Web Control

The various companies I visit in the course of my profession range across the entire spectrum when it comes to granting employees access to the internet.

At one extreme, I have a client that only allows web access to Managers and above. They won't even give email to the rest of their staff.

At the other extreme are clients who place no restrictions at all on their employees related to internet activities. However, I believe some of those clients do monitor web activities of employees and will deal with excessive browsing or visits to inappropriate sites.

For me, the restrictive companies seem counterproductive. I've directly observed the inefficiency of being unable to communicate with staff members in the company that denies all web access to employees.

Many companies restrict access to certain types of sites, such as game sites, porn sites, social networking sites and blogs.

It reminds me of when an old employer of mine implemented a no-smoking policy. Employees could not smoke in the office, but could only smoke in designated outdoor smoking areas.

There was a high percentage of smokers in the operations department. Since it was a trucking company, those employees were responsible for taking customer and driver calls, coordinating pickups and deliveries and giving instructions to drivers.

So the smoking ban sent those folks outside for their nicotine fix. Problem was that they were spending almost as much time away from their post on smoke breaks as at their desk performing their duties. Naturally, their non-smoking co-workers became offended by a perceived special treatment that allowed the smokers much longer and more frequent breaks.

Of course, technically those smokers were not permitted any more or longer breaks than anyone else. They simply were taking them on their own initiatives to feed their nicotine addictions.

So rather than dealing with the problem by cracking down on enforcement of scheduled breaks, their managers decided to rescind the non-smoking policy for that department. By allowing the smokers to resume their habits at their desks, important calls were no longer missed and business went back to normal.

One little problem with their approach to that problem: People were hired during the non-smoking policy under the promise of a smoke-free workplace. Some of those people were intolerant of cigarette smoke with specific respiratory problems. Guess what happened when the managers of the operations department rescinded the non-smoking policy.

I think restriction of web access for employees is something of a parallel to the smoking ban. Shutting down web access is lazy management. Managers don't want the responsibility or the conflict of having to deal with an employee who might be abusing the priviledge of web access at work, so they choose to shut it down completely.

I like to listed to web radio at work, which is blocked by many companies. Perhaps if it's blocked due to a possible bandwidth problem, I could see the logic of that policy.

But otherwise, employees should be treated like adults. Tell them up-front that they will have web access, but are expected to limit web browsing and avoid inappropriate sites. If they visit inappropriate sites or their web browsing affects their job performance, they will be verbally warned the first time, receive a written warning to go into their Personnel file the second time, and will be terminated the third time.

Very simple, but lazy managers don't want to be bothered.

Supreme Insight

What was most troubling for me about the Supreme Court decision to uphold Indiana's voting identification law was that three justices actually dissented.

As I do with any issue, I searched for arguments on the side against the law, which simply requires voters to present a photo ID when they arrive at the precinct to vote in an election. If someone shows up without a photo ID, they can cast a provisional ballot, which will be counted as long as the individual shows up at the courthouse within 10 days to prove they are who they claim and are indeed eligible to vote. In addition, anyone who doesn't have a drivers licence may obtain a free photo ID from the BMV with proof of citizenship.

The ACLU and their Democrat Party allies brought the suit against Indiana, claiming it would disenfranchise a substantial number of poor voters who don't have a valid photo ID.

Naturally, my question for them was, who exactly? I searched in vain for an answer to that simple question. The only people I could think of that could possibly be affected negatively by the law are the Amish, who have a religious objection to having their photos taken. Since Indiana dealt with that issue long ago when it came up in a licensing law for their buggies, I'm pretty sure the Amish issue is addressed. Even if it's not, my knowledge of the Amish would seem to indicate they would be more likely to vote Republican than Democrat, so I'm also pretty sure the ACLU wasn't trying to protect their voting rights.

So the court essentially said that there was no evidence presented that identified a single voter who was unreasonably denied their right to vote because of this law.

News reports also said there also was very little evidence presented suggesting any widespread voter fraud, which the voter ID law was designed to stop. I am curious about that, but suspect the reason is because any effort to find voter fraud is certain to result in angry charges of "disenfranchisement" and "harrassment".

Stories have abounded here in Indiana for years about busloads of people in Indianapolis and Gary and East Chicago being ferried around to the various precincts by Democrat Party officials. According to the stories, at each precinct, each person on the bus is handed a name, which is the name they assume when they enter and sign in at the precinct. They cast their votes and move on to the next precinct, where the process is repeated.

Also often repeated are the stories about Democrats registering illegal immigrants and taking them to the polls to vote as well. Poll workers often report hispanics who obviously can't speak English signing in and voting. It's not too difficult to figure out that someone who can't speak English is almost certainly not a citizen.

So the only reasonable conclusion I can reach is that the real objection to Indiana's voter ID law is that these longtime Democrat practices of fraudulent voting will be mostly stopped.

Which is the reason I'm very troubled that 3 Supreme Court justices actually dissented. What that tells me is that those 3 justices could care less about the constitution or rule of law, and are unqualified to hold their positions on the court.

Just a brief reminder to those who are ready to vote for Hillary or Barack; those 3 unqualified justices will almost certainly be joined by 2 to 3 more just like them within the next few years should either of those Democrats win the Presidency. If they can't get a clear-cut ruling like this one right, imagine what havoc they can create for our country if they are able to become the majority of the court.

Academic Freedom?

I had a chance to see the Ben Stein film, Expelled.

Rather than summarizing the film here, I'll just suggest you go see it yourself. For me it clarified an issue that had intrigued and puzzled me before.

Now that I know what Intelligent Design actually is, I have perhaps a better perspective on why it is so loudly vilified and excoriated by academics.

The larger story is about academic intolerance. Academia has become the home for left-wing radicalism, and Ben Stein's exploration of the big flap about ID is merely a single example.

How many times have you heard the phrase,

The science on this matter is settled.

or

This is the consensus of the scientific community.

If you are a scientist who dares question one of these "settled" or "consensus" hot button issues, you do so at the risk of your career.

How can you be denied tenure? By sexual harrassment of students in your class? Probably not. By pointing out the flaws in Darwin's Origin of the Species? In a heartbeat.

How can you be fired from your position in government or even The Weather Channel? By pointing out the flaws in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth? Unemployment line, here we come.

How many scientists have lost tenure or research funding at our universities only because they've tried to stay true to the mission of science; which is to always question and explore? I'm not sure anybody knows for sure, but Ben Stein seems to suggest it's widespread and endemic.

I wonder how much this academic intolerance spills over into other courses of study? If biologists and climatologists are not permitted to pursue their professions unless they toe the party line, how about others? Are musicians, historians, engineers, chemists also required to fall into lockstep with the Marxist politics of today's universities if they hope to attain and keep their tenured positions?

It would seem so.

Messianic

Starting Saturday, when I returned home from my last work trip, through today, the local Republic newspaper has been running one fawning story after another on Barack Obama. The candidate visited Columbus last Friday and spoke at East High School.

All the newspaper articles, dominating the front page through the weekend and continuing to take space on Monday and Tuesday, have been uniform in their worship of the Democrat candidate from Illinois. They feature quotes from teachers and students, local Democrat politicians and activists, all gushing over Senator Obama. The praise for the candidate is so over the top that one would believe he is a Messianic figure. The star-struck supporters believe he will end war, end poverty, end racial divisions, and right all wrongs.

What's interesting is that there is not a single word in any of the articles from Obama's opponents, whether from supporters of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Which brings me to wish for a visit from John McCain.

If such a visit were to take place, how much would you be willing to bet on something I think would be inevitable? That the Republic's coverage of the event would be remarkably different. I'd bet that the newspaper would first of all restrict their coverage to the day after the event, rather than the next 5 days. I'd also bet that the articles would be much less star-struck, and would be salted heavily with negative comments from local Democrat Party activists.

Too bad it's an empirical study that won't be possible. But I'm guessing nobody will be willing to take me up on my bet.

The other striking observation I made after reading every one of the newpaper articles was their total lack of coverage of Obama's actual policy proposals. I found it hilarious that one of the Obama worshippers interviewed gushed about how clearly he stated his positions on important issues. The natural question arising from that quote was, "and what positions were those, exactly?".

All that newsprint, and somehow the Republic managed to forget to share with us the specifics of Obama's policies. Aside from the famous Obama stuff about "hope" and "change". Or was it "change" and "hope"?

Have we really become so shallow and ignorant as a people?

Thought Police

Homosexual behavior is deviant and morally wrong.

By posting the above statement in this public forum, I have now subjected myself to the sanctions of a very real Thought Police.

If I were a holder of public office, I could be driven from that office because I wrote that sentence. If I were to decide to run for public office in the future, that sentence in the blog post would most certainly be used against me by political rivals to ascribe a wide range of horrible and untrue characterizations of my beliefs.

If I were an employee of one of a list of certain corporations, I would be subject to sanctions or possibly termination, should a co-worker report my posting of that sentence to management. A gay co-worker would likely be successful in charging me with sexual harassment for that one-sentence statement.

It is even conceivable that this blog could be blocked or flagged as one containing offensive material because of that sentence.

For evidence, a relevant case. It's from Canada, which is admittedly well to the left of the United States on the liberal scale.

During my rather long wait for my flight out of Toronto yesterday, I spent some time watching the news reports on the flat screen television next to my gate. The lead story was about a member of the Canadian parliament who had been embarrassed by a 17 year old video in which he reportedly made offensive remarks about homosexuals.

The report showed clips from the video without sound, but did not provide any information about what the unfortunate politician actually said. His remarks from the old video were simply characterized as insensitive, intolerant, hurtful, and offensive. The reporter, who could be reasonably described as exhibiting the appearance and mannerisms consistent with the homosexual community, seemed emotionally involved in the story, reporting that "people" were terribly upset by the remarks and wanted the offending politician to resign his office.

The politician made a very public, very humble apology on the floor in front of the entire assembly, but of course it made little or no difference to his political foes and the reporter.

A contextual hint in the story was that the video was made during a party 17 years ago. Although no attempt was made in the report to put the fellow's comments in context, it seems reasonable to consider they could have been an off-color joke or a drunken faux-pas. Maybe he was simply stating something similar to the opening sentence in this post. The reporters of the story have no curiosity about any of that.

Here's where we've arrived. We live in a society where one is more likely to be severely punished for their words than for their actions. The idea is further illustrated by the modern prevalence of "Hate Crime" laws, where a crime is punished severely only if the perpetrator can be presumed to have committed the crime because of hatred of the victim because the victim belonged to a specific interest group.

Have sex with an intern, commit perjury about it and persuade others to lie about it in court? No problem, assuming you're of Liberal persuasion. Say something that might offend someone who is a member of an aggrieved interest group? Off with his head! (Assuming you're of Conservative persuasion.)

Gotta go now. I think the cops are knocking on my door.