Valerie Potter November 10, 2006 (Computerworld) -- By now you should be aware there are many pluses and minuses to Vista. It's not a slam-dunk decision, but there's a lot to like about the new Windows. Once you decide to make the upgrade, you'll find that you're confronted with more than the usual number of questions to answer and details to sort through before you arrive at your Vista upgrade path. (ComputerWorld)

The article is one of the more informative I have seen in a long time, but it still is not answering, for me anyway, the core question, which is, why do I need Vista? And this is not a trivial question. They say that real world minimums are 2GHz processors, 2 GB of RAM. That makes the desktop machines almost half the size of most production file servers. For word processing. Let's face it, most of the people in the average office (and I mean closer to 80% than to 50%) are doing little more than typing memos, whether it is in email or some word processing package. Of the remaining 20%, most are still sitting idle more than they are crunching through any sort of processor intensive activity. Yet the push is on to upgrade systems that are essentially paperweights now.

From a pure usability perspective, Windows 2000 was more than acceptable for most office applications (I won't talk about management - while it is not a trivial issue, it is not something most operations are involved in). Where Windows 2000 let you down (here is the management issues) then XP more than picked up the slack. And if you pay attention to your security you do not need to really worry too much.

Vista is not something I would recommend anyone rush out and buy, especially if you are still catching up from other versions. I do not see a real need for it, nor will there be one for quite some time for most users. Microsoft may have finally hit the wall by providing an upgrade that really is not needed.

Democrats Win - Big Deal

Democrats win control of Congress By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 47 minutes ago WASHINGTON - In a rout once considered almost inconceivable, Democrats won a 51st seat in the Senate and regained total control of Congress after 12 years of near-domination by the Republican Party. (Yahoo News)

While it is nice to see change, I am not holding my breath that there will be any substantive change. No, I am not expecting the Democrats to rush into impeachment hearings (not that this President should be let off, but it might be simpler to arrest him once his term of office is up) but I do expect to see some work out of the next Congress.

It is an expectation that is more of a pipe dream. For the last eight odd years, the Congress of the United States has done little for the country. In fact, almost nothing. Real wages continue to fall while corporations continue to make record profits. Real security is still an issue, despite six chaotic years of a push for homeland security. Immigration is an issue that needs sensible reform and support. Critical infrastructure is close to collapse and will require billions of non-existant dollars to fix. Education is a joke, with most jurisdictions more worried about test results and funding than actual learning. The environment is a mess even if you do not subscribe to the theories of global warming. The trade imbalance, along with the high costs of energy will shortly result in a need for local (US based) manufacturing and there is not much of a base for it left.

In the meantime, what has the Congress done? Appropriated billions for a war that should not have been entered into in the first place (democracy only comes after economic stability - thousands of years of history have taught us this, but the Bush administration failed history it seems) which has resulted in a demoralized under supplied military force and funneled the money away from domestic support. Appropriated billions for a security model that does not function and contines to pour good money after bad, only to have local jurisdictions spend man-hours on paperwork rather than the job of protecting the citzens they work for. Instituted medical coverage for the elderly (a necessary thing) that is so complicated and expensive, most experts cannot see the benefit, other than the increase in yearly revenue for the drug companies. Instituted several unfunded mandates, with good intentions but poor execution, where the end game is still without a definition and the results will be less valuable than if they had not been instituted. RealID, No Child Left Behind, Migration to IPv6, HSPD-12, RFID Passports. All noble goaled ideas but without any follow through in thinking.

The Congress of the United States has the opportunity to make some difference in the months and years to come. Repealing sensless mandates and laws would be a good start, but not likely to happen (can you remember the last failed Federal effort?). So we are in for more of the same, only then names will be changed to protect the guilty. I look forward to being amazed, but you may have to restart my heart if it happens.

(Mis)Definition of Marriage amendment passes

A follow up to yesterday:

Amendment 1 - Definition of Marriage (2,406 of 2,411 precincts - 99 percent)
Yes - (57%)
No - (43%)

Do not even begin to tell me that the United States is a progressive nation.

Progress?

Election Day, 2006:

Proposed Constitutional Amendment To Be Voted on at the November 7, 2006, Election

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Article I. Bill of Rights.
Section 15-A. Marriage.

BALLOT QUESTION NUMBER 1

Shall Article I (the Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to state: “That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a
legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”? (State Ballot Question)

Delegate Kathy J. Byron, Campbell Republican, who co-sponsored the measure, said the amendment is one of the most important she has ever seen. "[Traditional marriage] is the fundamental building block of our society," Mrs. Byron said. "Now that definition, that tradition, that foundation is threatened. If we do not act, marriage as we have come to know it will be redefined through the judicial process."

Delegate Robert G. Marshall, Manassas Republican, said he is convinced that the courts will try to force Virginia to recognize the nuptials of same-sex couples, and rebuffed critics. "We are not here about hatred. We are here about marriage," he said. "This is not a civil rights issue. ... We are defending marriage, which is seriously under attack." (Washington Times (and others))

"The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." Pierre E. Trudeau, 1967, then Justice Minister of Canada who was responsible for removing laws against homosexuality from the Criminal Code of Canada.