To turn an old saying around, it's far better (for Obama) to have a foolish opponent than a wise friend. And McCain has totally obliged.
Forget GWB's abysmal ratings. Forget the economy. Forget the Iraq war. Till the end of the Democratic Convention McCain still had a more than even chance of occupying the White House. His biggest card was the split among the Democrats, and Hillary supporters just wanting an excuse to vote for him.
Basic politico-economic theory and conventional wisdom both required him to veer to the center. Any of the speculated VP choices would have been fine - Tom Ridge, Joe Lieberman, even Mitt Romney and just may be Tim Pawlenty, as they all had their respective strengths.
A stance that would dilute the pro-life message, raise the prospect of restoring taxes for the ultra-rich, call for more regulation and expanded healthcare would turn off the hardcore right, but not enough to withdraw or switch support, when they see Obama as the alternative. Yet McCain could this way pick up a lot of the disgruntled Hillariites, and the undecided and independent voters.
But then he went ahead and picked Sarah Palin. What was he thinking? That just because she has the right plumbing (as a Hillary supporter put it to me) she'd get the Hillary women to back the ticket?
In addition to her obvious lack of experience she's so far to the right as to be almost a caricature of the ideology that's distateful to Democrats and most independents. McCain seemed smugly happy about the surprise he had pulled off, and about her almost rapturous reception by the hardcore right. "Trust McCain to shake things up" said a lackey on TV as Sarah's introduction started just ahead of the Republican Convention. But you need to shake things up when your outlook is bleak and the current course seems to be failing, and not when you have so many strong cards in your suit.
There are of course many other deficiencies in his campaign. When the economy is the number one concern you don't see a single economist of repute among his advisers. Ditto on other issues. The negative ads are horribly conceived and destroy his clean guy image without getting an effective message across. But these blunders I think pale in comparison to Palin (pun intended.)
The end result is obvious now, with McCain trailing Obama by 8 points nationally just six days before election day. Hillary supporters and independents have been shocked back into Obama's camp, and talk of voting against Obama out of spite has all but evaporated. I had anticipated this as my comments of September 1st and September 15 (when McCain was still doing well in the polls) on my August 1st post show. To a large extent McCain's choice of Palin is indicative of the quality of his decision-making as President. The maverick has turned ultra conservative, which I see as an act of misplaced expediency and even cowardice. McCain is paying the price and has only himself to thank for it.
I'm guessing Obama is silently but ardently thanking him too.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Rubina At The Journal
New York parlance or universal acronyms? Only recently did I realize that "The Journal" unequivocably means The Wall Street Journal, and "The Times" refers to The New York Times. Both of these are great publications, and getting to work here is pretty good for aspiring journalists like Rubina.
So we were happy when Rubina got an opportunity to join The Times as a freelance graphics editor last year, and then subsequently at The Journal. In case you're wondering what she does as a graphics editor, it is gathering the information for visuals that are not just photos, and then creating them. This includes charts, tables. diagrams, schematic summaries and maps that usually accompany news stories or articles.
Newspapers are facing a tough environment trying to hold on to readership and ad revenues in the face of competition from the internet. They are pressured on headcount and typically take on only freelancers or people on temporary contract. Rubina is passionate about her work so her working this way without any job security or benefits was fine. She creates about 2 - 3 graphics daily and we used to cut and save all these till the novelty of this declined somewhat. We knew she enjoys her work and is productive and appreciated by her group and supervisors. It's also great experience so that was good.
Then I got her call a few days back. The editor of the front page of The Journal said he wanted to talk to her. Don't worry, he said, it's good news. Then over lunch he offered her a regular, full time position. She's very happy and so are we (Anita, Sheena and I - her family) especially since she loves living in Manhattan. I saw she hasn't yet updated her personal website in respect of her employment status at The Journal since she's still going through the formal process, and will probably do so subsequently.
Currently she's working on the "A" (main) section of the paper. Her group traditionally do not put their name on their graphics, but typically one third of the ten or so of them are hers.
So we were happy when Rubina got an opportunity to join The Times as a freelance graphics editor last year, and then subsequently at The Journal. In case you're wondering what she does as a graphics editor, it is gathering the information for visuals that are not just photos, and then creating them. This includes charts, tables. diagrams, schematic summaries and maps that usually accompany news stories or articles.
Newspapers are facing a tough environment trying to hold on to readership and ad revenues in the face of competition from the internet. They are pressured on headcount and typically take on only freelancers or people on temporary contract. Rubina is passionate about her work so her working this way without any job security or benefits was fine. She creates about 2 - 3 graphics daily and we used to cut and save all these till the novelty of this declined somewhat. We knew she enjoys her work and is productive and appreciated by her group and supervisors. It's also great experience so that was good.
Then I got her call a few days back. The editor of the front page of The Journal said he wanted to talk to her. Don't worry, he said, it's good news. Then over lunch he offered her a regular, full time position. She's very happy and so are we (Anita, Sheena and I - her family) especially since she loves living in Manhattan. I saw she hasn't yet updated her personal website in respect of her employment status at The Journal since she's still going through the formal process, and will probably do so subsequently.
Currently she's working on the "A" (main) section of the paper. Her group traditionally do not put their name on their graphics, but typically one third of the ten or so of them are hers.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Offshore Drilling And Poor Journalism
I often wonder at the failure of these US multi-billion news agencies to address the most basic questions that arise from the very news that they cover. Here is an example.
For the past couple of months we've heard arguments flying back and forth about lifting the ban offshore drilling around the US. Given the skyrocketing crude prices and that we're not going to avoid importing oil 10, 20 or 30 years out, I'm now all for it. Safety and pollution concerns are now very low, and we don't have the same wildlife refuge conservation considerations in offshore drilling as in ANWR.
The Democratic leadership (till recently including Obama) have opposed lifting the ban. They say that it won't help in the short term, and that oil companies have plenty of offshore areas that they can use first.
The first argument is silly - does it mean Congress and government should only limit itself to the most short-term measures? But the second argument about idle leases merits serious consideration, and no news agency that I know has asked the oil companies or Republicans to respond to this specific point, and then reported upon it. Instead the election coverage on energy issues by the likes of CNN is an endless blather of cross-talk among candidates, their surrogates and political pundits.
One place where I found a partial rebuttal to this "use idle leases first" argument is on this QandO blog. In short it says that leases take a very long time to work, are held up by many procedural steps, and require a lot of capital investment that is costly or hard to come by. It's only a partial rebuttal because it doesn't fully answer the question: if the oil companies have their hands so full that they can't get through these existing leases, then where will they find the capacity to explore the new areas?
Still, at least this little blog tries to answer this most obvious of questions. That's a lot more than has been done by the large and sophisticated media outlets.
All is not lost. Some new programs with welcome depth are coming on air. My favorite is CNN's Fareed Zakaria's GPS (Global Public Square) that started a few weeks ago and covers central global and foreign issues.
For the past couple of months we've heard arguments flying back and forth about lifting the ban offshore drilling around the US. Given the skyrocketing crude prices and that we're not going to avoid importing oil 10, 20 or 30 years out, I'm now all for it. Safety and pollution concerns are now very low, and we don't have the same wildlife refuge conservation considerations in offshore drilling as in ANWR.
The Democratic leadership (till recently including Obama) have opposed lifting the ban. They say that it won't help in the short term, and that oil companies have plenty of offshore areas that they can use first.
The first argument is silly - does it mean Congress and government should only limit itself to the most short-term measures? But the second argument about idle leases merits serious consideration, and no news agency that I know has asked the oil companies or Republicans to respond to this specific point, and then reported upon it. Instead the election coverage on energy issues by the likes of CNN is an endless blather of cross-talk among candidates, their surrogates and political pundits.
One place where I found a partial rebuttal to this "use idle leases first" argument is on this QandO blog. In short it says that leases take a very long time to work, are held up by many procedural steps, and require a lot of capital investment that is costly or hard to come by. It's only a partial rebuttal because it doesn't fully answer the question: if the oil companies have their hands so full that they can't get through these existing leases, then where will they find the capacity to explore the new areas?
Still, at least this little blog tries to answer this most obvious of questions. That's a lot more than has been done by the large and sophisticated media outlets.
All is not lost. Some new programs with welcome depth are coming on air. My favorite is CNN's Fareed Zakaria's GPS (Global Public Square) that started a few weeks ago and covers central global and foreign issues.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Does A President Need Principles?
A good thing about the upcoming elections is that either presidential candidate will be a huge improvement over Bush. The race is surprisingly close at this point, given Obama's highly successful foreign tour, favorable press coverage and inspiring speeches as compared to McCain's gaffes and senior moments. Many more voters view Democrats favorably as compared to Republicans. Obama is an inspirational speaker with quick wit and charm. He is also highly intelligent and organized.
Yet according to CNN's "Poll of Polls" today Obama is at 47% to McCain's 44% with 9% undecided. What gives?
One reason McCain is so close may be that he is still widely thought of as decent and principled despite his share of flip-flops. The Washington Post today carried a long article about how emotion and ambition have always guided McCain's behavior. But even such negative coverage may only humanize him and not tarnish his overall standing with voters.
Obama appeals to the idealism of his enthusiastic supporters with his message of change and hope. Yet in his life there seems little or nothing of principle he's done, or made sacrifices, that compromised his own interests.
Then there have been his rapid switches on issues after winning the Democratic nomination. These move him to the center or even into Republican territory, like his wooing of evangelicals and decrying a Supreme Court ruling against the death penalty in non-homicidal cases.
Such tactics while smart help shape perceptions. Half the voters (myself included) think Obama will do or say whatever gets him elected or furthers his personal interests. But even assuming that is true, how much does it matter? It largely depends on what the candidate hopes to achieve by becoming President.
The significance of being the first black / minority President shouldn't be lost on Obama. Here is his chance to go down in history as a great leader with path-breaking accomplishments. If that's his objective then his actions and decisions driven by pure self-interest will largely converge with what is good for the country. He will surround himself with good people, and take decisions on their merits in the national interest to secure his legacy.
Companies seek the smartest and most capable CEOs who are not necessarily nice guys. The system of compensation, rewards (and punishments in case of wrongdoing) tries to align the CEOs' self-interest with that of the companies.
This private company analogy can apply to Obama even if his incentives for being a good President are different. So while Obama has his core following of wide-eyed admirers it will be interesting to see how the preferences of the more skeptical swing voters unfold in the coming months.
Yet according to CNN's "Poll of Polls" today Obama is at 47% to McCain's 44% with 9% undecided. What gives?
One reason McCain is so close may be that he is still widely thought of as decent and principled despite his share of flip-flops. The Washington Post today carried a long article about how emotion and ambition have always guided McCain's behavior. But even such negative coverage may only humanize him and not tarnish his overall standing with voters.
Obama appeals to the idealism of his enthusiastic supporters with his message of change and hope. Yet in his life there seems little or nothing of principle he's done, or made sacrifices, that compromised his own interests.
Then there have been his rapid switches on issues after winning the Democratic nomination. These move him to the center or even into Republican territory, like his wooing of evangelicals and decrying a Supreme Court ruling against the death penalty in non-homicidal cases.
Such tactics while smart help shape perceptions. Half the voters (myself included) think Obama will do or say whatever gets him elected or furthers his personal interests. But even assuming that is true, how much does it matter? It largely depends on what the candidate hopes to achieve by becoming President.
The significance of being the first black / minority President shouldn't be lost on Obama. Here is his chance to go down in history as a great leader with path-breaking accomplishments. If that's his objective then his actions and decisions driven by pure self-interest will largely converge with what is good for the country. He will surround himself with good people, and take decisions on their merits in the national interest to secure his legacy.
Companies seek the smartest and most capable CEOs who are not necessarily nice guys. The system of compensation, rewards (and punishments in case of wrongdoing) tries to align the CEOs' self-interest with that of the companies.
This private company analogy can apply to Obama even if his incentives for being a good President are different. So while Obama has his core following of wide-eyed admirers it will be interesting to see how the preferences of the more skeptical swing voters unfold in the coming months.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
McCain's Strategy: Stupid Or Ultra Smart?
At first I thought John McCain has lost it. But now I'm not so sure. I'm referring to his behavior and policy stances after securing the Republican nomination, and particularly after Barack Obama became the official Democratic nominee.
Every veteran of two party politics should know about the "race to the center" strategy. This is also formally taught in introductory game theory courses in the economics department of the University of Chicago, where Obama's advisor Austan Goolsbee is a professor.
The theory here is for mercenary politicians to take more extreme right or left positions during the primaries to win support of their respective bases, and then each moves to the center to try to win most voters in the general election. By "mercenary politicians" is meant those who are simply focused on winning, and untethered to internal commitments or prior promises.
Obama has all this down pat. That's why you saw him gallop towards supporting the death penalty even for some non-homicidal crimes; courting evangelicals; qualifying troop withdrawal commitments in Iraq; lecturing blacks on personal responsibility; and so on. He may ease off the pace of transition a bit because of left-wing reactions, but his base is pretty much in the bag and you know where he's heading. Even Jesse Jackson's much publicised private diatribe against Obama actually helps drive some undecided whites into Obama's fold.
But what about McCain? He seems firmly stuck on the right of even where he has been in the past several years on issues ranging from (a lack of) women's reproductive rights to taxes to healthcare coverage. Moreover, he flubs his speeches and country names, and is the anti-thesis of Obama's eloquence. He's well behind Obama in the opinion polls. So he seems to be following a really dumb and ineffective game plan, right?
That's possible, but there's an alternative explanation. After all McCain has some of Karl Rove's closest associates advising him. Obama is a formidable opponent but one thing that can work for McCain is Hillary's disaffected supporters who can either vote McCain or not vote at all.
Obama can heal the divisions simply by taking on Hillary as his running mate, and though I had my doubts it looks like she's amenable to this. The only thing is, with all the bitterness during the primaries process, he's apt to choose her only if he feels he needs her. But what if he were confident that he could win without her? Then he'll choose someone else, and that's the only way for McCain to beat him.
If that's the calculation then McCain should let Obama get substantially ahead in the polls till Obama chooses his running mate, someone other than Hillary. Only after that should McCain turn to more centrist themes and go full throttle in his campaign. His earlier rightist stance will endear him to the Republican base who contribute to his campaign. This base will also be more understanding of his late shift to the middle if he's lagging in the polls and "has" to adjust positions to catch up with Obama. Also, McCain's tepid campaign style and listless speeches earlier on will lower expectations, which will make it easier for him to beat them in the all-important debates and final run-up to the elections.
So back to the question: Are McCain and his team being absurdly foolish or brilliantly clever? Their subsequent actions, say after the Democratic convention, may supply the answer. At this time it is hard to tell.
Every veteran of two party politics should know about the "race to the center" strategy. This is also formally taught in introductory game theory courses in the economics department of the University of Chicago, where Obama's advisor Austan Goolsbee is a professor.
The theory here is for mercenary politicians to take more extreme right or left positions during the primaries to win support of their respective bases, and then each moves to the center to try to win most voters in the general election. By "mercenary politicians" is meant those who are simply focused on winning, and untethered to internal commitments or prior promises.
Obama has all this down pat. That's why you saw him gallop towards supporting the death penalty even for some non-homicidal crimes; courting evangelicals; qualifying troop withdrawal commitments in Iraq; lecturing blacks on personal responsibility; and so on. He may ease off the pace of transition a bit because of left-wing reactions, but his base is pretty much in the bag and you know where he's heading. Even Jesse Jackson's much publicised private diatribe against Obama actually helps drive some undecided whites into Obama's fold.
But what about McCain? He seems firmly stuck on the right of even where he has been in the past several years on issues ranging from (a lack of) women's reproductive rights to taxes to healthcare coverage. Moreover, he flubs his speeches and country names, and is the anti-thesis of Obama's eloquence. He's well behind Obama in the opinion polls. So he seems to be following a really dumb and ineffective game plan, right?
That's possible, but there's an alternative explanation. After all McCain has some of Karl Rove's closest associates advising him. Obama is a formidable opponent but one thing that can work for McCain is Hillary's disaffected supporters who can either vote McCain or not vote at all.
Obama can heal the divisions simply by taking on Hillary as his running mate, and though I had my doubts it looks like she's amenable to this. The only thing is, with all the bitterness during the primaries process, he's apt to choose her only if he feels he needs her. But what if he were confident that he could win without her? Then he'll choose someone else, and that's the only way for McCain to beat him.
If that's the calculation then McCain should let Obama get substantially ahead in the polls till Obama chooses his running mate, someone other than Hillary. Only after that should McCain turn to more centrist themes and go full throttle in his campaign. His earlier rightist stance will endear him to the Republican base who contribute to his campaign. This base will also be more understanding of his late shift to the middle if he's lagging in the polls and "has" to adjust positions to catch up with Obama. Also, McCain's tepid campaign style and listless speeches earlier on will lower expectations, which will make it easier for him to beat them in the all-important debates and final run-up to the elections.
So back to the question: Are McCain and his team being absurdly foolish or brilliantly clever? Their subsequent actions, say after the Democratic convention, may supply the answer. At this time it is hard to tell.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Watching Sex
I mean watching the movie "Sex And The City" in case the title is misleading.
Wife Anita asked if we could see it together and I agreed, despite its unflattering reviews in The New York Times, and also in The Wall Street Journal. The critics at Rotten Tomatoes also gave it a failing grade (below 60% positive) though the general viewers were more generous. Gender seems to play a big role. The women love it, the men don't.
I said to Anita that it is our going out together that matters and not the particular movie that we watch. She responded that she'd never accompany me to my "men-type" of horror, sci-fi, action or similarly inane movies. That's honesty and lack of false promises or mushiness for you.
The 8:50pm show on Saturday that we saw was full of women. There were only seven men (me included) out of an audience of over 150 with a surprisingly high proportion of young females.
The movie itself was very well received, with a lot of "oohs", "ahs" and laughter. At the end many people (all women) clapped in applause - the first time I've seen this happen in Danbury. While leaving we heard four women tell their two male companions, "Oh, thanks so much for coming. We're sorry you didn't enjoy it as much as we did!"
About our own reactions Anita liked it a lot. But so did I, contrary to our expectations going by the reviews. Beneath my boorishness and practicality I may have a soft and sensitive core that would appeal to the four main women characters in this movie. Or maybe not.
Wife Anita asked if we could see it together and I agreed, despite its unflattering reviews in The New York Times, and also in The Wall Street Journal. The critics at Rotten Tomatoes also gave it a failing grade (below 60% positive) though the general viewers were more generous. Gender seems to play a big role. The women love it, the men don't.
I said to Anita that it is our going out together that matters and not the particular movie that we watch. She responded that she'd never accompany me to my "men-type" of horror, sci-fi, action or similarly inane movies. That's honesty and lack of false promises or mushiness for you.
The 8:50pm show on Saturday that we saw was full of women. There were only seven men (me included) out of an audience of over 150 with a surprisingly high proportion of young females.
The movie itself was very well received, with a lot of "oohs", "ahs" and laughter. At the end many people (all women) clapped in applause - the first time I've seen this happen in Danbury. While leaving we heard four women tell their two male companions, "Oh, thanks so much for coming. We're sorry you didn't enjoy it as much as we did!"
About our own reactions Anita liked it a lot. But so did I, contrary to our expectations going by the reviews. Beneath my boorishness and practicality I may have a soft and sensitive core that would appeal to the four main women characters in this movie. Or maybe not.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Stopping Email Pollution
Do you get flooded with spam and chain messages? Often malware is carried by emails that infect when you unsuspectingly click on links or open attachments. There are simple ways we as senders can avoid contributing to this. Here is my count down of the four biggest email nuisances that we can control. The last one is the most innocuous and widespread because so few realize it, and yet it's capable of the most damage.
No. 4: Hackneyed jokes and quotes repackaged in large PowerPoint presentations. These are not only often stale but waste time to open and view. They may also carry viruses or spyware. Good jokes come across well even in simple inline text. The others seldom improve much with the addition of colors and sounds, emoticons or inane animations. Not all attachments are bad. Visual cartoons and striking pictures or video clips can be exceptions to this.
No. 3: Chain mails and online petitions. Some claim to bring luck, others are pleas for money , most have been circulating for years, and almost all are a waste of recipients' time.
No. 2: Unverified health tips, virus warnings, "true" stories and sensational pictures. Most of these are hoaxes or distortions. Before forwarding any of these we owe it to our recipients to check their veracity on sites like http://www.snopes.com/ or www.truthorfiction.com.
No. 1: Forwarding attachments or links without "signing" your message. I used to routinely forward such stuff to my grouped recipients without comment till my brother alerted me to the danger. This is the biggest menace of all so let me explain.
By now most of us know that email supposedly coming from you may actually be auto-generated by a virus program that contains malicious code. It is triggered when you open an infected attachment or click on a "poisoned" link, and is sent to everyone on your address list. If you routinely forward stuff without comment, your unsuspecting recipients will not be able to tell this malicious message apart from your other ones. It's like a case of repeatedly crying "Wolf" till your recipients ignore the danger when the real one appears. By opening it they'll get infected and spread it further.
If you send any messages or forwards ESPECIALLY those with attachments or web links, please remember to sign your messages. What does signing mean? It means typing in your name or initials or nickname, ideally something that an automatic virus program would not include. For example I sign my forwards by including my initials SM in an introductory line at the top.
Some friends of mine insert their names in the "auto-signature" feature of their email and think this is a smart shortcut. It's quite the opposite and defeats the whole purpose, since a virus program will also pick it up and send on this signature. Worse, this can fool the recipient into thinking the email has been consciously signed and sent. If you feel you must have it, then at least add the title "AUTO-SIGNATURE" (preferably in CAPs) at the top of your auto-signature content so that your recipients are warned if they receive poisoned auto-generated content from your account. And when you consciously send something, you can simply delete this word AUTO-SIGNATURE from your message.
I tend to delete without reading any unsigned messages with attachments and links and suggest you do the same unless you like playing Russian roulette with malicious code. Note that even a signed email just indicates it has been consciously sent, and is no guarantee that the attachment or link is safe from malware or spyware.
I have focused here on forwarded emails, and left out other abuses like phishing. Also omitted here is how we can protect ourselves as recipients and/or using anti-virus or anti-spyware programs.
You can educate your own circle about all this. It's partly the reason I'm creating this post so I can send this link when required. We cannot eradicate email pollution but can help by not contributing to it and protecting our own recipients.
No. 4: Hackneyed jokes and quotes repackaged in large PowerPoint presentations. These are not only often stale but waste time to open and view. They may also carry viruses or spyware. Good jokes come across well even in simple inline text. The others seldom improve much with the addition of colors and sounds, emoticons or inane animations. Not all attachments are bad. Visual cartoons and striking pictures or video clips can be exceptions to this.
No. 3: Chain mails and online petitions. Some claim to bring luck, others are pleas for money , most have been circulating for years, and almost all are a waste of recipients' time.
No. 2: Unverified health tips, virus warnings, "true" stories and sensational pictures. Most of these are hoaxes or distortions. Before forwarding any of these we owe it to our recipients to check their veracity on sites like http://www.snopes.com/ or www.truthorfiction.com.
No. 1: Forwarding attachments or links without "signing" your message. I used to routinely forward such stuff to my grouped recipients without comment till my brother alerted me to the danger. This is the biggest menace of all so let me explain.
By now most of us know that email supposedly coming from you may actually be auto-generated by a virus program that contains malicious code. It is triggered when you open an infected attachment or click on a "poisoned" link, and is sent to everyone on your address list. If you routinely forward stuff without comment, your unsuspecting recipients will not be able to tell this malicious message apart from your other ones. It's like a case of repeatedly crying "Wolf" till your recipients ignore the danger when the real one appears. By opening it they'll get infected and spread it further.
If you send any messages or forwards ESPECIALLY those with attachments or web links, please remember to sign your messages. What does signing mean? It means typing in your name or initials or nickname, ideally something that an automatic virus program would not include. For example I sign my forwards by including my initials SM in an introductory line at the top.
Some friends of mine insert their names in the "auto-signature" feature of their email and think this is a smart shortcut. It's quite the opposite and defeats the whole purpose, since a virus program will also pick it up and send on this signature. Worse, this can fool the recipient into thinking the email has been consciously signed and sent. If you feel you must have it, then at least add the title "AUTO-SIGNATURE" (preferably in CAPs) at the top of your auto-signature content so that your recipients are warned if they receive poisoned auto-generated content from your account. And when you consciously send something, you can simply delete this word AUTO-SIGNATURE from your message.
I tend to delete without reading any unsigned messages with attachments and links and suggest you do the same unless you like playing Russian roulette with malicious code. Note that even a signed email just indicates it has been consciously sent, and is no guarantee that the attachment or link is safe from malware or spyware.
I have focused here on forwarded emails, and left out other abuses like phishing. Also omitted here is how we can protect ourselves as recipients and/or using anti-virus or anti-spyware programs.
You can educate your own circle about all this. It's partly the reason I'm creating this post so I can send this link when required. We cannot eradicate email pollution but can help by not contributing to it and protecting our own recipients.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
