Is it really entry level if it requires experience?

Perhaps I have a completely different idea of what "entry level" means, but I think it is logical that "entry level (x)" would not require you to have experience doing (x).

I just perused a job posting for "Entry Level Help desk", which then had a stated requirement of 2 years experience in "help desk." Surely, after 2 years, you would not still be considered to be "entry level", right?

Armand van Helden - Koochy

Ok. Apparently it isn't really family or kid friendly, but it features video of "Box" (the robot) from the great film "Logan's Run." Not to mention any song based on a Gary Numan song ("Cars") is worth taking note of.

Serenity Con 2007 Nathan Fillion Surprises Alan Tudyk

He really does seem surprised...

Book Of Love - Pretty Boys And Pretty Girls

Only one of the best songs ever made. Let it into your soul.

Goodbye Mr Mackenzie - Goodbye Mr Mackenzie

Good band from Scotland, circa 1989/1990 or so. Yes, that was Shirley Manson singing backing vocals in her pre-Garbage days.

Barrow voters say ‘No’ to Brain Train...Or do they?

The headline is very deceptive, because I know I did not say "no" to the "Brain Train" and a careful reading of the ballot question reveals that you cannot determine whether people are opposed to the concept or not from this result. See, here is the question as it was asked on the ballot:

Would you favor raising any local taxes to pay Barrow's portion of the proposed Brain Train between Atlanta and Athens?

So, you can determine whether someone would be willing to have their taxes raised to pay for the Brain Train, but you cannot tell whether they support the concept of the Brain Train or not.

I like the concept, but if it has to be paid for with tax money then I expect them to cut something else to finance it. These "journalists" out there can't seem to prevent themselves from making up the news from time to time.

Kristi Reed gets it right in the article, but a lot of people will see the headline and think it means exactly what it says.

Barrow County residents will not be catching the Brain Train if current voter sentiment holds sway.

The Barrow County Republican Party included three non-binding questions on this year’s primary ballot. One of the questions was an attempt to determine county support for the Atlanta to Athens Brain Train.

By a large majority, citizens opposed raising local taxes to pay for Barrow’s portion of the proposed rail line.

Behind on the news... Helio joins up with Virgin Mobile!

I've been behind with reading my business RSS feeds, so I missed that Helio is finally being sold and integrated into Virgin Mobile. It is important to note that SK Telecom will own 17.7% of the new business, while EarthLink will have about 2.7%. Even more revealing is how Sky Dayton will not be involved at all.

I was somewhat excited about Helio before it launched. Once it hit the streets, I was generally unimpressed and did not think it had a reasonable chance to succeed. The biggest issue for me was their inability to understand the market. For some reason, the media in this country thinks that everything Sky Dayton touches will turn to gold. His name was made with EarthLink, primarily, which has burned through money for much of its life. Until they started laying off employees by the thousands in exchange for offshore workers, they were never able to generate a profit. Now they tell everyone they expect to have a declining customer base (you can find it in their SEC filings).

Imogen Heap - Goodnight and Go

Last Imogen Heap video... It's all good stuff, even if I'm catching on late in the game.

Frou Frou- Breathe In

Imogen Heap in a collaboration with Guy Sigsworth.

Headlock - Imogen Heap

I finally got around to checking out Imogen Heap and she has made some brilliant songs. It is cool to find musicians out there that play all the music themselves and sing as well.

Definitely not voting for Obama in November.

I feel like a chump for even getting sucked in by all the hype during his campaign against Hillary Clinton for the nomination of the Democratic Party. It is not like me to even consider voting for a Presidential candidate from that party, considering I have not done it once in my voting life. However, I began to believe the "hope" idea that he was selling. I began to believe that he was going to do things differently. That he was not going to "play the game" like so many others do. That all came crashing down today, as Obama voted for H.R. 6304, the FISA bill that grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that enabled the Bush Administration to potentially violate the U.S. Constitution (as well as other existing law).

On one hand, I'd like to thank Obama for not carrying his charade all the way through November and taking my vote away from the Libertarian Party. At least I have been reminded that Democrats and Republicans are not likely to be people of principle. They don't embrace liberty above all else. They don't really want to change the system. When push comes to shove, they capitulate to the power of government and big business time and time again.

I am not personally fond of Bob Barr, which is primarily due to actions he engaged in while a member of the US House of Representatives (and a member of the GOP), but I simply must vote by my principles now and forget the fancy marketing and charismatic speeches of Barack Obama. At the end of the day, he will sell me out if it is convenient for him to do so. He had an uphill battle to win my vote, but the burden ultimately proved to be too difficult for him.

Republicans should be ashamed...

After watching and listening to (and later reading) the speeches of Senator Dodd and Senator Feingold regarding FISA, I am left feeling that Republicans should be very ashamed. They are part of a political party that proudly proclaims they are the party for the individual. Although we already knew that to be a sham, it's a little sad each time that it is demonstrated once again. I once was a member of the College Republicans, and voted proudly in step with the GOP in the 90s. I could see the GOP losing its place, though, and selling out to special interests within its party (big business and religion). I left for the Libertarians, which stood for principles that actually meant something.

The GOP should be ashamed that their allegiance with big business has let them be out-performed by members of the Democratic Party on the issue of the FISA bill (H.R. 6304) and on individual liberties in general. They should hang their heads and try to find out just when they lost their way.

Russ Feingold gets it as well...

Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Dodd's amendment to strike the immunity provision from this bill, and I especially thank the Senator from Connecticut for his leadership on this issue. Both earlier this year, when the Senate first considered FISA legislation, and again this time around, he has demonstrated tremendous resolve on this issue, and I have been proud to work with him.

Some have tried to suggest that the bill before us will leave it up to the courts to decide whether to give retroactive immunity to companies that allegedly participated in the President's illegal wiretapping program. But make no mistake, this bill will result in immunity being granted--it will--because it sets up a rigged process with only one possible outcome. Under the terms of this bill, a Federal district court would evaluate whether there is substantial evidence that a company received .....

a written request or directive from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community indicating that the activity was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful.

We already know, from the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee that was issued last fall, that the companies received exactly such a request or directive. This is already public information. So under the terms of this proposal, the court's decision would actually be predetermined.

As a practical matter, that means that regardless of how much information the court is permitted to review, what standard of review is employed, how open the proceedings are, and what role the plaintiffs are permitted to play, it won't matter. The court will essentially be required to grant immunity under this bill.

Now, our proponents will argue that the plaintiffs in the lawsuits against the companies can participate in briefing to the court, and this is true. But they are not allowed any access to any classified information. Talk about fighting with both hands tied behind your back. The administration has restricted information about this illegal wiretapping program so much that roughly 70 Members of this Chamber don't even have access to the basic facts about what happened. Do you believe that? So let's not pretend that the plaintiffs will be able to participate in any meaningful way in these proceedings in which Congress has made sure their claims will be dismissed.

This result is extremely disappointing. It is entirely unnecessary and unjustified, and it will profoundly undermine the rule of law in this country. I cannot comprehend why Congress would take this action in the waning months of an administration that has consistently shown contempt for the rule of law--perhaps most notably in the illegal warrantless wiretapping program it set up in secret.

We hear people argue that the telecom companies should not be penalized for allegedly taking part in this illegal program. What you don't hear, though, is that current law already provides immunity from lawsuits for companies that cooperate with the Government's request for assistance, as long as they receive either a court order or a certification from the Attorney General that no court order is needed and the request meets all statutory requirements. But if requests are not properly documented, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act instructs the telephone company to refuse the Government's request, and it subjects them to liability if they instead decide to cooperate.

When Congress passed FISA three decades ago, in the wake of the extensive, well-documented wiretapping abuses of the 1960s and 1970s, it decided that in the future, telephone companies should not simply assume that any Government request for assistance to conduct electronic surveillance was appropriate. It was clear some checks needed to be in place to prevent future abuses of this incredibly intrusive power; that is, the power to listen in on people's personal conversations.

At the same time, however, Congress did not want to saddle telephone companies with the responsibility of determining whether the Government's request for assistance was legitimate. So Congress devised a good system. It devised a system that would take the guesswork out of it completely. Under that system, which is still in place today, the company's legal obligations and liability depend entirely on whether the Government has presented the company with a court order or a certification stating that certain basic requirements have been met. If the proper documentation is submitted, the company must cooperate with the request and it is, in fact, immune from liability. If the proper documentation, however, has not been submitted, the company must refuse the Government's request or be subject to possible liability in the courts.

This framework, which has been in place for 30 years, protects companies that comply with legitimate Government requests while also protecting the privacy of Americans' communications from illegitimate snooping. Granting companies that allegedly cooperated with an illegal program this new form of retroactive immunity in this bill undermines the law that has been on the books for decades--a law that was designed to prevent exactly the type of abuse that allegedly occurred here.

Even worse, granting retroactive immunity under these circumstances will undermine any new laws we pass regarding Government surveillance. If we want companies to obey the law in the future, doesn't it send a terrible message, doesn't it set a terrible precedent, to give them a ``get out of jail free'' card

for allegedly ignoring the law in the past?

Last week, a key court decision on FISA undercut one of the most popular arguments in support of immunity; that is, that we need to let the companies off the hook because the State secrets privilege prevents them from defending themselves in court. A Federal Court has now held that the State secrets privilege does not apply to claims brought under FISA. Rather, more specific evidentiary rules in FISA govern in situations such as that. Shouldn't we at least let these cases proceed to see how they play out, rather than trying to solve a problem that may not even exist?

That is not all. This immunity provision doesn't just allow telephone companies off the hook; it will also make it that much harder to get at the core issue I have been raising since December 2005, which is that the President broke the law and should be held accountable. When these lawsuits are dismissed, we will be that much further away from an independent judicial review of this illegal program.

On top of all this, we are considering granting immunity when roughly 70 Members of the Senate still have not been briefed on the President's wiretapping program. The vast majority of this body still does not even know what we are being asked to grant immunity for. Frankly, I have a hard

time understanding how any Senator can vote against this amendment without this information.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to strike the immunity provision from the bill.

I yield the floor.

Senator Chris Dodd gets it...

Mr. President, it is very simple. Strike that section of the bill that grants immunity to a number of telecommunications companies that, for a period of roughly 5 or 6 years, literally vacuumed up phone conversations, faxes, e-mails, photographs, on a wholesale basis, of virtually every American citizen. The only reason it has come to a halt is because there was a whistleblower who identified the program. Otherwise the program would be ongoing. Again, none of us argue, at least I don't argue at all, about the importance of having the ability to get the cooperation of an industry that could help us identify those who would do us harm. That is not the debate.

The debate is whether there is an appropriate means by which those warrants are sought before these telecom companies would begin to turn over the private conversations, e-mails, and communications of American citizens. That is what this debate is about. It is a simple debate on whether we keep this section of the bill or strike it out and allow the judicial branch, a coequal branch of Government, to determine whether the acts by the executive branch were constitutional and if they were they legal.

If this amendment is not adopted, it will be a vote by the legislative body that determines whether they were legal. We are not competent or the appropriate constitutionally delegated body to perform that function. That is why we have three coequal branches of Government. The executive branch made this decision. We in the legislative branch have an obligation to insist that the judicial branch determine the legality of the actions taken.

I wish to thank as well my colleague, Senator Feingold of Wisconsin, my lead cosponsor, but also to mention, if I may, Senator Leahy, who has been a stalwart on this effort and always a great crusader against those who would do harm to the rule of law. I also want to thank Senator Reid, the Majority Leader, and Senators Harkin, Boxer, Sanders, Wyden, Kennedy, Durbin, Kerry, and Clinton for their support for this amendment. I also thank, if I may, Jay Rockefeller, who chairs this committee. While I am highly critical of title II of the bill, I have great respect for him and the work he has tried to do in leading the Intelligence Committee on this difficult issue. While I still have major reservations about title I of this bill, the fact that title II still exists in this bill makes it impossible to be supportive of this legislation, if that is retained in the bill that we vote on tomorrow.

For many Americans, the issue may seem a very difficult one to follow. It may seem like another squabble over a corporate lawsuit. But in reality, it is so much more than that. This is about choosing between the rule of law and the rule of men. You heard our colleague, Senator Levin, and the Majority Leader eloquently describe the situation as it presently exists.

For more than 7 years, President Bush has demonstrated time and time again, unfortunately, that he neither respects the role of Congress nor does he apparently respect the rule of law on these matters. Today, we are considering legislation which will grant retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that are alleged to have handed over to this administration the personal information of virtually every American, every phone call, every e-mail, every fax, and every text message, and all without warrant.

Some may argue that, in fact, the companies received documentation from the administration stating that the President authorized the wiretapping program and that, therefore, it is automatically legal. These advocates will argue that the mere existence of documentation justifies retroactive immunity; that because a document was received, companies should be retroactively exonerated from any wrongdoing. But as the Intelligence Committee has already made clear, we already know that the companies received some form of documentation with some sort of legal determination.

But that logic is deeply flawed. Because the question is not whether the companies received a document from the White House. The question is, were those actions legal?

It is a rather straightforward and surprisingly uncomplicated question. Did the companies break the law? Why did the administration not go to the FISA Court as they were required to do under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act?

Since 1978, that court has handled 18,748 warrants, and they have rejected 5 since 1978, in almost 30 years, according to a recent published report in the Washington Post. So the issue raised for me is, why didn't these companies go before that court to determine whether a warrant was justified? Why did they decide merely to rely on some letter or some documentation, none of which has ever been established as a legal justification for their actions?

Either the companies complied with the law as it was at the time or they didn't. Either the companies and the President acted outside the rule of law or they followed it. Either the underlying program was legal or it was not. If we pass retroactive immunity, not a single one of these questions will ever be answered--ever. Because of this so-called compromise, Federal judges' hands will be tied and the outcome of these cases will be predetermined. Retroactive immunity will be granted.

So this is about finding out what exactly happened between these companies and the administration. It is about holding this administration to account for violating the rule of law and our Constitution. It is about reminding this administration that where law ends, tyranny begins. Those aren't my words, where the law ends, tyranny begins. Those words were spoken by the former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.

It is time we say no more, no more trampling on our Constitution, no more excusing those who violate the rule of law. These are our principles. They

have been around since the Magna Carta, even predating the Constitution. They are enduring. What they are not is temporary. And what we should not do at a time when our country is at risk is abandon them. That is what is at stake this evening and tomorrow when the vote occurs.

Allowing retroactive immunity to go forward is, by its very nature, an abandonment of those principles. Similar to generations of American leaders before us, we too are confronted with a choice. Does America stand for all that is right with our world or do we retreat in fear? Do we stand for justice that secures America or do we act out of vengeance that weakens us?

Whatever our political party, Republican or Democratic, we are all elected to ensure that this Nation adheres to the rule of law. That is our most fundamental obligation as Members of this great body, to uphold the rule of law--not as partisans but as patriots serving our Nation. The rule of law is not the province of any one political party or any particular Member of the Senate but is, rather, the province of every American who has been safer because of it.

President Bush is right about one thing. The debate is about security. But not in the way he imagines. He believes we have to give up certain rights in order to be safer. This false dichotomy, this false choice that to be more secure, you must give up rights is a fundamentally flawed idea. In fact, the opposite is true. To be more secure, you must defend your rights.

I believe the choice between moral authority and security is a false choice. I believe it is precisely when you stand up and protect your rights that you become stronger, not weaker. The damage done to our country on 9/11 was both tragic and stunning, but when you start diminishing the rights of your people, you compound that tragedy. You cannot protect America in the long run if you fail to protect the Constitution of the United States. It is that simple.

As Dwight Eisenhower, who served our country as both President and as the leader of our Allied forces in Europe during World War II, said:

The clearest way to show what the rule of law means to us in everyday life is to recall what has happened when there is no rule of law.

That is why I believe history will judge this administration harshly for their disregard for our most cherished principles. If we do not change course and stand for our Constitution at this hour, for what is best for our country, for what we know is just and right, then history, I am confident, will most certainly decide that it was those of us in this body who bear equal responsibility for the President's decisions--for it was we who looked the other way, time and time again.

This is the moment. At long last, let us rise to it. Support the amendment I am offering on behalf of myself and the other Members I mentioned earlier. We must put a stop to this idea of retroactive immunity. It is time we stood for the rule of law. That is what is at stake. The FISA Courts were created specifically to strike the balance between a secure nation and a nation defending its rights. That is why the law has done so well for these past 30 years, amended many times, to keep pace with the changes of those who would do us great harm.

At this very hour, in the wake of 9/11, to say we no longer care about that, that we will decide by a simple majority vote to grant retroactive immunity to companies who decided that a letter alone was enough legal authority for them to do what they did is wrong.

I have pointed out before in lengthy debate, not every phone company participated in the President's warrantless wiretapping program. Not everyone did. There were those who stood up to the administration and said, without a warrant, without proper legal authority, we will not engage in the vacuuming up of the private information of American citizens. They should be recognized and celebrated for standing for the rule of law.

For those who decided they were going to go the other way, let the courts decide whether that letter, that so-called documentation, was the legal authority that allowed them to do what they did for more than 5 long years.

Tomorrow we will vote around 11 o'clock on this amendment. I commend Senator Bingaman and Senator Specter. They have offered amendments as well dealing with other parts of this legislation for which I commend them. But I hope my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, would think long and hard about this moment. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan said something very important toward the conclusion of his remarks: That this in itself becomes a precedent, that some future administration, fearing they would not get permission from a FISA Court to engage in an activity that violated the privacy of our fellow citizens will no doubt use the vote tomorrow, if, in fact, those who are for retroactive immunity prevail. They will cite that act by this body as a legal justification for some future administration circumventing the FISA Courts in order to do exactly what was done in this case.

It becomes a legal precedent.

So there is a great deal at risk and at stake with this vote tomorrow. It is about the rule of law. It is not about whether you care about the security of our Nation. Every one of us cares deeply about that, and we want to do everything we can to thwart those who would do us great harm. This is about the simple issue of whether a court of law ought to determine whether these companies violated the Constitution. Did they or didn't they? If they did not, so be it. If they did, then those to whom they did harm ought to be compensated at what marginal or minimal level one would decide. But let the court decide this. Let's not decide it by a simple vote here and set the precedent that I think we would regret for years and years to come.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss continues to disregard individual liberties.

Saxby Chambliss comes out on the record in support of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, as it already existed, as well as being strongly in favor of giving retroactive immunity to private companies that likely violated the law while being part of the TSP. The fact remains that these private companies provided access and information to the government without being provided a proper legal order for it.

Here is some of what Saxby Chambliss had to say on the floor of the Senate, in an attempt to send the concept of individual liberty down the river for good:

The committee concluded that granting civil liability relief to the telecommunications providers was not only warranted, but required to maintain the regular assistance our intelligence and law enforcement professionals seek from them and others in the private sector. It was clear in discussions within the committee that most of us were concerned about the harm the Government could face if it cannot rely on the private sector. Without this provision, the harm faced by the Government will become a reality.

The problem with this comment is that a properly obtained and properly served order requires compliance from these private companies. It is not optional for them to assist when provided with such a request. So, how exactly would this or any other program be harmed? The answer is that it would not be harmed at all, unless they hope to act outside of the law at some point in the future and need their telecom cronies to do them some favors when that time comes.

I cannot understate the importance of this assistance, not only for intelligence purposes but for law enforcement too. The Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General stated, ``Extending liability protection to such companies is imperative; failure to do so could limit future cooperation by such companies and put critical intelligence operations at risk. Moreover, litigation against companies believed to have assisted the Government risks the disclosure of highly classified information regarding extremely sensitive intelligence sources and methods.'' There is too much at stake for us to deny those who assist the Government the liability relief they need, and deserve, or to delay its implementation.

So, the argument goes something like this... These poor telecom companies, with their teams of lawyers, were not able to tell whether the TSP requests were legal or not and assumed they were. They will somehow find a way to wriggle out of compliance with proper requests in the future. Also, despite the strong possibility that TSP was illegal, we'd better give these companies protection in order to keep any secrets obtained under this illegal program from seeing the light of day. We are a nation of laws, Mr. Chambliss, and you can bet that it should extend to every entity in this nation, regardless of how important or secret you think it should be. Perhaps, if it was really so important, the government should have acted within the law and therefore been able to keep it secret. They chose to operate outside of the law, of their own free will, and there are always consequences out there for those who choose to do such things.

Further, regardless of the Government's program, our companies should not be held liable for assistance that they were assured was lawful. Let the Government carry the burden for its own actions.

This argument is absurd. If you just think about the IRS, for instance. If you call them and they provide a response about your tax status or preparation, it carries no weight and will not absolve you, the individual, for being responsible for a different interpretation brought to the table by an auditor later. The government is rarely willing to carry any burden for its actions. Besides, if a private company is being sued for breaking a law, it is clearly about an action they engaged in. If they believe simply being asked by the government to do something is sufficient cover for their actions, why can't they argue that in court? Saxby Chambliss continues to believe that the interests of government and big companies outweigh the interests of individuals.

I have worked in subpoena compliance for a communications company in the past and I know that the very first thing you are supposed to do is ascertain whether the subpoena, or other legal order, is actually legal before providing any information at all. It is an important aspect of doing business in this, or any other, country. You need to know what orders actually require a response, and those which have no legal power behind them. Big telecommunication companies in the United States have enough legal resources to rightfully determine what they must do regarding orders from the government. That this slipped by all of them does not indicate that they deserve extra special protection with some retroactive immunity. If we want to do that for anyone, let's extend it to everyone for everything. Let's go back 3 or 4 years and give everyone immunity for anything they may have done.

Srikumar Rao speaking at Google

Dr. Srikumar Rao, author of _Are You Ready to Succeed? Unconventional Strategies to Achieving Personal Mastery in Business and Life_, spoke at Google's Mountain View, CA, campus as part of their Leading@Google series.

I had been encouraged to watch this video from a blog post I actually archived well over a month ago. I finally took the time to watch it and have found that he might be onto something. I will see if I can get his book from the library first...