If I were called on at the town hall...

If I were at the town hall, this is the question I would ask of President Obama:

Mr. President, your predecessor handed to you the keys to the most powerful executive branch in the history of this country, as evidenced by warrant-less surveillance of even American citizens, indefinite detention without due process, indiscriminate killing of civilians with drone strikes, overbroad executive orders, and extraordinary rendition. To your credit, you ended torture and attempted to close Gitmo.

Instead of ending or restraining those extraordinary powers, you've expanded them, including an illegal use of military force in Libya, and an unconstitutional "kill list" that can apparently include US citizens. If you
are elected to a 2nd term, how would you return balance to your branch of government? Mr. Romney, if you win, how would you restore balance to the executive branch?

An answer to lobbyists...but will it work?

Obviously there are a lot of glaring problems with Washington D.C., but one that concerns me the most (ok, maybe not the most, but work with me) is the lack of non-biased input legislators get when making policy decisions outside of their realm of expertise.

Who do these legislators get information from? Professional, highly paid lobbyists who also eventually assist them in lining their re-election coffers. Now, I don't want to disparage all lobbyists, because I do think they provide some valuable information. The problem is, their input in most cases lacks any semblance of balance.

A good example of this was the SOPA/PIPA battle over copyright & intellectual property rights in the digital age. The momentum for this bill that was being largely driven (read: written) by the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America). Luckily, over time sanity prevailed due to a massive amount of consumer activism and some key industry players (like GoDaddy.com) getting pressured to withdraw support. It was actually a great testament as to how the citizenry can mobilize and influence a legislative outcome.

The problem with this effort is that it took a lot of energy from a public that has a hard time keeping their attention on issues like this. That sort of capital can only be used periodically, else you risk losing their attention by crying wolf too often.

So what can be done? I have an idea, but I'm concerned it may far to idealistic to work. The basic concept is  a citizen advisory board, or CAB. It works a little differently between Senators and Representatives, but not it doesn't have to. Here's the concept:

A member of the CAB:

• Must be a registered voter in the district (for Rep) or state for that Congress member
• Cannot have been a registered lobbyist within the last 5 years
• Cannot be compensated, with the exception of any expenses incurred (for example, for travel to DC) for serving as a CAB member
• Must have demonstrable expertise in the field in which advice is being provided
• Must sign a confidentiality agreement that stipulates when the CAB member may communicate publicly outside of their CAB member role (not sure on this one, trying to think of means of providing unfiltered guidance while maintaining confidentiality)
• Can donate to campaigns as an individual, but cannot donate to PAC or lobbying organizations

The duties are pretty simple:

• When called upon, provide guidance to the Congress member or related staffers on a pending legislative matter for which the member has direct involvement via committee
• This guidance can be written, verbal, or any viable medium
• Can (optional) provide guidance to other members of Congress at the request and approval of their home Representative or Senator (for example, when legislation is pending floor vote and is outside of the expertise of the home member of Congress) (ie. a loaner program)
• May be called upon to provide comment on approved drafts of legislation

So that's the basic draft. The idea is that any citizen can volunteer for this activity to help keep their Congress critters informed on the issues of the day and provide guidance on pending legislation. It is also a means for interested citizens to help create a better decision making process in Congress

I do see a few challenges with this:

• Lobbyists still control the $$$, and thus have more influence than the CAB member, at least conceptually
• Smaller states could have trouble fielding experts, but I think the loaner program may help with this
• How much time can be committed could be an issue, as many of these folks will have full time jobs
• Managing how CAB members are influenced would need to be reviewed (ie. avoid backdoor lobbying)
• No clue as to how much support this would have from members of Congress, I haven't even field tested it with my own critters yet. Or if they would even listen to the advice.

Admittedly, this is a very raw idea. So feel free to make suggestions or tear it apart. Naturally, I'd be one of the first to volunteer on issues concerning information technology, security, and privacy.

So whaddya think?

I really don't get FourSquare...

I saw someone I follow on Twitter waste my glance by checking into the following places:

Lowe's
Kohl's
Best Buy
Home Depot

Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot? What is the point of "checking in" to these mundane places, and then tweeting about it??? Don't get me wrong, I know part of social media is ego driven. I'm guilty of it too. But I'm also considerate enough not to spam you with irrelevant posts like that. While I know no one is going to find everything I say interesting, I at least put some effort into it.

That said, I have been known to check in on occasion on Facebook when I'm doing something novel (well, at least I think it is), like seeing the Foo Fighters for the first time in concert (awesome doesn't begin to describe that show), or attending a cool exhibit at Discovery Place. I might even check in at a cool restaurant I really enjoyed. That's about it.

This isn't intended to put people on the defensive if they use FourSquare in this fashion. I'd just like to understand the value they get from a site like that. Twitter has become a great resource for me to exchange professional banter while adding random thoughts on sports, politics, etc. It is also a nuisance when everyone is attending the same conference (mostly because I'm jealous because I'm not there), or one of the sports writers I follow is live tweeting a game.

I'm not even sure why I'm ranting on this. Just wanted something to talk about I guess. /shrug

In the end I guess I'm just asking: why do you use FourSquare and what value does it provide?

Itching to blog again...but conflicted

I've had this problem before. I genuinely enjoy writing about lots of topics. Generally they tend to group around the following: technology (lots of sub categories in this one), politics, sports & fitness (including weight loss), horses, spirituality. The first 3 are really the most common for me.

But now I feel like I'm hitting a fork in the road where perhaps I should consider specializing a bit and focusing a bit more on my thoughts surrounding my chosen profession and related subjects. I don't know that I want to do it as some ego boost as much I think it would help me sharpen my saw a bit on the subjects I care about. And, I think it might help invite some people I enjoy exchanging ideas with to take part in the conversation versus 143 character quips on Twitter.

Then, I also have school staring at me in August. I think what I'm leaning towards is dividing my blog and perhaps cross-post technology related entries that aren't quite as narrowly focused on identity and access management, which is my passion.

I'd also like to dabble in the design of the blog a bit, and get it a little more to my liking than a simple blogger site. Brian Katz's blog, is a good example of the kind of design I'd like to have for my professional blog.

Any feedback on this would definitely be appreciated.

Actual Facts About Amendment One

I had mentioned in some prior Facebook posts that I had planned to blog about this issue. I wished I had done so earlier, but school and work have definitely limited my time. However, the election is this Tuesday and I need to get this off my chest.

First, as the title suggests, I'll state the real facts about Amendment One and the concept of same-sex marriage in general. Then I might rant a little, we'll see. First, just the facts...

1. There is already a statute on the books in North Carolina that prevents gay marriage. This amendment is unnecessary.
2. Most of the people polled who support Amendment One are unaware of fact #1.
3. Amendment One is so unique, there's no category for it in the constitution (ie. there is nothing regarding marriage today in it), so it will have to be placed in the "miscellaneous" section.
4. Domestic partners (a common term for insurance benefits) of public employees are virtually guaranteed to lose their benefits if Amendment One passes.
5. Amendment One is worded very poorly, and there is no case law whatsoever in NC to deal with the term "domestic legal union".
6. Amendment One does absolutely nothing to protect heterosexual marriage.
7. Adoption of Amendment One would force another constitutional amendment to even allow civil unions in this state.
8. Approving Amendment One would be the first time we've enshrined discrimination in our state constitution.
9. Opposing gay marriage is a surprisingly bi-partisan issue. A significant percentage of African-American and Latino Democrats support Amendment One.

I have to admit, #9 is the one that annoys me the most. In a country that fought a civil war over rights for people who had no control over their race, some descendants of those those same people would enshrine discrimination into our state constitution against a class of people who have no choice over their sexual orientation.

The Bible is irrelevant in this discussion. Last I checked, most of the laws of Leviticus aren't in the NC constitution either (thankfully). Slavery is also legal and supported in both New and Old Testament. Where's the moral outrage there? Here is a terrific breakdown of the trouble opponents of gay marriage have with respect to the bible. (note: the first link is a trailer to a much longer version).

Gay marriage represents zero threat to traditional marriage. My wonderful marriage of 6 years will not be damaged one iota if some of my gay friends in NC are given a chance to commit to each other in a similar fashion.

Roy Cooper, the Attorney General of North Carolina, summed it up best. Amendment One is "unclear, unwise, and unnecessary."

I'll allow comments if people choose to do so. I merely ask that folks be respectful and address the argument at hand, not the people making them. I said nothing about the folks who support this awful amendment, I hope others will do the same.

Testing...and maybe revisiting

I'm restarting a life change, an only slightly more interesting way of saying that I'm trying to get healthy again and would  like to see if this still feeds facebook.

Update: apparently the original rss feed is in fact broken, so I'm trying another approach. I really dislike the latest changes to the blogger platform, so I may revert back to wordpress on my old website. We'll see.