What's Next for the EU?

France’s resounding rejection of the European Constitution in a referendum vote last week has me wondering what’s going to happen next in the EU. I must admit a rather elementary understanding of the political forces at play here, but it would seem that a “no” vote from one of the founding members of the European Union will have some serious effects on the future of this constitution in its present form. I believe the Dutch vote on it this week, but even if they choose to adopt the constitution, can it proceed without French support? This editorial in the Washington Post would seem to indicate that it’s not the end of the world for the EU; they still have their 2001 agreement under which to operate. And it suggests some interesting sub-motivations—mainly French nationalism in the face of growing pro-US sentiment in Eastern Europe—for France’s vote to reject the document. The editorial also posits that EU countries won’t vote for a change in economic policy while they themselves are in such precarious economic positions. So, is it back to square one for the EU or can they salvage something from this mess and move forward in a way that is satisfactory to its member nations?

The Mother of All Data Breaches?

Wow, yet another data breach has happened, this time to Bank of America, Wachovia, Commerce Bancorp, and PNC Financial Services Group:

Seven former employees of Bank of America, Wachovia, Commerce Bancorp, and PNC Financial Services Group have been arrested in connection with a scheme in which they allegedly obtained customer data, which was then sold to law firms and debt-collection agencies. Account numbers and balances on 670,000 accounts were found on 13 computers seized from Orazio Lembo, the alleged mastermind, Hackensack, N.J., police said Monday.

This comes on the heels of incidents involving loss or theft of customer data from Ameritrade, ChoicePoint, LexisNexis, DSW Shoe Warehouse, and Polo Ralph Lauren, among others, in the last several months.

The bust is the latest black eye for Bank of America, which in February disclosed the loss of a tape containing information on 1.2 million credit-card customers. Earlier this month, Time Warner reported that tapes containing Social Security and other personal information on 600,000 current and former workers were missing.

I don't believe I'm overstating the case when I say that our entire financial infrastructure -- American commerce as we know it -- is well and truly at risk these days. Information security breaches are increasing in frequency, degree, scope, and danger to ordinary American consumers and citizens. And, at the end of the day, there's virtually nothing you can do, as a consumer, to protect yourself against what happens to your information while it is in your bank's or financial services provider 's possession and control.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll

Interesting numbers concerning Bush, judicial nominees, and the filibuster debate from a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll:

Bush-

"On domestic issues, the president's approval ratings are at an all-time low -- 40 percent of respondents approve of his work on the economy and 33 percent approve of his plans for Social Security changes.

On the Iraq war, the president's approval mark remained low -- just 40 percent of those agreed with the way he is handling the situation.

Many said they differ on the issues that matter most to them -- 57 percent disagreed with the president, while 40 percent said they agreed.

Bush fared best among respondents when they were asked if they approved or disapproved how how he was handling terrorism. But while 55 percent of the people taking part in the poll approved, that figure was down 2 percentage points from a poll taken in April."

Congress-

"When asked to choose, 58 percent of respondents ... said Republican leaders were behaving like 'spoiled children' on the matter (filibuster debate) while 31 percent picked 'responsible adults.' Democratic leaders were viewed almost in the same light, with 54 percent of respondents disapproving and 36 percent approving.

All respondents were also given a choice of whether they would change the filibuster and/or preserve it. Thirty-five percent sided with changing Senate rules, 19 percent agreed on keeping the filibuster and 34 percent wanted filibuster rules to remain intact but for nominees to receive a full Senate vote.

On the federal judiciary itself, 29 percent of all respondents said judges were too liberal, 19 percent said they were too conservative and 44 percent said they were 'about right.'

The poll also indicated Americans might want a change in Congress, with 47 percent of all respondents saying the country would be better off if Democrats were in control, compared with 36 percent who favored Republicans."

Never let the full story get in the way of the propaganda

Senator Bill Frist seems to have some kind of selective memory problem. He sounds so sincere when he calls for a simple "up or down vote" in the Senate for judicial nominees. After all, that's the Senate's job, he says. And, if Democrats won't agree, (because they are in the minority, and know that the innocent-sounding "up or down vote" will mean they will lose) he will work to change the Senate rules and get rid of the filibuster.
He fails to mention that he himself participated in a filibuster to block a Clinton appeals court nominee.
He also fails to point out that Democrats have participated in an "up or down vote" on over 200 Bush judicial nominees. There are only 7 of those that are in question, based on their abysmal judicial records.
The filibuster is there to protect the minority. Republicans have used it often, and to block judicial nominees. They seem to think they will always have the majority, but history has shown that will change. It's nice that they can make the rules now, but even nicer to know that they will have to live with them later.

"Real ID": A Really Bad Idea?

Don't know if you noticed, but the "de facto" national ID card legislation just passed Congress. You can read the text of the REAL ID Act if you'd like. Bruce Schneier, one of the nation's best and brightest information and risk management brains, has this in part to say about REAL ID:

The United States will get a national ID card. The REAL ID Act establishes uniform standards for state driver's licenses, to go into effect in three years, effectively creating a national ID card. It's a bad idea, and is going to make us all less safe. It's also very expensive. And it all happened without any serious debate in Congress. If you haven't heard much about REAL ID in the newspapers, that's not an accident. The politics of REAL ID was almost surreal. It was voted down last fall, but was reintroduced and attached to legislation that funds military actions in Iraq. This was a "must-pass" piece of legislation, which means that there was no debate on REAL ID. No hearings, no debates in committees, no debates on the floor. Nothing. And it's now law.

Read more here.

I, for one, am floored by how this all went down. I need more time to digest the implications of a national ID card -- as I believe most of us do. It smacks of Big Brother. Armed checkpoints with soldiers eyeing suspiciously and demanding "papers please!" I even agree with this conservative pundit on the issue.

Faith in the Workplace: Have A Blessed Day

There's a very interesting article in today's LA Times, "Faithful Are Carving a Niche in the Workplace," about the increasing presence of religion in the workplace. This issue has been simmering under the surface with me for some time now. A few months ago, I received an email from my financial aid rep at ODU that contained a bible quote in the signature line. While I'm sure the sender probably meant well, I still found it offensive to receive an official communication from a representative of a public university with such an overt religious reference.

For me, religion and faith are highly personal things and something to be discussed in private with people who are willing parties to such a discussion. I don't see religion as an appropriate topic for the workplace, especially if I'm speaking with someone with whom I have not established a level of intimacy to be able to talk about such highly personal things, and especially if I was acting as an official representative of a public institution. (As a side note: we go out of our way at my school--and throughout FCPS--to create a warm and welcoming environment for all of our children and their families. This means that, out of respect for the many different religions and cultures represented in our student body, we do not celebrate any religious holidays (including Christmas, Easter, Passover, Id, etc.))

I would certainly not begrudge someone the right to hold particular religious beliefs and/or practice those beliefs. But, I don't feel it's right for a person to assume that I want or need their blessings/prayers. As the Times article points out, "a tenet of evangelical Christianity is to save the unsaved — to be a 'fisher of men.'" And, at the risk of stereotyping, this is my major problem with evangelical Christian groups. It's one thing to hold strong religious beliefs and another entirely to take it upon yourself to spread the word and "save" your co-workers, or anyone else for that matter. This would seem to imply that everyone else needs saving and that our religions--and we as individuals--are somehow lacking in spirituality/faith. I find this terribly offensive, inappropriate, and a form of harassment. As is noted in the article, "There's a fine line to walk between sharing your values at work in a positive way and feeling the workplace would be better if everybody shared your values." To me, "have a blessed day" crosses that line.

Will the real Lieutenant Governor Please Stand Up?

I figured this was as good a topic as any to jump into the fray. Has anyone else seen this column?

I have to admit, that Tim Kaine was probably the first Democrat that I have seriously considered voting for. That is, other than Jerry Brown in 1996, but we will just scratch that one up to too much Beast Light during freshman orientation! When I met Jerry Kilgore a little over a year ago, I was not overly impressed. He oozed with the aura of a self righteous, 'slick' politician'.

The media blitz referred to in the column has been the only exposure I have had to Mr. Kaine, and, it would appear it had the intended effect on me. He came across as sincere, and I came away from the commercial thinking "I don't agree with this guy on a lot, but at least he is telling me where he stands." However... after reading Ms. Scarborough's commentary, I have second thoughts. I do believe that people (even candidates) are entitled to change their opinions on a subject. However, the positions Mr. Kaine took prior to announcing his campaign, are so contrary to what he is currently professing, that I am not sure how to measure the sincerity of his current rhetoric.

My mind is definitely not made up on way or the other, and election day is still far away. Man, it sure is a lot easier to just blindly vote along party lines! Maybe I should just stick with what I know....

Have Brit Passport, Will Emigrate?

My paternal grandfather -- Sydney Steele -- was an immigrant to the US from the UK. As it turns out, and according to my sister Johanna, I can apply for and get a British passport because of my grandfather. A British passport will, in turn, allow me to get visa(s), and maybe even resident alien status, and live in the EU. Apparently anywhere in the EU.

That's pretty damn cool.

Speaking of which, are we going to try and have our book discussion about The European Dream?

Google News Search

There was a very interesting piece on Marketplace yesterday regarding Google's attempts to patent a news search application similar to its Web search engine. This new application would rank news search results based on a range of criteria, including among others reputation, credibility, size of organization, number of news bureaus, etc. From an advertisement perspective, news sites are concerned that Google will siphon away their ad revenues if people no longer visit their sites directly. Folks in the journalism community are concerned that the functionality of Google's news search will influence/currupt the way news is currently reported. There is also the fact that Google could potentially profit from content that they have not created themselves. For example, a person could go to Google News and link to a Washington Post article (all the while seeing ads for Google sponsors) instead of going directly to washingtonpost.com (and seeing the WP's sponsors' ads.)

Personally, I love all things Google, and while I recognize they are a for-profit company, I don't think this is a diabolical plot to take over the news world. As an avid Google News reader, I welcome the diversity of sources, opinions, and perspectives it provides on an issue. (I mean, how cool is it to first read an article about the European economy in the Times and then get a totally different perspective from the Chinese news agency, Xinhua?) The fact that they don't create any of the content, for me, makes it even more credible. They have no stake, no editorial interest in the stories; they just aggregate and provide links. As for the intellectual property/ad revenue issue, as far as I can see, there are no ads at present on Google News. That's not to say there never will be, at which point I can see how other news organizations would feel they were being undercut. However, I see this mainly as an issue of established news organizations fighting to maintain the status quo; an industry attempt to stifle innovation in an effort to preserve market share and resist change.

Happy Mom's Day!

Happy Mother's Day to all the moms out there in blog-land. When I think about my mom, I think of the words of Abraham Lincoln: "All that I am, or hope to be, I owe to my angel mother."

Foxfield's best

Video caption: "WAHOOOOO........!"

Florida Halts Fight to Bar Girl's Abortion

An alert reader and friend of Politics Schmolitics recently opined:

Because, Lord knows, the Deep South needs more 13-year-old mothers... especially the kind living in shelters BEFORE the pregnancy.

The story is here.