In our last interview, [Former US Senator Evan] Bayh complained of the poor opinion the public had of him and his [Senate] colleagues. “They look at us like we’re worse than used-car salesmen.” Yes. They do. And this is why.

Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, from his post The sad, hypocritical retirement of Evan Bayh.

Here I’m running a customized Honeycomb theme (here) for a community built ROM (Liberty, here) that runs on the open source Android operating system on the Motorola Droid 2.  I’ve customized it with icons, a different launcher (LauncherPlus Pro), and a weather/time widget from an HTC version of Android.  I’ve completely customized the look (and functionality) of the home screen.

Community ROMs (versions of Android, basically) introduce new and great features, while fixing bugs.  I don’t have to worry about not getting an updated version of Android software on my Droid 2, because I know that other community members will release ROMs with the features.

And if I don’t like something, I can fix it on my own. That’s open source.

Can you do any of this on your iPhone/iPad?

“I am sure no honourable member will be tweeting from the chamber to let the outside world know what is going on.”

I am incredibly sad to hear any public servant speak these words, much less a member of the House of Commons.

The current system is confusing.  According to Fox:

NASCAR legend claims the current system was devised on a napkin over drinks at a Daytona bar in 1974 and implemented the next season. The complicated scoring method gives 175 points to the winner, and decreases in increments of five points and then three points down to 34 points for the last-place finisher.

Five-point bonuses are awarded for leading a lap, and to the driver who leads the most laps.

The debated new system would award 43 points for first place (there are 43 drivers in a race) and one point less for each position, with 1 point for 43rd place.  If they want to do this, why not just use the average finish?  That’s even less confusing.

I know NASCAR wants to do all sorts of things to get more viewers, but here’s the deal.  The last race of 2010 decided the NASCAR Sprint Cup champion in the closest fashion ever seen by race fans.  And, the race was decided by the two best drivers of the year, working for the two best teams, who had the two best pit crews.

How much more action do we need?

The ICMA twitter account (@LocalManagers) tweeted today about an article in the Globe and Mail about employees from Generation Y.

While the article discusses several generalities about Gen Y employees, the crux (and title) identifies that workers from Generation Y prefer job training to cash bonuses.

I don’t argue this point.  I don’t know what people from Generation Y prefer(and I truly don’t know which I prefer).  But, I object to the idea of this article (and thousands of others) that society can characterize people solely based upon their birthdate.

You understand that, right?  Any time we talk about Baby Boomers, Generation X, Gen Y, Millenials, etc., we are generalizing on defining characteristics of massive populations of people.  I’m not talking about the statistics like ten thousand Baby Boomers retiring every day (that can be statistically proven); I’m talking about people characterizing people from each generational cohort.  The people of our country have long fought generalizations based on race, religion, nationality, gender, or birthplace – so why generalize based on something so utterly distinct from personality, someone’s birthday?  Each person is different!

Most of these types of article (the ones I read, at least) tell managers how to manage employees based on their generational cohort.

Here’s my point: Manage your employees based on those individuals.  If you want to know whether they prefer cash bonuses or job training, ask!  If you want to know if they prefer open work environments, flex scheduling, meetings, health spending accounts, job perks, or anything else, ask them!  Need to know how to manage or discipline employees, interact with and get to know your employees!

Don’t manage me based on what a book or article in USA Today says people in my age group like.  Manage me!

This is how I will manage.

The more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes, because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable. They can begin to think for themselves.

I can tell you that in the United States, the fact that we have free internet — or unrestricted internet access is a source of strength, and I think should be encouraged.

Can you guess who said that?

President Barack Obama.

Compare those words to the notice from the White House to ban federal employees from reading WikiLeaks (the military has warned soldiers it is illegal to read WikiLeaks without clearance).  Is it now illegal to read the New York Times, which has published cables?

Jeff Goldberg of The Atlantic has the best description, straight from a TSA agent:

“Yes, but starting tomorrow, we’re going to start searching your crotchal area” — this is the word he used, “crotchal” — and you’re not going to like it.”

“What am I not going to like?” I asked.

“We have to search up your thighs and between your legs until we meet resistance,” he explained.

“Resistance?” I asked.

“Your testicles,” he explained.

I like Marco’s reaction the best:

So, to summarize: With no supporting evidence whatsoever that it will make anyone any safer, and in response to absolutely no credible threats, the TSA has decided to implement a policy, that nobody asked for, in which every passenger must allow TSA agents to either see or touch their genitals before boarding a plane.

And, of course, we’re all going to subject ourselves to it, because we have no recourse and no power, even though the creation and execution of this policy are likely violating a few laws or at least common-sense rights, because that doesn’t really matter.

But there is a bigger picture item here that Marco identifies:

I still vote and participate, but I no longer expect functional, sensible, honest, or just results. It’s easier to just sit back and laugh at how ridiculous it is, as I get on with my life and accept whatever new dysfunction or injustice has been added to our society. When the (usually half-assed) improvements happen — and they do — it’s a pleasant surprise, but I don’t expect anything.

I really agree with Marco.

Even more so, I believe wholeheartedly in the words of Benjamin Franklin:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Who among us isn’t aware that TSA procedures won’t stop a terrorist attack?  Security expert Bruce Schneier pointed out that only two things have made flying safer post-9/11 – the reinforcement of cockpit doors and that passengers now know to fight back.  The former director of TSA responded (when he was in office):

“What do you do about vulnerabilities?” he asked, rhetorically. “All the time you hear reports and people saying, ‘There’s a vulnerability.’ Well, duh. There are vulnerabilities everywhere, in everything. The question is not ‘Is there a vulnerability?’ It’s ‘What are you doing about it?’”

“There are vulnerabilities where you have limited ways to address it directly. So you have to put other layers around it, other things that will catch them when that vulnerability is breached. This is a universal problem. Somebody will identify a very small thing and drill down and say, ‘I found a vulnerability.’”

And Director Hawley’s other admission?  In a post on the TSA’s blog, he said:

Clever terrorists can use innovative ways to exploit vulnerabilities. But don’t forget that most bombers are not, in fact, clever. Living bomb-makers are usually clever, but the person agreeing to carry it may not be super smart. Even if “all” we do is stop dumb terrorists, we are reducing risk.

That’s right, folks, we wait in lines at the airport for TSA agents can look at or feel us up, in the hopes of stopping dumb terrorists.

I think in the end, this won’t even matter.  We are reacting to a previous terrorist attack, under the assumption the terrorist will attack in the same manner in the future.  We are not, it seems, proactively stopping new types of attacks.  I think we’ve seen this past weekend, terrorists are looking for other exploits.

*UPDATE*

And it seems there is already the need for an update.  Courtesy of TechCrunch, Britain is cracking down hard, by banning printer cartridges in passenger luggage.  That’s right, a reaction at its best.

You have to scroll down, and then I saw this:

Apple wants you to click through 55 pages of Terms and Conditions.  I would like to see their usability statistics and find out how few people click through (somehow I think that’s what they want you to do).  I didn’t.  All I wanted to do was “purchase” a free application.

To me, this is just another sign of our legalistic American society.  We use “terms and conditions” 55 pages long to keep consumers from actually understanding the legalities of something they seek to undertake.