SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (648383)3/20/2012 10:15:46 AM
From: i-node  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1580645
 
>> Daniels would have been an excellent candidate.

Except for that little arrest back in college with a shoebox full of marijuana. A charge which he walked on. Meanwhile, he supports "tougher drug laws" and locking up marijuana offenders.

Sorry, he's disqualified. In most states, he would have been a felon -- and even where he was arrested, had he not had a get out of jail free card. As a felon he would not even be able to vote or get a decent job, let alone run for office.

I think he's disqualified until he changes his position on marijuana laws.



To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (648383)3/20/2012 10:20:50 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1580645
 
not pleased with the way the Obama administration was dealing with them on the largest cause of debt in their states: Medicaid.



To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (648383)3/20/2012 11:11:57 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 1580645
 
Job applicants asked to turn over their Facebook passwords

“It’s akin to requiring someone’s house keys,” law professor says

By The Associated Press Tuesday, March 20, 2012
nydailynews.com

Some prospective employers are demanding that job candidates share their password to the popular social networking site. Employers demand Facebook passwords SEATTLE — When Justin Bassett interviewed for a new job, he expected the usual questions about experience and references. So he was astonished when the interviewer asked for something else: his Facebook username and password.

Bassett, a New York City statistician, had just finished answering a few character questions when the interviewer turned to her computer to search for his Facebook page. But she couldn’t see his private profile. She turned back and asked him to hand over his login information.

Bassett refused and withdrew his application, saying he didn’t want to work for a company that would seek such personal information. But as the job market steadily improves, other job candidates are confronting the same question from prospective employers, and some of them cannot afford to say no.

In their efforts to vet applicants, some companies and government agencies are going beyond merely glancing at a person’s social networking profiles and instead asking to log in as the user to have a look around.

“It’s akin to requiring someone’s house keys,” said Orin Kerr, a George Washington University law professor and former federal prosecutor who calls it “an egregious privacy violation.”

Questions have been raised about the legality of the practice, which is also the focus of proposed legislation in Illinois and Maryland that would forbid public agencies from asking for access to social networks.

Since the rise of social networking, it has become common for managers to review publically available Facebook profiles, Twitter accounts and other sites to learn more about job candidates. But many users, especially on Facebook, have their profiles set to private, making them available only to selected people or certain networks.

Companies that don’t ask for passwords have taken other steps — such as asking applicants to friend human resource managers or to log in to a company computer during an interview. Once employed, some workers have been required to sign non-disparagement agreements that ban them from talking negatively about an employer on social media.

Asking for a candidate’s password is more prevalent among public agencies, especially those seeking to fill law enforcement positions such as police officers or 911 dispatchers.

Back in 2010, Robert Collins was returning to his job as a security guard at the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services after taking a leave following his mother’s death. During a reinstatement interview, he was asked for his login and password, purportedly so the agency could check for any gang affiliations. He was stunned by the request but complied.

“I needed my job to feed my family. I had to,” he recalled,

After the ACLU complained about the practice, the agency amended its policy, asking instead for job applicants to log in during interviews.

“To me, that’s still invasive. I can appreciate the desire to learn more about the applicant, but it’s still a violation of people’s personal privacy,” said Collins, whose case inspired Maryland’s legislation.

Until last year, the city of Bozeman, Mont., had a long-standing policy of asking job applicants for passwords to their email addresses, social-networking websites and other online accounts.

And since 2006, the McLean County, Ill., sheriff’s office has been one of several Illinois sheriff’s departments that ask applicants to sign into social media sites to be screened.

Chief Deputy Rusty Thomas defended the practice, saying applicants have a right to refuse. But no one has ever done so. Thomas said that “speaks well of the people we have apply.”

When asked what sort of material would jeopardize job prospects, Thomas said “it depends on the situation” but could include “inappropriate pictures or relationships with people who are underage, illegal behavior.”

In Spotsylvania County, Va., the sheriff’s department asks applicants to friend background investigators for jobs at the 911 dispatch center and for law enforcement positions.

“In the past, we’ve talked to friends and neighbors, but a lot of times we found that applicants interact more through social media sites than they do with real friends,” said Capt. Mike Harvey. “Their virtual friends will know more about them than a person living 30 yards away from them.”

Harvey said investigators look for any “derogatory” behavior that could damage the agency’s reputation.

E. Chandlee Bryan, a career coach and co-author of the book “The Twitter Job Search Guide,” said job seekers should always be aware of what’s on their social media sites and assume someone is going to look at it.

Bryan said she is troubled by companies asking for logins, but she feels it’s not a violation if an employer asks to see a Facebook profile through a friend request. And she’s not troubled by non-disparagement agreements.

“I think that when you work for a company, they are essentially supporting you in exchange for your work. I think if you’re dissatisfied, you should go to them and not on a social media site,” she said.

More companies are also using third-party applications to scour Facebook profiles, Bryan said. One app called BeKnown can sometimes access personal profiles, short of wall messages, if a job seeker allows it.

Sears is one of the companies using apps. An applicant has the option of logging into the Sears job site through Facebook by allowing a third-party application to draw information from the profile, such as friend lists.

Sears Holdings Inc. spokeswoman Kim Freely said using a Facebook profile to apply allows Sears to be updated on the applicant’s work history.

The company assumes “that people keep their social profiles updated to the minute, which allows us to consider them for other jobs in the future or for ones that they may not realize are available currently,” she said.

Giving out Facebook login information violates the social network’s terms of service. But those terms have no real legal weight, and experts say the legality of asking for such information remains murky.

The Department of Justice regards it as a federal crime to enter a social networking site in violation of the terms of service, but during recent congressional testimony, the agency said such violations would not be prosecuted.

But Lori Andrews, law professor at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law specializing in Internet privacy, is concerned about the pressure placed on applicants, even if they voluntarily provide access to social sites.

“Volunteering is coercion if you need a job,” Andrews said.

Neither Facebook nor Twitter responded to repeated requests for comment.

In New York, Bassett considered himself lucky that he was able to turn down the consulting gig at a lobbying firm.

“I think asking for account login credentials is regressive,” he said. “If you need to put food on the table for your three kids, you can’t afford to stand up for your belief.”












To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (648383)3/20/2012 12:02:45 PM
From: joseffy2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1580645
 
Obama’s war on liberty


Joan R. Neubauer Monday, March 19, 2012
canadafreepress.com

The Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate is just part of the warning salvo that the Obama administration has belched from its canons dedicated to tearing down the structure of Capitalism and rebuilding our economy and our society in the image of socialism. The initial attack came with the passage of Obamacare, that hideous monstrosity of which that Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to pass this bill so we can see what’s in it.”

Pelosi’s minions obeyed the orders of their mistress and passed the odious bill and now we have the mandate, an imperial edict spewed forth from the pen of Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of HHS. Neither she nor anyone in the administration has given any quarter on this issue. All employers must provide health insurance that includes coverage for contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs, regardless of moral or religious objections.

Make no mistake. This is not about contraception. This is about making further inroads into undermining our most basic liberties promised in the Declaration of Independence and fulfilled in the U.S. Constitution. The first Amendment says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This mandate prohibits “...the free exercise thereof…” in that it requires those with religious or moral convictions to do something against the basic teachings of their faith. And the Catholic Church is not alone in this. People of many faiths and denominations are standing with the Catholic Church. They know this is a gross infringement upon the sacred right of religious liberty, but the administration doesn’t care because it has an agenda to advance.

That agenda is to lead us to European-style socialism. Despite the fact that socialism has caused the European economy to tank. Despite the fact its results have fomented rioting in the streets. Despite the fact that it has failed miserably. But Obama and his cohorts have an agenda, the agenda of the elites who feel they know better than the rest of us.

In addition, they have the mistaken impression that any rights We the People may have, derive from government. They, as the ruling class will decide what rights we may or may not enjoy, a concept anathema to our tradition, our sentiments, and our law. The Declaration of Independence, the very first piece of legislation passed by the very first Congress clearly states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Our rights come to us from none other than our Creator by virtue of being human.

The Bill of Rights in our Constitution took that promise and guaranteed it under law. If this mandate stands, then the government will have effectively shredded the Constitution and replaced itself as the arbiter of rights and laws. If this mandate stands, it will set a dangerous precedent, for if the government can trample religious liberty, then none of our other rights are protected either.

Think about an America where no one has the right to private property ownership, no free press, no free speech, no protection from self-incrimination, no right of assembly, no freedom from search and seizure. That is what is at stake here. Each and every one of our liberties is on the chopping block at this moment in time.

If the court upholds Obamacare and the mandate, we can kiss the Constitution goodbye. If, on the other hand, the court does the right thing and strikes it down as unconstitutional, then we can all breathe a sigh of relief, but only temporarily, because you can bet they’ll try again.



To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (648383)3/21/2012 12:01:35 AM
From: joseffy2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1580645
 
Algae Alimony
Obama donors stand to profit from president’s latest green energy fixation

BY: Andrew Stiles - March 20, 2012
freebeacon.com

President Obama’s most recent green energy fixation— algae—may suffer from the accusations of cronyism that have plagued his broader effort to promote non-fossil fuel energy sources through massive federal subsidies.

Solazyme, a San Francisco-based firm that specializes in the plant matter, has received more than $25 million in federal grants and contracts as part of Obama administration’s controversial stimulus package, and is poised to receive millions more as part of the president’s recent efforts to promote green biofuels such as algae.

The firm employs a former member of the Obama-Biden transition team who, according to one online bio, “played a key role in developing the energy provisions in the economic stimulus bill.”

TJ Glauthier, who is listed as a “ strategic adviser” and corporate board member, previously held a number of high-ranking posts in the Clinton Administration, including deputy secretary and chief operating officer of the U.S. Department of Energy.

Glauthier’s bio on the Solazyme website used to note that he “focused primarily on the energy portion of the economic stimulus bill,” but has since been amended to remove all reference to his work in the Obama administration.

It does mention, however, that Glauthier serves on the board of EnerNOC Inc., a company that provides demand-response services to electric utility firms.

EnerNOC won a $10 million contract with the Department of Energy Resources in 2010 despite being underbid by competitors, the Boston Herald reported.

Glauthier also served on the board of SunRun, a solar financing company that received a $6.7 million federal grant in 2010.

Glauthier’s relationship with Democratic lawmakers has been beneficial. Since 2007, he has donated nearly $8,000 to Democratic candidates and committees, including $2,500 to Obama.

Solazyme’s other board members and top executives have given much more.

In total, Solazyme officials have contributed at least $360,000 to Democrats since 2007. The majority of that money has come from just three individuals: board members Jerry Fiddler ($226,650) and Daniel Miller (more than $36,000), and executive vice president of technology Peter Licari (more than $100,000).

The president’s $787 billion stimulus package has been slammed by critics who claim that federal funding was allocated not based on need or qualifications, but as part of a concerted effort to reward large campaign donors.

A 2009 memo authored by former White House economic adviser Larry Summers appears to validate this claim.

“The short-run economic imperative was to identify as many campaign promises or high priority items that would spend out quickly and be inherently temporary,” Summers wrote. “The stimulus package is a key tool for advancing clean energy goals and fulfilling a number of campaign commitments.”

In addition to the stimulus funding, Solazyme was one of two companies selected by the Obama administration to sell 450,000 gallons of alternative biofuels to the U.S. Navy, which will use the fuel for a “ Green Strike Group” maritime exercise later this year.

The contract is worth $12 million, which works out to about $27 per gallon, or nearly seven times the cost of the Navy’s standard JP-5 fuel. However, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has said the Navy will pay about $15 per gallon for the biofuel, which is still roughly four times the cost of conventional fuel.

The contract was arranged using the Defense Department’s procurement authority as part of the president’s “ We Can’t Wait” campaign. As a result, it is not subject to congressional oversight. But, if Obama gets his way, Solazyme and other biofuel companies could benefit from an additional half-billion dollars in federal funding.

In August 2011, the president announced his intention to invest up to $510 million in biofuels over the next three years, partly in an effort to meet the Navy’s goal of deploying a “ Great Green Fleet” powered entirely by renewable energy sources by 2016.

More recently, Obama called for an additional $14 million in federal grants for research and development of algae-based fuels. The White House has sought to deflect criticism that the administration is not doing everything it can to address concerns over record fuel prices, or is actually rooting for higher prices.

“We’re making new investments in the development of gasoline and diesel and jet fuel that’s actually made from a plant-like substance—algae,” Obama said in a Feb. 23, 2012 speech in Miami. “You’ve got a bunch of algae out here, right? If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, we’ll be doing all right.”

Critics have panned the Obama administration for spending large amounts of money on biofuels like algae at a time when the Defense Department is facing deep cuts to its budget and increasing health benefit costs for retirees.

“The president lives in this fantasy land, like Solyndra, he imagines these things up,” former House Speaker and GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich said last week. “I’m for biological research. I’m for developing algae over time. But the current algae technologies, you’d have to have $850 a barrel oil to make it competitive.”

Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) said the Navy has spent more than $400 per gallon on roughly 20,000 gallons of algae-based for testing, and worried the administration’s investment could become “another Solyndra situation,” a reference to the solar panel company that declared bankruptcy in September 2011, despite receiving a $535 million taxpayer-guaranteed loan.

Recent scholarly research has raised doubts about the use of algae as a viable source of fuel. A 2010 University of Virginia study found that, although algae-based biofuels “offer a higher level of energy output and require a minimum level of land area to develop, the production of such fuels results in significantly more environmental degradation.”

Solazyme lost $16.3 million in 2010, and has been forced to diversify its product line away from algae-based fuels. As noted last month by Jeffrey Klein at Examiner.com, the company has started to focus on its line of beauty products and nutritional supplements.

Pavel Molchanov, an energy analyst at Raymond James, told Klein: “Solazyme isn’t likely to become in the foreseeable future a fuel-centered business.”