Holdren: Seize babies born to unwed women

Obama science czar John Holdren stated in a college textbook that “illegitimate children” born to unwed mothers could be taken by the government

and put up for adoption if the mother refused to have an abortion.

Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, argued that “illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged” as a socioeconomic measure imposed to control population growth.

As previously reported, WND has obtained a copy of the 1970s college textbook “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment

” that Holdren co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich’s wife, Anne. The authors argued involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by “climate change.”

On page 786, the authors wrote that one way to discourage illegitimate childbearing “might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption – especially those born to minors who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone.”

Alternatively, the authors suggested unwed mothers might place their babies up for adoption, writing: “If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it.”

While observing that government-imposed coercive measures should be considered “only if milder measures fail completely,” the authors acknowledged extreme ecological situations could justify governmental intervention with coercive population control measures,

“It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society,” they write.

via Holdren: Seize babies born to unwed women.

CNSNews.com – New Jersey, New York and California Have Worst Tax Climates for Business, Tax Foundation Says

South Dakota

Wyoming

Alaska

Nevada

Florida

Montana

New Hampshire

Delaware

Washington

Utah

Texas

Indiana

Colorado

Oregon

Virginia

Missouri

Michigan

Idaho

Alabama

Kentucky

Mississippi

Tennessee

New Mexico

Hawaii

North Dakota

South Carolina

Pennsylvania

Arizona

Georgia

Illinois

Oklahoma

Kansas

Nebraska

Maine

Louisiana

Massachusetts

West Virginia

Connecticut

North Carolina

Arkansas

Vermont

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Rhode Island

Maryland

Iowa

Ohio

California

New York

New Jersey

via CNSNews.com – New Jersey, New York and California Have Worst Tax Climates for Business, Tax Foundation Says.

Activists Forget obama is an Illegal Immigrant

Of course that’s never stopped anything now has it?  Despite the Unconstitutional regieme that’s now in power and the regiemes that have been in power for decades folks have forgotten about the US Constitution.

“Not only is it an attack on the president, but also on all men and people of African descent,” King Salim Khalfani, president of the Virginia NAACP, said of what he called “the abomination that’s on the wall” outside Club Velvet.

The banner, unfurled within the past few days, depicts Obama as Heath Ledger’s grotesque Joker character from “The Dark Knight.” The president is shown with smeared red lipstick, a white face and darkened eyes. The word “socialism” is spelled out below the caricature.

Dancer Kaitlyn McGee handed out a statement from club owner Sam Moore, who did not appear. The statement described him as a “staunch libertarian” and said the banner was intended to show his displeasure with Obama’s policies. McGee walked through the crowd with a sign that read “Strippers 4 Obama” to show that Moore is not opposed to the president himself.

“Mr. Moore would like to say that anyone who believes that his banner is racist is an ignoramus,” it read.

via Activists protest Va. strip club’s Obama banner.

Corsi Forgets the Constitution

The government should not be giving subsidies to ANYTHING.  Corsi forgets this basic point in this column.

He continued, “Unilaterally ending U.S. fossil fuel tax subsidies would have a seriously negative impact on the U.S. economy.”

Approximately 85 percent of the energy that drives the U.S. economy still comes from oil and natural gas.

“Simply put, why the Obama administration would shut down 20 percent of our nation’s oil production and 12 percent of its natural gas is unfathomable,” wrote Barry Russell, president and chief executive of the Independent Petroleum Association of America.

“Why it would seek to take away 25 to 40 percent of the capital that finds and produces American natural gas – half of which comes from wells developed in the last four years – is undecipherable,” Russell continued. “Why it would choose to hand the nation’s energy future to foreign leaders like Hugo Chavez, whose hatred for our country is as clear as the glistening spittle he spews in his anti-American speeches, is clearly a tragic miscalculation.”

via Slippery tactics: Obama declares war on oil.

Safe Schools Czar Dongerous to Schools

“A teacher was told by a 15-year-old high school sophomore that he was having homosexual sex with an ‘older man.’ At the very least, statutory rape occurred. Fox News reported that the teacher violated a state law requiring that he report the abuse. That former teacher, Kevin Jennings, is President Obama’s ‘safe school czar.’ … Clearly, the process for vetting White House employees has broken down,” the Times editorial board said.

via ‘Safe schools’ chief encouraged child sex with older man.

Broken down?  Nopers obama knows EXACTLY who these “people” are.  There’s just so many it’s going to take a while tog et rid of them.  CONgress just needs to eliminate the czars otherwise this nonsense is going to get worse.

More Rosemont Water Drama

This one is going to go one for a while barring some common sense.  If no documents ar produced that definitively show Brunswick owns the lines then this suit is moot…of course again that depends on common sense with all parties involved.

The Frederick News-Post Online – Frederick County Maryland Daily Newspaper.

Judge allows Rosemont to sue for water
Originally published September 29, 2009

By Patti S. Borda

Rosemont’s lawsuit to force the city of Brunswick to provide water to the community will go forward, plaintiff Tom Watson said.

Eight residents of Rosemont, led by Watson, have sued Brunswick to prevent the city from carrying out an adopted resolution to stop water service to the community.

In Frederick County Circuit Court Aug. 19, Judge Theresa M. Adams took under advisement two motions in the case: one from Brunswick to dismiss the case; and one from Rosemont plaintiffs for class certification.

Adams denied both motions last week.

“That’s really not a problem,” Watson said. “This just clears it up to proceed to court on the merits of our suit.”

Rosemont’s eight plaintiffs had wanted the case to become a class-action suit affecting all water customers in Rosemont, about 80 properties.

Because the interested parties are closely located and known to the court, Watson said the judge found the case did not qualify for class certification.

Following a practice of not commenting on ongoing litigation, Brunswick Mayor Carroll Jones expressed no reaction.

“I will not offer a comment,” he said.

Both Watson and Jones said they have not heard when the next court date will be.

Rosemont lies north of and outside the city limits. Ever since the Works Project Administration built the waterlines between Brunswick and Rosemont in the 1930s, Brunswick has supplied water to some Rosemont properties.

Documentation stating that Brunswick is always required to provide the service has not been supplied, said Danny B. O’Connor, Brunswick’s attorney.

The plaintiffs have cited precedents that a public utility that exclusively provides a service to an area must provide for the service to continue. Whether Brunswick has become a de facto public utility for Rosemont has yet to be determined.

“We do not believe it’s a public utility,” Jones said.

Brunswick’s position is that although it has provided water to Rosemont properties, it has no legal responsibility to do so.

The water lines serving Rosemont need about $3.3 million in upgrades.

An injunction has prevented the city from cutting off water service until the court case is settled.

Attorneys for both sides acknowledged the case could take a long time to settle.

WHy is Faith Baptist Operating Under the US Gov’t Perview?

tax.

Tax exemption is a function of the gov’t and with that comes many attachments including gov’t interference.  I ahve not heard of any in our church…yet…but with obama’s attitude coming more and more into the bright light so that NOONE can deny where he stands one question comes to mind:

Is it a good idea or even Biblical for a church of God to operate at hte pleasure of a manmade gov’t?  As this poster on wnd.com says…no:

Churches should not be tax exempt


In regard to the Sept. 26 article “Dozens of pastors challenge IRS rules“: The issue is not how some 80 pastors are exercising their right to free speech, but that they have brought it upon themselves by getting in bed with the feds to obtain tax-exempt status. As Christians, we are not called to mix with the world or the government in such a way. If they complain about being hobbled, they have hobbled themselves.

The fix is simple: End their tax-exempt status, and they are free to preach whatever they like. However, many pastor won’t because they need the tax exemption to rake in the money. Shameful!

Here is an excellent article on this subject. It’s worth reading.

MOre obama czar power grabs

A Secret White House Power Grab Is In Full Swing – FOXNews.com.

A Secret White House Power Grab Is In Full Swing

It’s one thing for President Obama to surround himself with the advisers he’d like to have, but it’s another to bestow on them sweeping powers to broker secret negotiations and push forward vast new regulations that could cost American families thousands of dollars.

Cap-and-trade energy tax legislation appears stalled, at least for now, in the U.S. Senate. But that doesn’t mean the cap-and-trade energy tax isn’t imminent.

Senate Environment Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer hasn’t even introduced the bill yet; new Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln has declared the House bill dead on arrival; and there are several other cross-cutting controversies that divide Democrats on the bill. The Obama administration is unfazed. They are moving full steam ahead with an even more costly regulatory scheme in the name of global warming—shoehorning the regulation of greenhouse gases into the 1970 Clean Air Act, a bill passed before anyone had ever thought of global warming and that couldn’t be less suited to the task.

Driving the push for this massive power grab and circumvention of the elected branches is a key White House official who avoided Senate confirmation by being installed not as EPA director, but instead as White House Climate Czar: Carol Browner.

Long before the Supreme Court ruled in a highly questionable 2007 case, Massachusetts v. EPA, that the EPA has the legal authority to justify its proposed 18,000 pages of greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act, Browner (then EPA director under President Bill Clinton) had her general counsel, Jonathan Cannon, prepare a now-infamous memorandum arguing—for the first time—that the EPA possessed such a power. At the time it was dismissed as a wild-eyed overreach that Congress would never allow. Now it’s happening, and Browner is right at the center of it.

Mary Nichols, the chair of the California Air Resources Board, has confirmed that Browner was the lead White House negotiator in establishing new automobile emissions standards, which for the first time rely on EPA’s presumed authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the 1970 Clean Air Act. Nichols told The New York Times that Browner quietly orchestrated private discussions from the White House with auto industry officials. “We put nothing in writing, ever,” Nichols said.

Left unchecked, Browner will move beyond automobiles to EPA’s entire staggering 18,000-page blueprint for regulating the U.S. economy. It will eventually regulate everything that moves (light-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks, buses, motorcycles, planes, trains, ships, boats, tractors, mining equipment, RVs, lawn mowers, fork lifts, and just about every other piece of equipment that has a motor) and lots of things that don’t (any building over 100,000 square feet could be pulled in, along with smaller carbon dioxide emitters, like restaurants, schools, and hospitals that have commercial kitchens with gas burners).

It’s bad enough that the EPA is moving ahead with plans to pursue expensive global warming regulations instead of leaving the complex issue to Congress, the branch of government constitutionally tasked with making laws. It’s made much worse by the fact that the effort is being led not by Lisa Jackson, the duly confirmed and therefore accountable administrator of the EPA, but by Carol Browner, the unaccountable, unconfirmed White House Climate Czar.

Browner was made a czar so that her powers could be more sweeping than they would be in any single official appointment—witness her cross-agency role in the secret automobile emissions regulations—and to avoid the scrutiny of Senate confirmation, which would have been difficult for Browner. Since leaving the Clinton administration she has moved further left, even becoming one of the 14 members of the “Socialist International Commission for a Sustainable World Society” on whose Web site she was listed as a member as recently as January 5, the day she was named White House Climate Czar.

This Commission pursues a clearly socialist agenda of centralized control under a regime of “global governance” that would enforce extreme environmental political correctness on a global basis. It’s far outside the political mainstream and would have presented serious problems for centrist Democrats facing a confirmation vote.

It’s one thing for President Obama to surround himself with the advisers he’d like to have, but it’s another to bestow on them sweeping powers to broker secret negotiations and push forward vast new regulations that could cost American families thousands of dollars.

Fortunately, we’ll be able to see this week where members of the U.S. Senate stand on allowing Carol Browner to direct taxpayer dollars and pursue vast new regulatory power grabs. Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana has introduced an amendment (SA 2440) to the Department of the Interior appropriations bill that prohibits any federal funding for Browner’s policy directives. Any senator who votes against it is voting to support not just Carol Browner, but also her vast regulatory power grab and the president’s system of unaccountable czars.

Mr. Kerpen is director of policy for Americans for Prosperity. He can be contacted through PhilKerpen.com. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.  His free two-minute Podcast is available daily.

Obama’s ‘Safe Schools’ Czar – Schools Safe for Everyone but Straight Folks.

President Obama’s “safe schools czar” is a former schoolteacher who has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, written about his past drug abuse, expressed his contempt for religion and detailed an incident in which he did not report an underage student who told him he was having sex with older men.

Conservatives are up in arms about the appointment of Kevin Jennings, Obama’s director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, saying he is too radical for the job.

Jennings was appointed to the position largely because of his longtime record of working to end bullying and discrimination in schools. In 1990, as a teacher in Massachusetts, he founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which now has over 40 chapters at schools nationwide. He has also published six books on gay rights and education, including one that describes his own experiences as a closeted gay student.

The OSDFS was created by the Bush administration in 2002. According to its Web site, one of its primary functions is to “provide financial assistance for drug and violence prevention activities and activities that promote the health and well being of students in elementary and secondary schools, and institutions of higher education.”

Jennings’ critics say he fits only half the bill, if that.

“Jennings was obviously chosen for this job because of the safe schools aspect… defining ‘safe schools’ narrowly in terms of ‘safe for homosexuality’,” Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, told FOXNews.com.

“But at least half of the job involves creating drug-free schools, and we’ve not been offered any evidence about what qualifications Jennings has for promoting drug-free schools.”

Jennings’ detractors note that he made four references to his personal drug abuse in his 2007 autobiography, “Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son: A Memoir.” On page 103, discussing his high school years in Hawaii in the early 1980s, Jennings wrote:

“I got stoned more often and went out to the beach at Bellows, overlooking Honolulu Harbor and the lights of the city, to drink with my buddies on Friday and Saturday nights, spending hours watching the planes take off and land at the airport, which is actually quite fascinating when you are drunk and stoned.”

Sprigg said that quote is particularly unacceptable for someone who has been named to lead America’s Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools.

“It would be nice to hear from Mr. Jennings … that he regrets the drug use he engaged in when he was in school,” Sprigg said. “But in this autobiography, which Mr. Jennings wrote only recently, he never expresses any regret about his youthful drug use.”

But Amanda Terkel, deputy research director at the Center for American Progress, sees Jennings’ comments about drugs in a different light.

“We have had elected officials do [drugs] and we still believe it is fine for them to be elected,” she said. “This is a point in his life that he was struggling … I think those experiences now help him reach out to students, relate to what they are going through, and help them through their problems.”

Liberal groups remain in Jennings’ corner, saying he is fully qualified for his position and is the victim of a right-wing smear campaign. But Jennings’ detractors point to other things he has said that alarm social conservatives.

In 1997, according to a transcript put together by Brian J. Burt, managing editor of the student-run Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Jennings said he hoped that promoting homosexuality in schools would be considered fine in the future.

“One of our board members” was called to testify before Congress when they had hearings on the promotion of homosexuality in schools,” Jennings said. “And we were busy putting out press releases, and saying, “We’re not promoting homosexuality, that’s not what our program’s about. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…. ‘

“Being finished might someday mean that most straight people, when they would hear that someone was promoting homosexuality, would say ‘Yeah, who cares?’ because they wouldn’t necessarily equate homosexuality with something bad that you would not want to promote.”

The group Jennings founded has also been accused of promoting homosexuality in schools. At a GLSEN conference in 2000, co-sponsored with the Massachusetts Department of Education, the group landed in hot water when it was revealed that it had included an educational seminar for kids that graphically described some unorthodox sex techniques.

A state official who spoke to teens at the conference said:

“Fisting (forcing one’s entire hand into another person’s rectum or vagina) often gets a bad rap….[It’s] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with…[and] to put you into an exploratory mode.”

At the time, Jennings said he had concerns about events at the conference, but he also criticized attendees who filmed it.

“From what I’ve heard, I have concerns as well,” Jennings told the Boston Globe in May 2000. “GLSEN believes that children do have a right to accurate, safer sex education, but this needs to be delivered in an age-appropriate and sensitive manner.

“What troubles me is the people who have the tape know what our mission is, they know that our work is about preventing harassment and they know that session was not the totality of what was offered at a conference with over 50 sessions,” he said.

But Peter LaBarbera, President of “Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, said Jennings’ reaction was weak and unacceptable.

“He never really apologized. If a conservative group had done that, they would be out of business,” LaBarbera said.

The religious right is also alarmed by Jennings’ personal views about religion. In his memoir, he wrote of his views while he was in high school:

“What had [God] done for me, other than make me feel shame and guilt? Squat. Screw you, buddy — I don’t need you around anymore, I decided.

“The Baptist Church had left me only a legacy of self-hatred, shame, and disappointment, and I wanted no more of it or its Father. The long erosion of my faith was now complete, and I, for many years, reacted violently to anyone who professed any kind of religion. Decades passed before I opened a Bible again.”

Terkel said Jennings was writing about a “low point” in his life, and he now considers himself a religious person.

“Since then he has been involved in the Union Theological Seminary,” she said. “He does consider himself religious. He tithes — I just don’t see any evidence that he is hostile to religion.”

Jennings is on the board of the Union Theological Seminary, which describes itself as “progressive and evangelical.”

Another controversy from Jennings’ past concerns an account in his 1994 book, “One Teacher In 10,” about how, as a teacher, he knew a high school sophomore named Brewster who was “involved” with an “older man”:

“Out spilled a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston. I listened, sympathized, and offered advice. He left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he graduated.”

The account led Diane Lenning, head of the National Education Association’s Republican Educators Caucus, to criticize Jennings in 2004 for not alerting school and state authorities about the boy’s situation, calling Jennings’ failure to do so an “unethical practice.”

Jennings threatened to sue Lenning for libel, saying she had no evidence that he knew the student in question was sexually active, or that he failed to report the situation.

But a professor at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, Warren Throckmorton, has produced an audio recording of a speech Jennings gave in 2000 at a GLSEN rally in Iowa, in which Jennings made it clear that he believed the student was sexually active:

“I said, ‘What were you doing in Boston on a school night, Brewster?’ He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, ‘Well I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.’ High school sophomore, 15 years old’ I looked at Brewster and said, ‘You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.'” [Audio is available on the professor’s Web site.]

The Washington Times reported in 2004 that “state authorities said Mr. Jennings filed no report in 1988.” A spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Department for Children and Families, the department to which Jennings — as a Massachusetts teacher — would have been legally obliged to report the situation, did not return calls from FOXNews.com.

GLSEN spokesman Daryl Presgraves told FOXNews.com that all the attacks on Jennings were hate-motivated smears, but he declined to address individual issues.

“From falsehoods to misrepresentations to things taken out of context to outright smears — all of which have been fully debunked — these groups will stop at nothing to ensure that no effective action is taken to address bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in America’s schools.

“They have failed to derail and slander GLSEN’s well-respected work in the education world, which includes partnerships with numerous national education organizations, and they now seek to tarnish Kevin Jennings’ highly regarded career as an educator.”

But Sprigg countered that nobody has adequately answered the questions that are being raised about Jennings.

Speaking of Jennings’ job, he said: “I think it’s unfortunate that [it] is a position that did not require any sort of confirmation process, because there are a lot of serious questions about Jennings and there has not been any forum in which Jennings has been required to answer the questions.”

Jennings forwarded questions from FOXNews.com to Department of Education spokesman Justin Hamilton, who declined to comment.

But Terkel said that Jennings’ appointment showed that the Obama administration was taking safe schools seriously.

“For a long time I think this position was largely neglected. It was seen as a throwaway position [by the Bush administration.] Now the Obama administration has made an attempt to find someone who, in many ways, seems tailor-made for this position. [Jennings] has devoted his whole career to promoting safe schools.”

via Critics Assail Obama’s ‘Safe Schools’ Czar, Say He’s Wrong Man for the Job – Political News – FOXNews.com.

Now Folks Rally Against Obama..Let’s Rally for the Constitution

Rallies catch fire against Obama’s ‘Minion Media’.

Opposing obama is not a total lost cause but it’s going to be a loooooong hard slog.  See folks like me and others werw arning about obama and his cronies before the campaign.  NOw that the masses have elected him he and the demopublicans feel they have a “mandate” and that the opposition is merely sour grapes.  they ahve displayed this attitude over and over now.  Many “conservative” tlak show hosts can’t understand how obama can be this way when it’s the very same talk show hosts who were warning that obama was going to be this way.  I don’t buy it.

When it comes to modern talk radio, tv, newspapers..etc etc etc left or right doesn’t matter because at the core they are the same.  We need to stand up for the Constitution not republicrat or demopublican.  We need to do it truly and loudly without sneering(like john lofton) or others(like ann coulter and the daily kos).  Until we do that we aren’t going to go anywhere but down.

Why IT Stereotypes Really Exist

Opinion: The unspoken truth about managing geeks.

Opinion: The unspoken truth about managing geeks

j.ello

Click here to find out more!

September 8, 2009 (Computerworld) I can sum up every article, book and column written by notable management experts about managing IT in two sentences: “Geeks are smart and creative, but they are also egocentric, antisocial, managerially and business-challenged, victim-prone, bullheaded and credit-whoring. To overcome these intractable behavioral deficits you must do X, Y and Z.”

X, Y and Z are variable and usually contradictory between one expert and the next, but the patronizing stereotypes remain constant. I’m not entirely sure that is helpful. So, using the familiar brush, allow me to paint a different picture of those IT pros buried somewhere in your organization.

Computerworld columnist Jeff Ello

Jeff Ello

My career has been stippled with a good bit of disaster recovery consulting, which has led me to deal with dozens of organizations on their worst day, when opinions were pretty raw. I’ve heard all of the above-mentioned stereotypes and far worse, as well as good bit of rage. The worse shape an organization is in, the more you hear the stereotypes thrown around. But my personal experiences working within IT groups have always been quite good, working with IT pros for whom the negative stereotypes just don’t seem to apply. I tended to chalk up IT group failures to some bad luck in hiring and the delicate balance of those geek stereotypes.

Recently, though, I have come to realize that perfectly healthy groups with solid, well-adjusted IT pros can and will devolve, slowly and quietly, into the behaviors that give rise to the stereotypes, given the right set of conditions. It turns out that it is the conditions that are stereotypical, and the IT pros tend to react to those conditions in logical ways. To say it a different way, organizations actively elicit these stereotypical negative behaviors.

Understanding why IT pros appear to act the way they do makes working with, among and as one of them the easiest job in the world.

It’s all about respect

Few people notice this, but for IT groups respect is the currency of the realm. IT pros do not squander this currency. Those whom they do not believe are worthy of their respect might instead be treated to professional courtesy, a friendly demeanor or the acceptance of authority. Gaining respect is not a matter of being the boss and has nothing to do with being likeable or sociable; whether you talk, eat or smell right; or any measure that isn’t directly related to the work. The amount of respect an IT pro pays someone is a measure of how tolerable that person is when it comes to getting things done, including the elegance and practicality of his solutions and suggestions. IT pros always and without fail, quietly self-organize around those who make the work easier, while shunning those who make the work harder, independent of the organizational chart.

This self-ordering behavior occurs naturally in the IT world because it is populated by people skilled in creative analysis and ordered reasoning. Doctors are a close parallel. The stakes may be higher in medicine, but the work in both fields requires a technical expertise that can’t be faked and a proficiency that can only be measured by qualified peers. I think every good IT pro on the planet idolizes Dr. House (minus the addictions).

While everyone would like to work for a nice person who is always right, IT pros will prefer a jerk who is always right over a nice person who is always wrong. Wrong creates unnecessary work, impossible situations and major failures. Wrong is evil, and it must be defeated. Capacity for technical reasoning trumps all other professional factors, period.

Foundational (bottom-up) respect is not only the largest single determining factor in the success of an IT team, but the most ignored. I believe you can predict success or failure of an IT group simply by assessing the amount of mutual respect within it.

The elements of the stereotypes

Ego — Similar to what good doctors do, IT pros figure out that the proper projection of ego engenders trust and reduces apprehension. Because IT pros’ education does not emphasize how to deal with people, there are always rough edges. Ego, as it plays out in IT, is an essential confidence combined with a not-so-subtle cynicism. It’s not about being right for the sake of being right but being right for the sake of saving a lot of time, effort, money and credibility. IT is a team sport, so being right or wrong impacts other members of the group in non-trivial ways. Unlike in many industries, in IT, colleagues can significantly influence the careers of the entire team. Correctness yields respect, respect builds good teams, and good teams build trust and maintain credibility through a healthy projection of ego. Strong IT groups view correctness as a virtue, and certitude as a delivery method. Meek IT groups, beaten down by inconsistent policies and a lack of structural support, are simply ineffective at driving change and creating efficiencies, getting mowed over by the clients, the management or both at every turn.

The victim mentality — IT pros are sensitive to logic — that’s what you pay them for. When things don’t add up, they are prone to express their opinions on the matter, and the level of response will be proportional to the absurdity of the event. The more things that occur that make no sense, the more cynical IT pros will become. Standard organizational politics often run afoul of this, so IT pros can come to be seen as whiny or as having a victim mentality. Presuming this is a trait that must be disciplined out of them is a huge management mistake. IT pros complain primarily about logic, and primarily to people they respect. If you are dismissive of complaints, fail to recognize an illogical event or behave in deceptive ways, IT pros will likely stop complaining to you. You might mistake this as a behavioral improvement, when it’s actually a show of disrespect. It means you are no longer worth talking to, which leads to insubordination.

Insubordination — This is a tricky one. Good IT pros are not anti-bureaucracy, as many observers think. They are anti-stupidity. The difference is both subjective and subtle. Good IT pros, whether they are expected to or not, have to operate and make decisions with little supervision. So when the rules are loose and logical and supervision is results-oriented, supportive and helpful to the process, IT pros are loyal, open, engaged and downright sociable. Arbitrary or micro-management, illogical decisions, inconsistent policies, the creation of unnecessary work and exclusionary practices will elicit a quiet, subversive, almost vicious attitude from otherwise excellent IT staff. Interestingly, IT groups don’t fall apart in this mode. From the outside, nothing looks to be wrong and the work still gets done. But internally, the IT group, or portions of it, may cut themselves off almost entirely from the intended management structure. They may work on big projects or steer the group entirely from the shadows while diverting the attention of supervisors to lesser topics. They believe they are protecting the organization, as well as their own credibility — and they are often correct.

Credit whoring — IT pros would prefer to make a good decision than to get credit for it. What will make them seek credit is the danger that a member of the group or management who is dangerous to the process might receive the credit for the work instead. That is insulting. If you’ve got a lot of credit whores in your IT group, there are bigger problems causing it.

Antisocial behavior — It’s fair to say that there is a large contingent of IT pros who are socially unskilled. However, this doesn’t mean those IT pros are antisocial. On the whole, they have plenty to say. If you want to get your IT pros more involved, you should deal with the problems laid out above and then train your other staff how to deal with IT. Users need to be reminded a few things, including:

  • IT wants to help me.
  • I should keep an open mind.
  • IT is not my personal tech adviser, nor is my work computer my personal computer.
  • IT people have lives and other interests.

Like anyone else, IT people tend to socialize with people who respect them. They’ll stop going to the company picnic if it becomes an occasion for everyone to list all the computer problems they never bothered to mention before.

How we elicit the stereotypes

What executives often fail to recognize is that every decision made that impacts IT is a technical decision. Not just some of the decisions, and not just the details of the decision, but every decision, bar none.

With IT, you cannot separate the technical aspects from the business aspects. They are one and the same, each constrained by the other and both constrained by creativity. Creativity is the most valuable asset of an IT group, and failing to promote it can cost an organization literally millions of dollars.

Most IT pros support an organization that is not involved with IT. The primary task of any IT group is to teach people how to work. That’s may sound authoritarian, but it’s not. IT’s job at the most fundamental level is to build, maintain and improve frameworks within which to accomplish tasks. You may not view a Web server as a framework to accomplish tasks, but it does automate the processes of advertising, sales, informing and entertaining, all of which would otherwise be done in other ways. IT groups literally teach and reteach the world how to work. That’s the job.

When you understand the mission of IT, it isn’t hard to see why co-workers and supervisors are judged severely according to their abilities to contribute to that process. If someone has to constantly be taught Computers 101 every time a new problem presents itself, he can’t contribute in the most fundamental way. It is one thing to deal with that from a co-worker, but quite another if the people who represent IT to the organization at large aren’t cognizant of how the technology works, can’t communicate it in the manner the IT group needs it communicated, can’t maintain consistency, take credit for the work of the group members, etc. This creates a huge morale problem for the group. Executives expect expert advice from the top IT person, but they have no way of knowing when they aren’t getting it. Therein lies the problem.

IT pros know when this is happening, and they find that it is impossible to draw attention to it. Once their work is impeded by the problem, they will adopt strategies and behaviors that help circumvent the issue. That is not a sustainable state, but how long it takes to deteriorate can be days, months or even years.

How to fix it

So, if you want to have a really happy, healthy and valuable IT group, I recommend one thing: Take an interest. IT pros work their butts off for people they respect, so you need to give them every reason to afford you some.

You can start with the hiring process. When hiring an IT pro, imagine you’re recruiting a doctor. And if you’re hiring a CIO, think of employing a chief of medicine. The chief of medicine should have many qualifications, but first and foremost, he should be a practicing doctor. Who decides if a doctor is a doctor? Other doctors! So, if your IT group isn’t at the table for the hiring process of their bosses and peers, this already does a disservice to the process.

Favor technical competence and leadership skills. Standard managerial processes are nearly useless in an IT group. As I mentioned, if you’ve managed to hire well in the lower ranks of your IT group, the staff already know how to manage things. Unlike in many industries, the fight in most IT groups is in how to get things done, not how to avoid work. IT pros will self-organize, disrupt and subvert in the name of accomplishing work. An over-structured, micro-managing, technically deficient runt, no matter how polished, who’s thrown into the mix for the sake of management will get a response from the professional IT group that’s similar to anyone’s response to a five-year-old tugging his pants leg.

What IT pros want in a manager is a technical sounding board and a source of general direction. Leadership and technical competence are qualities to look for in every member of the team. If you need someone to keep track of where projects are, file paperwork, produce reports and do customer relations, hire some assistants for a lot less money.

When it comes to performance checks, yearly reviews are worthless without a 360-degree assessment. Those things take more time than a simple top-down review, but it is time well spent. If you’ve been paying attention to what I’ve been telling you about how IT groups behave and organize, then you will see your IT group in a whole different light when you read the group’s 360s.

And make sure all your managers are practicing and learning. It is very easy to slip behind the curve in those positions, but just as with doctors, the only way to be relevant is to practice and maintain an expertise. In IT, six months to a year is all that stands between respect and irrelevance.

Finally, executives should have multiple in-points to the IT team. If the IT team is singing out of tune, it is worth investigating the reasons. But you’ll never even know if that’s the case if the only information you receive is from the CIO. Periodically, bring a few key IT brains to the boardroom to observe the problems of the organization at large, even about things outside of the IT world, if only to make use of their exquisitely refined BS detectors. A good IT pro is trained in how to accomplish work; their skills are not necessarily limited to computing. In fact, the best business decision-makers I know are IT people who aren’t even managers.

As I said at the very beginning, it’s all about respect. If you can identify and cultivate those individuals and processes that earn genuine respect from IT pros, you’ll have a great IT team. Taking an honest interest in helping your IT group help you is probably the smartest business move an organization can make. It also makes for happy, completely non-geek-like geeks.

Jeff Ello is a hybrid veteran of the IT and CG industries, currently managing IT for the Krannert School of Management at Purdue University. He can be contacted at jello@techoped.com.

Vendors Start Releasing TCP DOS Flaw Patches

Vendors are finally releasing patches today for the TCP vulnerabilities first publicized nearly a year ago that affect a huge range of networking products, including any device running a version of Cisco’s IOS software, and a number of Microsoft server and desktop operating systems. Both Microsoft and Cisco released fixes for the vulnerabilities on Tuesday.

via Microsoft, Cisco Issue Patches for TCP DoS Flaw | threatpost.

This is a Denial of Service issue and not a remote takeover.  Basically somebody can hang your mahcine if they want to whenever they want to.  This has been known since 2005 but mitigating this is going to take more time(in years) for all of hte old, non-supported/updated hardware to be phased out.  This is a minor issue at the worst.

Walkersville shot itself in the foot

Moxley, Walkersville may have deal for land

Originally published September 09, 2009

By Gina Gallucci-White

News-Post Staff

The Town of Walkersville may soon own the land that has caused it turmoil the past two years.

In a settlement recently reached in a religious discrimination lawsuit, the proposed purchase price of the 224 acres owned by David Moxley at 8939 Woodsboro Pike is about $4.7 million.

A written signed settlement has not been reached between Moxley and the town, said Gloria Long Rollins, town manager. Town attorney David Severn, reached by e-mail, said he cannot discuss the settlement because it has not been signed.

An ordinance at tonight’s town meeting will be introduced to appropriate funding for the purchase from the town reserves, Rollins said.

A public hearing will be held Sept. 23, and she was hopeful the written settlement will be completed by then.

Moxley’s attorney, Roman Storzer, could not be reached for comment.

In his dismissal of the suit, U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett said the case could be reopened if the settlement is not completed within 150 days.

Moxley filed a $16.5 million lawsuit in July 2008 when the town denied the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community’s request to build worship and recreational facilities on the land. The group had a contract with Moxley to buy the land pending the results of the Board of Appeals ruling.

The Ahmadiyya community decided not to appeal the decision and did not participate in the lawsuit.

Moxley claimed the town discriminated against the group because of its religion.

The board cited the more than a dozen factors it used to make its decision, including the availability of firefighting equipment, traffic and the orderly growth of the town. Religion was not cited as a factor. When religion was brought up in the 11-day hearings, the board stopped the discussion.

Staff writer Karen Gardner contributed to this report.

via The Frederick News-Post Online – Frederick County Maryland Daily Newspaper.

Oh man.  They had this one..then they screwed up.   It all started with them denying a large muslim retreat on zoning grounds. Moxley sued and even sued a citizens group that formed to oppose him.    Then Walkersville announced they would allow the banner school to do what they blocked the Muslim group from doing….and gave Moxley the ammo he needed to make this a religious bias suit.  Walkersville denied the banner schools application but it was too late.   Instead of it now being about his wanting the money(and showing his greed) Walkersville gave him the case on a silver platter.

Homeschooling Under Attack in the US.

Group Asks Court to Reconsider Removing Girl from Home School

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

By Joshua Rhett Miller

* Print

* ShareThis

A New Hampshire court’s decision to order a 10-year-old home-schooled girl to attend public school is coming under attack from some social conservatives and religious freedom advocates.

The Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based organization that seeks to preserve religious liberty and the sanctity of marriage, has asked a family court judge to reconsider her July 14 decision to send the girl, identified in court documents as “Amanda,” to a public school in Meredith, N.H.

“Parents have the fundamental rights to raise their children to the dictates of their conscience,” the organization’s attorney John Anthony Simmons told FOXNews.com.

Simmons noted that the girl was described in court documents as “academically promising” and interactive with her peers. “The court, in its own order, recognized this girl is performing well academically. So why are we changing her school environment?” he asked.

The girl’s parents, Brenda Voydatch and Martin Kurowski, divorced shortly after her birth in 1999. According to court documents, Kurowski wants his daughter to attend public schools because he believes home-schooling deprives her of socialization skills. A guardian ad litem, essentially a fact finder for the court, agreed, and that recommendation was approved by Judge Lucinda Sadler.

“[E]ducation is by its nature an exploration and examination of new things,” the court order read. “[A] child requires academic, social, cultural, and physical interaction with a variety of experiences, people, concepts, and surroundings in order to grow to an adult who can make intelligent decisions about how to achieve a productive and satisfying life.”

But Simmons says the court has effectively taken away Voydatch’s right, as the girl’s primary-custody parent, to make decisions regarding her future, despite the fact that she enrolled the girl in three public school courses to assuage concerns of her former husband.

“It is not the proper role of the court to insist that [the girl] be ‘exposed to different points of view’ if the primary residential parent has determined that it is in Amanda’s best interest not to be exposed to secular influences that would undermine [the girl’s] faith, schooling, social development, etc.,” Simmons wrote in court documents.

He says the court erred by agreeing with the guardian ad litem’s assessment that the girl was found to “lack some youthful characteristics,” in part because she “appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on question of faith,” according to court documents.

“The line that the court crossed here is saying that you’re too sincere in your religious beliefs,” Simmons said. “That’s the concern here.”

But Kurowski’s attorney, Elizabeth Donovan, said the ruling was based on the girl’s isolated learning environment, and not on her mother’s religion. She said the girl’s home-schooling consists of “sitting in the corner of her mother’s bedroom,” where she receives her lessons on a computer screen.

“My client is concerned because of the isolation that is borne of that and the lack of exposure to the broader culture at large,” Donovan said. “People of different heritage, people of different culture, tolerance, group problem-solving, making friends, losing friends — all of the things that come with a public school education.”

Donovan said Kurkowski has previously taken the girl to church and has no objections to her exposure to religion.

“When two parents with joint decision-making responsibility disagree and they cannot come to any common ground, we submit it to the court,” she said. “The court takes all the testimony and the court renders a decision. Mrs. Voydatch didn’t like the decision.”

Simmons said he is prepared to appeal the case in state Supreme Court if the judge does not reconsider her ruling.

“This is a situation where home schooling is doing just fine,” Simmons said. “We’re asking for the court to reconsider.”

Rob Reich, a political science and ethics professor at Stanford University who has written several papers on home-schooling, said Kurkowski’s wishes for his daughter’s education should be considered.

“His preference, as a general matter, ought to count for something,” Reich told FOXNews.com. “It would be peculiar not to attribute any standings to the preferences of the father. It just so happens in this case you can’t split the difference down the middle.”

But Herb London, president of the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based conservative think tank, said the New Hampshire court has “overstepped itself” in the case.

“I don’t see why her faith should have any bearing at all on the decision made by the court,” London told FOXNews.com. “The fact that she is a devoted Christian should not in any way influence the court’s decision.”

The ruling reflects a “radical secularism” of sorts, where any public display of religion is considered to be “wrongheaded,” London said. “With sufficient pressure, [the court] will have to reconsider. It’s really inappropriate for it to be making decisions of this kind.”

Mike Donnelly, a staff attorney for the Home School Legal Defense Association, said he’s hopeful the “inappropriate and unreasonable” ruling will be reconsidered.

“The court has taken a step too far,” Donnelly said, adding that the ruling appears to be “hostility against home schooling or religion — or both.”

via Group Asks Court to Reconsider Removing Girl from Home School – Local News | News Articles | National News | US News – FOXNews.com.