Reading List–A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity (Bill O’Reilly)

‘Bold Fresh’ is a departure from my previously-posted reading list, but it was well-worth the detour.  I wasn’t entirely sure what to expect when I started reading even though I have watched O’Reilly plenty of times on The O’Reilly Factor.  I appreciate his fair treatment of people from all places on the political spectrum and his critical approach to everyone on both sides of the aisle is a welcome departure from the obvious left-wing bias that dominates the American news media.  But the book isn’t really about that.

‘Bold Fresh’ is the story of where Bill O’Reilly came from, his philosophy on life and his work, and the origins and reasons behind his philosophy.  I could literally go an and on about specifics of what is contained in the pages of ‘Bold Fresh’, but I won’t, as you can (and should) read it for yourself.  I can say that after reading it, I have a much greater understanding of O’Reilly’s work and a tremendous amount of respect for him as a human being and as a man.

His fiercely-held belief in self-reliance (as opposed to the entitlement mentality) and standing up for what you believe really resonates for me, and I hope to live up to that ideal even half as well as he’s been able to.  O’Reilly’s viewpoint on holding people accountable for their actions is also something I agree with wholeheartedly.

O’Reilly writes extensively about his belief in the power and necessity of deep, meaningful friendships as an fundamental piece of keeping a man centered and on track.  I have done a fair amount of reading on this topic as well as self-examination and observation of my life the lives of the men around me, and I agree with O’Reilly 100%.  This is an area that many men (myself included) struggle with today; many of us have isolated ourselves from deep friendships with other men, and I believe we are all suffering for it.

All in all, I found ‘Bold Fresh’ to be a really enjoyable read.  O’Reilly’s philosophy lines up closely with my own, and the book has strengthened my resolve to live up to my own ideals.  People who already dislike him will probably not enjoy the book, as his approach tends to be somewhat polarizing.  But, for anyone who either already appreciates his style (or are neutral), go get this book and read it.  Today.

Internet ID Plan Yet Another Example of U.S. “Nanny State”

Obviously, I understand the need for online security.  However, I see a couple of obvious (at least to me anyway) problems here.  First, I'm really skeptical of any system that can attempt to "make everyone safer", simply because this sense of security will make people complacent and not take responsibility for themselves.

But, the bigger problem I have here is one of fundamental ideology. Take away the pros and cons of the system itself, and you are left with the fact the the government is taking upon themselves to spearhead and fund this.  The liberals out there will disagree with me on this, but this is simply not the government's job.  It is yet another example of the U.S. government spending money we don't have on something that is clearly not a necessary government project.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/15/obama-administration-unveils-internet-id-plan/?cmpid=cmty_fb_Gigya_Obama_Administration_Unveils_Internet_ID_Plan

Is the "final frontier" getting more dangerous?

Due presumably to the fact that I work "with computers", people often ask me about things like internet file-sharing, DVD copying software, etc. Typically, they want to know if whatever they are thinking of doing might be illegal. Of course, since I work "with computers", that makes me an expert on US and international copyright laws... Anyway, I generally tell them that this is a very gray area and that the best course of action is to steer clear of anything questionable.

As the Internet has matured, lawmakers have been slow to address the changing techno-landscape, due in small or large part to a lack of understanding of the possibilities/dangers that exist. However, in recent years, lawmakers at all levels have enacted a hodgepodge of legislation creating a whole new category of potential criminals who use their computers instead of guns. The problem with these laws is that they seem (in my opinion) to have been fueled largely by pressure from the entertainment industry as well as fears of terrorism. Laws created out of pressure from industry are going to naturally represent the interests of that industry and not necessarily the best interests of the legislators' constituency. Furthermore, laws created out of fear are going to tend to be overreactions that are not necessarily the most well thought out.

What we now have are a lot of laws that can indeed be enforced to punish legitimate offenders. However, there is also a great deal of room for otherwise honest, law-abiding citizens to be caught up by laws that allow a great deal of latitude for interpretation or by laws that they didn't even know existed. The point I am trying to make here is that in their attempt to regulate the "final frontier", lawmakers have (arguably) made it a more dangerous place for the average person.

TechRepublic has published a short summary of recent cyber-legislation that reinforces my viewpoint that it is just best to steer clear of anything even remotely questionable. The summary is entitled "10 ways you might be breaking the law with your computer", and can be found here. I would strongly recommend reading it and deciding for youself of the "final frontier" is getting safer, or more dangerous.