9/11/06

I wanted to post something different to mark today's events. Like everyone else, I have been moved by touching accounts of today's September 11 memorial ceremonies, and the fact that the victims will never be forgotten. And I want to give all due respect to that side of the story. But I was particularly captivated by an editiorial in today's New York Times. I have chosen to reproduce that here instead, as a different kind of bittersweet reminder. I think these sentiments are just as valuable and memorable. I don't have anything else to say about them...after all, it would be impossible for me to express these ideas better than the NY Times editorial staff. I just wanted to share this piece with as many people as I could.

__________________________________________________________________
9/11/06
Editorial
New York Times
Published September 11, 2006

The feelings of sadness and loss with which we look back on Sept. 11, 2001, have shifted focus over the last five years. The attacks themselves have begun to acquire the aura of inevitability that comes with being part of history. We can argue about what one president or another might have done to head them off, but we cannot really imagine a world in which they never happened, any more than we can imagine what we would be like today if the Japanese had never attacked Pearl Harbor.

What we do revisit, over and over again, is the period that followed, when sorrow was merged with a sense of community and purpose. How, having lost so much on the day itself, did we also manage to lose that as well?

The time when we felt drawn together, changed by the shock of what had occurred, lasted long beyond the funerals, ceremonies and promises never to forget. It was a time when the nation was waiting to find out what it was supposed to do, to be called to the task that would give special lasting meaning to the tragedy that it had endured.

But the call never came. Without ever having asked to be exempt from the demands of this new post-9/11 war, we were cut out. Everything would be paid for with the blood of other people’s children, and with money earned by the next generation. Our role appeared to be confined to waiting in longer lines at the airport. President Bush, searching the other day for an example of post-9/11 sacrifice, pointed out that everybody pays taxes.

That pinched view of our responsibility as citizens got us tax cuts we didn’t need and an invasion that never would have occurred if every voter’s sons and daughters were eligible for the draft. With no call to work together on some effort greater than ourselves, we were free to relapse into a self- centeredness that became a second national tragedy. We have spent the last few years fighting each other with more avidity than we fight the enemy.

When we measure the possibilities created by 9/11 against what we have actually accomplished, it is clear that we have found one way after another to compound the tragedy. Homeland security is half-finished, the development at ground zero barely begun. The war against terror we meant to fight in Afghanistan is at best stuck in neutral, with the Taliban resurgent and the best economic news involving a bumper crop of opium. Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 when it was invaded, is now a breeding ground for a new generation of terrorists.

Listing the sins of the Bush administration may help to clarify how we got here, but it will not get us out. The country still hungers for something better, for evidence that our leaders also believe in ideas larger than their own political advancement.

Today, every elected official in the country will stop and remember 9/11. The president will remind the country that he has spent most of his administration fighting terrorism, and his opponents will point out that Osama bin Laden is still at large. It would be miraculous if the best of our leaders did something larger — expressed grief and responsibility for the bad path down which we’ve gone, and promised to work together to turn us in a better direction.

Over the last week, the White House has been vigorously warning the country what awful things would happen in Iraq if American troops left, while his critics have pointed out how impossible the current situation is. They are almost certainly both right. But unless people on both sides are willing to come up with a plan that acknowledges both truths and accepts the risk of making real-world proposals, we will be stuck in the same place forever.

If that kind of coming together happened today, we could look back on Sept. 11, 2006, as more than a day for recalling bad memories and lost chances.

MySpace at fault for sexual indecency?

ROYAL OAK: Catholic church to be site of rally against MySpace

St. Mary's Catholic Church in Royal Oak is joining those taking a stand against MySpace (www.myspace.com), a Web site designed to allow individuals to have personal Web pages, but that site has also been used to lure underage children into sexual activity with adults.

A rally is set for 7 p.m. July 27 at the church, 730 S. Lafayette. Organizers said the event is cosponsored by Care of the Soul, www.careofthesoul.org, and is aimed at highlighting the negatives of computer use.

--Detroit Free Press, 7/17/06
_____________________________________

There has been a lot of blame directed toward MySpace for its ability to lure underaged children into dangerous sexual situations. But now, this news item. It figures that it was only a matter of time before this subject was taken on as the newest Christian moral crusade. However, putting aside my personal grudge against churches, this highlights another big step in the campaign to condemn MySpace for its role in endangering the nation's children.

It seems that people need to be awakened to the fact that MySpace alone should not be held accountable for the actions of internet perverts. It is a very troubling fact that attempting to lure kids into sexual situations via the internet has been the MO of certain freaks for a long time. But these attempts are made in a variety of ways. It is in no way solely through MySpace that these perverts operate.

I would never attempt to downplay the threat that these predators pose. However, it seems that people need to focus their attention in the right place. MySpace is simply, by far, the largest social site on the internet. With so much daily activity, and its cultural significance, MySpace was sure to be named as a huge problem when news of predators using it came to light. But it's unfair to single out MySpace as the root of these internet hazards.

Of course, there is some merit to the fact that people must pay particular attention to MySpace because of these concerns, just because it is true that seemingly everyone visits MySpace. But it is a waste of time to rally against the site itself, as if Tom, the creator of MySpace, promotes these behaviors in any way. MySpace may give predators a way to target unsuspecting people, but many other internet sites allow predators the same opportunity.

I am not simply calling for people to lay off their united criticism of MySpace. I believe it's important for the public to instead focus their attention on the predators themselves, and the way in which they operate. This is a problem that goes far beyond MySpace, and rallying against MySpace in this way will not solve it.

Tom, and MySpace, is not out to corrupt our nation's children. Sexual predators themselves need to be the focus of everyone's outrage. There are groups that understand this need and have done plenty to fight the real problem. One of these concerned groups is the team of the website www.perverted-justice.com; it is the site that tracked down the sexual deviants that were confronted by NBC's Dateline. And the site continues to get online predators convicted. These are the efforts that truly matter. Granted, it's much more difficult and arbitrary to tell people to go after predators themselves, as opposed to a website that predators can use. And not just anyone can do it safely. But, evidently, it can be done.

Of course, parents may wish to protect their younger children by not allowing them to use MySpace, since their children can indeed be targeted this way...and it makes a lot of sense for parents to do so. But the public needs to look past headlines about MySpace, and not take the real problem for granted. To have people put all their effort into getting MySpace eliminated, for instance, will not resolve the issue, as another similar site (and many already exist) could then emerge as the public's new perceived major threat. If people's actions continue to be wasted in this way, then the predators will always be looming.

It's great that people are becoming concerned...but they need to put their energy into the right areas. The more people that denounce MySpace as being the sole enemy of our children, the more effort that goes into MySpace rallies and boycotts, will result in the more time being wasted without people paying attention to the real problem. People need to learn about all of the ways to watch out for internet predators...and all of the internet applications that this might include...and spread the word about how to become more aware of predators' tactics. Keep an eye on children, and on their entire computer ritual. Then all of the well-meaning efforts will truly start getting results.

Supreme influence

So, Samuel Alito has broken a tie, and the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that the death penalty in Kansas stays. (story) And this was a unique case, since Kansas has a bizarre stipulation that a jury should choose death when the evidence for and against death is equal. Yes, they should choose death NOT just if death wins out in a pro-con argument, but as long as there's no inclination to choose one over the other. The challenge to the Kansas death penalty on the grounds that it was cruel and unusual punishment was shot down by Alito alone, and this will be the final decision. In case people thought liberals, such as myself, were overreacting when they worried about both Alito and John Roberts being named to the court...THIS is just part of the proof that we were justified to worry, that the court would swing in a new direction with the addition of two conservatives. And I'm sure there's much more to come. For who knows how many years.

Because that's the real issue here. The Kansas decision is just the very beginning. It is one indicator of the way things are going to be now. Alito's conservative influence was all that was needed for things to play out the way they did. This was a 5-4 decision. It's not only the liberals that have worried about the new Court since the appointments that should take serious notice of these developments. The important question now becomes whether this kind of close decision, with a narrow conservative win, will play out over and over again...and what very influential decisions might it affect?

All I know is that I, in my typical pessimistic way, am dreading the day that this court overturns Roe v. Wade. Because it might not just be hype. Who knows....though the chances of it still seem iffy to me, it might just happen one of these days. These are the kinds of things that America will need to question under the newly conservative Supreme Court. And I'm not looking forward to it.

It all makes me keenly aware of the process of appointing new Supreme Court justices. It seems to me that this process is rather flawed. The influence of the Court can definitely not be underemphasized. The Supreme Court is, without doubt, the most powerful entity that the country has. It has the final say over any issue...it can essentially overrule all branches of government. And I think this type of power is indeed necessary; after all, this power was needed to put a stop to the 2000 Presidential election fiasco. However, when the Court has this much power, it would seem that there should be some sort of fairer way to appoint new justices than having the Presidential administration choose nominees.

It's true that Congress must approve the President's nomination, and it's even true that one of George W.'s nominees was shot down immediately, when even Congressional Republicans doubted the legitimacy of the pick. But the fact remains that the President, and his administration, is in charge of selecting the nominees for a seat that someone may hold for many decades. A President, and his deeply partisan administration, which will serve for eight years at the most, can have a large influence on some of the most important decisions in the country for countless years after his Presidency is long over. This does not seem to be the best idea to me.

George W. was incredibly lucky to be able to appoint not just one, but two new Supreme Court justices during his Presidency (and all within the matter of a few months.) This is an unlikely occasion, and unfortunately for this country, it occurred during the Bush administration. Though Congress (currently a Republican-dominated Congress, I might add) needed to accept W.'s nominations, Bush was able to get two very conservative picks through onto the Supreme Court. And now, who knows what the lasting implications of this will really be.

It makes me shudder to think of what W.'s true legacy might be in the end. A second Vietnam war, yes. An astonishing trampling of the Bill of Rights, sure. But the power to extend his conservative views through the new Court he created, a Court which could now swing conservative for a terribly long amount of time? A Court which, ulitmately, has power over every other institution in the country? The reality of this is, hopefully, enough to make anyone objectively wonder whether ANY administration should really have that much power. But I won't hold my breath.

What would an internet search say about you?

The following is a New York Times story about how employers are increasingly finding out more about job applicants by going to social networking sites, such as Facebook and MySpace. I think this is terrible...everyone, especially every college student, will have fun outside of work. I think the fact that college students will party and maybe get drunk from time to time is hardly news. It doesn't make someone less qualified for a job. It seems that pretty much all college-aged kids have profiles on FB and/or MySpace, and a lot of these profiles have things that are not meant to be seen by people other than friends and fellow students. And there's nothing wrong with that. I mean, imagine if this same screening process technically could have been used for everyone that is already working at one of these companies. How many people wouldn't have been accepted?

What people do for fun and their professional attitude are generally two different things. I'm not going to claim it's some kind of invasion of privacy, because the users of these sites (including myself) are voluntarily putting it out there on the internet. But it hardly seems like something companies should be wasting their time on. Is it such an incredible thing that the way people present themselves to their friends might not completely be in line with how they present themselves to authority figures?

The problem, though, is that there's probably not much any of us can do about this. We can complain about it, but it appears as though it is becoming more and more of a reality. So I guess when I (finally) get to the point where I'm leaving school and seriously trying to find a career, I may need to temporarily tone down my MySpace and Facebook pages. Not that they're crazy or anything, but apparently all of us should be worried. And I'll also have to make sure there's nothing a Google search on my name will find that I might not want employers to see. Even though this is, I'm sure, completely legal, it does feel like an invasion to me, honestly, because it's putting a person up to some pretty ridiculous standards. But it looks like it's happening, and we all have to be ready for it.
________________________________________________________________

For Some, Online Persona Undermines a Résumé
By ALAN FINDER
Published: June 11, 2006
New York Times

When a small consulting company in Chicago was looking to hire a summer intern this month, the company's president went online to check on a promising candidate who had just graduated from the University of Illinois.

At Facebook, a popular social networking site, the executive found the candidate's Web page with this description of his interests: "smokin' blunts" (cigars hollowed out and stuffed with marijuana), shooting people and obsessive sex, all described in vivid slang.

It did not matter that the student was clearly posturing. He was done.

"A lot of it makes me think, what kind of judgment does this person have?" said the company's president, Brad Karsh. "Why are you allowing this to be viewed publicly, effectively, or semipublicly?"

Many companies that recruit on college campuses have been using search engines like Google and Yahoo to conduct background checks on seniors looking for their first job. But now, college career counselors and other experts say, some recruiters are looking up applicants on social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace, Xanga and Friendster, where college students often post risqué or teasing photographs and provocative comments about drinking, recreational drug use and sexual exploits in what some mistakenly believe is relative privacy.

When viewed by corporate recruiters or admissions officials at graduate and professional schools, such pages can make students look immature and unprofessional, at best.

"It's a growing phenomenon," said Michael Sciola, director of the career resource center at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn. "There are lots of employers that Google. Now they've taken the next step."

At New York University, recruiters from about 30 companies told career counselors that they were looking at the sites, said Trudy G. Steinfeld, executive director of the center for career development.

"The term they've used over and over is red flags," Ms. Steinfeld said. "Is there something about their lifestyle that we might find questionable or that we might find goes against the core values of our corporation?"

Facebook and MySpace are only two years old, but have attracted millions of avid young participants, who mingle online by sharing biographical and other information, often intended to show how funny, cool and even outrageous they are.

On MySpace and similar sites, personal pages are generally available to anyone who registers, with few restrictions on who can register. Facebook, though, has separate requirements for different categories of users; college students must have a college e-mail address to register. Personal pages on Facebook are restricted to friends and others on the user's campus, leading many students to assume that they are relatively private.

But companies can gain access to the information in several ways. Employees who are recent graduates often retain their college e-mail addresses, which enables them to see pages. Sometimes, too, companies ask college students working as interns to perform online background checks, said Patricia Rose, the director of career services at the University of Pennsylvania.

Concerns have already been raised about these and other Internet sites, from their potential misuse by stalkers to students exposing their own misbehavior, for example by posting photographs of hazing by college sports teams. Add to the list of unintended consequences the new hurdles for the job search.

Ana Homayoun runs Green Ivy Educational Consulting, a small firm that tutors and teaches organizational skills to high school students in the San Francisco area. Ms. Homayoun visited Duke University this spring for an alumni weekend and while there planned to interview a promising job applicant.

Curious about the candidate, Ms. Homayoun went to her page on Facebook. She found explicit photographs and commentary about the student's sexual escapades, drinking and pot smoking, including testimonials from friends. Among the pictures were shots of the young woman passed out after drinking.

"I was just shocked by the amount of stuff that she was willing to publicly display," Ms. Homayoun said. "When I saw that, I thought, 'O.K., so much for that.' "

Ms. Rose said a recruiter had told her he rejected an applicant after searching the name of the student, a chemical engineering major, on Google. Among the things the recruiter found, she said, was this remark: "I like to blow things up."

Occasionally students find evidence online that might explain why a job search is foundering. Tien Nguyen, a senior at the University of California, Los Angeles, signed up for interviews on campus with corporate recruiters, beginning last fall, but he was seldom invited.

A friend suggested in February that Mr. Nguyen research himself on Google. He found a link to a satirical essay, entitled "Lying Your Way to the Top," that he had published last summer on a Web site for college students. He asked that the essay be removed. Soon, he began to be invited to job interviews and has now received several offers.

"I never really considered that employers would do something like that," he said. "I thought they would just look at your résumé and grades."

Jennifer Floren is chief executive of Experience Inc., which provides online information about jobs and employers to students at 3,800 universities.

"This is really the first time that we've seen that stage of life captured in a kind of time capsule and in a public way," Ms. Floren said. "It has its place, but it's moving from a fraternity or sorority living room. It's now in a public arena, so it's a completely different ballgame."

Ms. Rose of the University of Pennsylvania said, "Students go on them a lot and, unfortunately, now employers go there."

Some companies, including Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Ernst & Young and Osram Sylvania, said they did not use the Internet to check on college job applicants.

"I'd rather not see that part of them," said Maureen Crawford Hentz, manager of talent acquisition at Osram Sylvania. "I don't think it's related to their bona fide occupational qualifications."

More than a half-dozen major corporations, including Morgan Stanley, Dell, Pfizer, L'Oréal and Goldman Sachs, turned down or did not respond to requests for interviews.

But other companies, particularly those involved in the digital world like Microsoft and Métier, a small software company in Washington, D.C., said researching students through social networking sites was now fairly typical.

"It's becoming very much a common tool," said Warren Ashton, group marketing manager at Microsoft. "For the first time ever, you suddenly have very public information about almost any candidate who is coming through the process."

At Microsoft, he said, recruiters are given broad latitude over how to work, and there is no formal policy about using the Internet to research applicants. "There are certain recruiters and certain companies that are probably more in tune with the new technologies than others are," Mr. Ashton said.

Microsoft and Osram Sylvania have also begun to use social networking sites in a different way, participating openly in online communities to get out their company's messages and to identify talented job candidates.

Students may not know when they have been passed up for an interview or a job offer because of something a recruiter saw on the Internet. But more than a dozen college career counselors said recruiters had been telling them since last fall about incidents in which students' online writing or photographs raised serious questions about their judgment, eliminating them as job candidates.

Some college career executives are skeptical that many employers routinely check applicants online. "My observation is that it's more fiction than fact," said Tom Devlin, director of the career center at the University of California, Berkeley.

At a conference in late May, Mr. Devlin said, he asked 40 employers if they researched students online and every one said no.

Many career counselors have been urging students to review their pages on Facebook and other sites with fresh eyes, removing photographs or text that might be inappropriate to show to their grandmother or potential employers. Counselors are also encouraging students to apply settings on Facebook that can significantly limit access to their pages.

Melanie Deitch, director of marketing at Facebook, agreed, saying students should take advantage of the site's privacy settings and should be smart about what they post.

But it is not clear whether many students are following the advice. "I think students have the view that Facebook is their space and that the adult world doesn't know about it," said Mark W. Smith, assistant vice chancellor and director of the career center at Washington University in St. Louis. "But the adult world is starting to come in."