How Fragile, the Internet

Big Quake Cuts Communications in Taiwan Dec 27th - 11:03pm By PETER ENAV and PETER SVENSSON Associated Press Writers TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) - Undersea fiber-optic cables were damaged by a powerful earthquake off the southern tip of Taiwan, causing the largest outage of telephone and Internet service in years and demonstrating the vulnerability of the global telecommunications network. (WTOP News)

This was a fairly big quake as earthquakes go and it was fortunate that there was not more death or destruction. It does however point out just how fragile the Internet really is and more importantly, should be a wake up call for those in emergency management, especially at FEMA and the Department of Homeland (in)Security, to take into account that it does not take much to make all the best laid plans little more than shards of broken glass.

Now, before you think that it cannot happen here, let me highlight some interesting statistics. Every day there is at least one break in the Internet in the United States caused by carelessness, whether that is some guy on the street with a backhoe or some newbie in one of the dozens of key centers that manage the flow fat fingering a setting on a core router. Any network manager that has more than one site will tell you it is more common that the telcos will ever admit. Worse, there is not a whole lot that can be done when the phone calls start coming in.

On the other side of the coin, we have become so dependant on this technology that most of us have forgotten how to write with pen on paper to the point that our handwriting is legible. As a result, if we had to do it long hand, it is unlikely that it would be a smooth process. In many cases, especially in the metro areas, there is not even a paper process to follow anymore, it is assumed that the servers will be up and available and accessible 24/7/365 and that is just not a smart assumption.

The pioneers that built the Internet were a very tech savvy group, smart and resourceful. I wish I could say the same for some of the managers and technicians that have come after them and some of the executives that are gambling with your life on a technology that could go poof without any warning.

Virginia Takes Another Step Backwards

Lawmaker Stands Firm on Quran Criticism Dec 22nd - 9:53am By SUE LINDSEY Associated Press Writer ROCKY MOUNT, Va. (AP) - A congressman said Thursday that he will not retract a letter warning that unless immigration is tightened, "many more Muslims will be elected" and use the Quran to take the oath of office. (WTOP)

What I found funny (or perhaps sad) was the following from Goode:

"I will not be putting my hand on the Quran," Goode said at a news conference Thursday at the Franklin County Courthouse.

I don't believe that anyone asked him too use the Quran.

And:

Goode also told Fox News he wants to limit legal immigration and do away with "diversity visas," which he said let in people "not from European countries" and "some terrorist states." In his letter, Goode wrote that strict immigration polices are necessary "to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America." "The Muslim representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran," he wrote.

The problem - Representative Ellison was BORN in Michigan (which, the last time I looked, was a state). What does that have to do with immigration, or traditional american values (are those the values of hatred, bigotry and alienation)? The man could be President. I think Rep Goode needs to rethink his position and hopefully the rest of the Virginia caucus will shun him until he has done so. It is this type of ignorance and bigotry that are making the United States the laughing stock of the world.

On the word War

I ran across this and I am not sure what I want to do with it, but it was a pithy statement, representative of the current times, and I did not want to loose it.

"Just as mass murder is not necessarily terrorism, so mass murder and terrorism are not necessarily war. Indeed, their perpetrators often choose mass murder and terrorism precisely for lack of the political standing, power, resources, numbers to wage war....Any attempt to destroy life and property, without an objective of conquest, is a criminal act, and its perpetrators merit prosecution under criminal statutes...When the word war is taken to justify the arbitrary exercise of power in the absence of war, metaphorical language may become an instrument of tyranny." Barbara Fields, Columbia University (2003) from page xxi of the B&N Classic of Sun Tzu's the Art of War.

Who Watches The Watchmen?

Reason behind Arar ban? It's secret REUTERS U.S. says sharing that information is `an idealization which isn't achievable' December 21, 2006 Tim Harper WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON–The Bush administration has delivered a blunt message to anyone in Stephen Harper's government wondering why Canadian Maher Arar remains barred from travelling to the United States or through its airspace: We're not telling you. (Toronto Star)

For those that have forgotten, Arar is the Canadian who was erroneously turned over to the FBI who then deported him to Syria where he claims he was tortured. Now he is not permitted to enter or even pass over the United States because...well, we may never know.

What is more interesting is that he has been cleared of any wrong doing by the RCMP (that's the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the national police force of Canada). But that is not good enough for the United States and the Department of Homeland (in)Security. In fact, the US has said that he would again be deported to a third country if he even darkens the border, and without first informing Ottawa of the fact. This smacks of secret police policy gone very bad. The sad thing is this will never even make the back page of any US news paper.

Let's Talk About Sex

The juxtaposition of these two articles today just could not go uncommented on.

First, in USAToday:

Most Americans have had premarital sex, study finds Updated 12/19/2006 9:29 PM ET By Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY Almost all Americans have premarital sex, says a report published Tuesday that analyzes federal data over time and suggests programs focusing on sexual abstinence until marriage may be unrealistic. (USAToday)

And, as reported by AP on WTOP:

Vatican Cardinal: Chastity Fights AIDS Dec 20th - 11:20am By FRANCES D'EMILIO Associated Press Writer ROME (AP) - Fidelity in marriage and premarital abstinence from sex are the key weapons in the fight against AIDS, a senior cardinal who prepared a study on condom use said Wednesday. (WTOP)

Clearly, the Vatican will continue to pursue the issue that sex before marriage is a bad thing and fidelity is a good thing, but they continue to overlook the basic facts, that are pointed out in the USAToday article which is man, as an animal in nature, will have sex. That is basic nature. AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases along with unwanted/unintended pregnancies are preventable by taking appropriate measures. To continue to focus on the irrationality of abstinence as a policy to prevent or reduce disease or pregnancy is little more than burying your head in the sand and hoping it will all go away quietly.

Immigration Policy - a black hole of confusion

Senator's wife faces order to leave U.S. By DANIEL YEE, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 2 minutes ago ATLANTA - The Colombia-born wife of a Georgia state senator emerged from hiding and turned herself in Tuesday to face a deportation order. (Yahoo News)

My mouth is simply hanging open over how messed up the US Immigration policy is. Read the article...this is just silly. Especially following on the heels of What is Marriage.

What is Marriage? And Does it Matter?

Maryland's Highest Court Hears Same-Sex Marriage Arguments Dec 4th - 10:03pm
By BEN NUCKOLS Associated Press Writer ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) - The state has no rational basis for denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marriage, an attorney for plaintiffs in a gay-marriage case told Maryland's highest court Monday. (WTOP)

This topic has been generating a lot of traffic. Unfortunately I think we are all missing some key points here. The first and largest issue, what is marriage?

From our friends at Wikipedia who have summed it up nicely:

"Marriage as an institution traces back into antiquity and is found in nearly every culture. Usually it is understood to join a man and woman (who in their marital roles are termed the "husband" and "wife" respectively; generically they may be referred to as "spouses") in a monogamous marriage."

"Polygamous marriage, in which one person takes more than one spouse, is ancient, but is now common only in Africa and Asia; polygamy (a man with multiple wives) is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry (in which a woman takes several husbands) is rare."

"Recently the word marriage has been used to describe unions between homosexual partners (same-sex marriage), and as a legal contract has been recognized by a few governments and religious institutions."

Interesting - so we are talking about an institution - primarily religious in origin? Or are we. Are we talking about something more rudimentary? I am sure someone with more history than I have will chime in and tell us that marriage, as portrayed over the last 2000 years is little more than a formal definition of ownership - whether that is of the other partner's property or the other partner - traditionally the woman.

I would argue that marriage today is a multiheaded term that is completely meaningless. Is marriage a committed relationship? If it is, why is the divorce rate in the United States over 60%? Is it a legal relationship? Not in Virginia, and several other states, not any more. Is it the definition of a family? Someone has already pointed out that Ozzie and Harriet style families are mostly a thing of the past.

What we are discussing is two-fold: First, the legal rights of the partners for and to each other as recognized by the state. This has little to do with biology and more to do with who can make decisions for the other person in the event of their incapacitation. How do you prove that the woman you brought to the emergency room is your wife? Do you carry a copy of your marriage LICENSE with you? I certainly don't. Until a couple of weeks ago, I did not even know where it was. I suspect most of you married people do not either. I would not (generally) have to prove familial relations if I brought in a "man" and said he was my brother, even if we had different names (and there are several reasons why that would be the case). But if I am in a same sex relationship, I am immediately not next of kin even though the only difference between the same sex relationship and the mixed sex relationship is a piece of paper. These are not trivial issues. Powers of attorney can be challenged (the Schivo case comes to mind immediately and there was a husband and a wife) and in Virginia, they will hold even less value unless the partners are in possession of a marriage license (and that is subject to interpretation still).

Second (and some would say more important) we are discussing what a loving relationship is. I would rather see children raised in a loving relationship than in any other environment, I think we can all agree on that? (If we cannot, then the entire foundation of "what is a family" collapses and the entire discussion is simply a religious one - ie: moot). Of my immediate circle of heterosexual friends, less than a quarter of us are still in our "starter" marriage. Of that 2/3rds, more than half had children in that first (or second) marriage. Of my homosexual friends, more than half are still in their "starter" marriage and the length of time they have been together far exceeds that of most of my heterosexual friends. We all have different experiences, but I can certainly say that from the standpoint of loving and caring, my homosexual friends are far and away more representative of that group.

Biologically, homosexuality is as much a part of the human make up as grey hair or brown eyes. Aristotle discusses it. It was part of Greek and Roman society (and probably further back that that). We continue to argue against it from a "moral" perspective, but it is a difficult argument to make. Further, man (as an animal) does not mate for life. It is not in our biological nature but an artifice of society. Someone pointed out that in Sweden there are more children born out of wedlock - so what? Are these children loved? Well cared for? Treated with respect? I would argue that they are. What we are clinging to is an outmoded model wrapped up in religious trappings that serve little purpose. The sooner we as a society recognize this, the better. This is an issue of civil rights and needs to be treated as such before the United States makes Taliban-run Afghanistan look like a free and open society.

Are You SURE You Want To Go There Today?

Linux Faithful: Vista No Threat Pricing, availability, and technical issues will dog Vista. November 30, 2006 By Falguni Bhuta Don't dare ask Linux advocate Eric Raymond when he plans to run out to pick up his shrink-wrapped box of Windows Vista. Mr. Raymond is not alone.

The Linux faithful were quick to dismiss Microsoft’s Windows Vista launch Thursday, saying it poses no threat to the adoption of the open-source operating system. (Red Herring)

I will let you read the article and then make your own decision, but frankly, I have to agree with the bottom line. Why are you going to pay $400 for the operating system when the PC only costs $300? (Lowest priced machine at Best Buy this weekend).

What's So Hard?

Performance-based contracting still baffles agencies By Jason Miller, GCN Staff Performance-based contracting still befuddles federal agencies. And industry isn’t much better either, according to a panel of procurement experts.

“The biggest impact of performance-based contracting has been confusion,” said Mike Sade, the Commerce Department’s senior procurement executive, at a lunch in Washington sponsored by the Young Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association’s Bethesda, Md., chapter. “Performance-based contracting raised three questions: What does the government really want? What were they thinking when they wrote the requirements? And how will they pick the winner with all the different solutions that vendors propose?” (GCN)

As a former government contractor, this just screams at me. As an IT worker, this just smacks of stupidity.

Also from the article:

"Joann Underwood, a contracting officer with the Army Contracting Agency, said the government is forced to determine what problem they want to solve and they are not very good at that. "

Anyone who has been a government contractor could have told you that. The Federal Government of the United States does a very poor job at defining the problems its programs are trying to solve. A running joke is there is no such thing as a failed pilot because it will eventually solve someone's problem This should not make the average taxpayer feel warm and fuzzy however because these are your dollars being wasted.

Let us look at a very simple issue. Documenting employees. The Federal Government has more than a dozen cabinet-level agencies, with dozens of other "administrations" that are not official part of these agencies. How many different forms of identification cards do you think there are for each agency for just their permanent employees. If you said one, you would be wrong. Even in the District of Columbia, each agency can have as many as three different ID cards. When you start talking about the nation, each city can have its own. How much does it cost to produce these individual ID cards? While this is a trivial example, it is only representative of some of the more wasteful spending decisions that the government has made over time. And you wonder why the deficit keeps rising?