I appreciate your comment. Unusually civil, especially for the Internet.
Upon further review, I believe that you are correct that a lot of gay activists are looking for that outside endorsement; that's a big reason why there is such a push for calling it "gay marriage" and not "civil unions". Their argument harkens back to the old doctrine of "separate but equal" (from Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court decision that justified school segregation until Brown v. Board of Education overturned it). It was found that by making the black and white schools separate, the separation made them inherently unequal.
So the gay activists, who are trying to achieve equal rights for gays in all aspects of society (remember that they don't have equal rights in many areas, including those I mentioned in my previous post), consider that anything less than calling it "marriage" (like "civil unions") falls into the "separate but equal" category, which means that in real life it is anything but equal.
I think many times things have been "redefined" for political purposes when the original definition was found to be too retrictive or discriminatory. Look at the way the franchise has been expanded. The status of "eligible voter" was originally limited to "white male property owner over 21 years old". "Eligible voter" has been redefined many times since then. I'm sure most of these definitions were for "purely political reasons." Does that make the re-definition invalid?
And as to the AC who claimed that homosexual lifestyle is a "choice", that is certainly a popular argument in conservative circles (see this link). However the majority of scientific research says that this is not the case (see this link).
I think that current societal attitudes today allow for experimentation in that area (women more often, simply due to the safety factor with HIV) so it seems more people are choosing. But I believe that there is a definite biological preference one way or the other, and after some experimentation, they decide which way to go, because that's the way their inner orientation leads them.
Then there are inheritance issues, Social Security, Medicare, and private insurance health benefits, where the same-sex partner can be left out in the cold completely by the laws currently in force, while hetero couples have no problems there.
It goes much much deeper that simply needing "outside reassurance of your union". Remember that 50 years ago, most Americans disapproved of mixed-race marriages (look up miscegenation) and that most states passed laws to specifically criminalize them. Do you really believe that mixed-race couples of the time were just needing "outside reassurance of (their) union(s)"?
Katrina wasn't simply "larger". Katrina was massive. It was twice as wide as Camille and four times as wide as Andrew. And Katrina was a high-end Category 4 when it hit land, and had been a 5 while still in the Gulf. The size and strength combined to make Katrina's storm surge higher than Camille's, and Katrina's effects far more widespread than any previously recorded hurricane, including the Labor Day and Galveston ones.
So this year is record-breaking in terms of the dollar amount of damage, though there are also other factors at work here, most notably the massive amount of coastal development in the region. that's happened since Camille.
I would guess (though I haven't seen numbers) that Katrina is the largest storm in recorded history to hit the US, in terms of the amount of energy contained. Camille had stronger winds, but a smaller area. Frances was bigger, but not nearly as powerful.
I know it's pretty much useless to ask, but could you please stop throwing around these unfounded accusations?
You make an unfounded accusation against Blanco, and then you complain about people making "unfounded accusations." Apparently the only unfounded accusations you don't like are the ones directed against George "What didn't go right?" Bush.
Here's a clue for you. The reason you can't find a link is because your story is not true. It's standard Bushian "The buck stops somewhere else" propaganda.
Resetting the time on an electronic device is trivial.
I used to work for a company that build devices that sent time code signals, especially for radio, TV, and military applications.
Yes, setting the time is trivial. But until you make that change, the time is wrong, and all kinds of devices are out of whack (especially the ones that play pre-programmed commercials based on the time), so the device needs to be programmed to do the change automatically. We had the standard DST setting, but now all the users will be forced to custom program it to change the DST date correctly, since the standard program is no longer correct. And since this is just a little device sitting in this big complex system, every radio and TV engineer is swearing under his breath (or possible very loudly) at these people.
The funny thing is, I remember the 70's energy crisis where we had a year or two with full-time DST. They decided that the energy saved in the evening with later sunsets was used in the morning with later sunrises, and thus was a wash. Go figure. But since the Bushies seem to be igorant of history in general, it's not surprising.
Of course the cynic in me says they did this only to get the public all riled up about something trivial, and thus ignore the massive tax giveaways to large multinational corporations. But good old likeable GWB would never do something like that, would he?
I think your perception is a bit tainted, too. Back to that later.
OK, I get the whole, "oceans can't protect us anymore" line. And that argument is reasonable. But what we forget is that Europeans have been dealing with all kinds of terrorists for a couple of generations. They've managed to adjust and protect themselves without destroying the fabric of their society. Perhaps we should look there as a guide rather that just strike out blindly in anger, no matter how justified that anger may be.
Regardless, I think you are badly misreading (perception issues?) Bush's line. Let's look at it critically.
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained."
This statement implies that 9/11 should change your opinion about the possibility that Saddam could be contained. But if Saddam wasn't partially responsible for 9/11, isn't he still contained. So in truth, even with other Islamist factions (al Qaeda) able to mount attacks, Saddam was still contained, and even the events of 9/11 should not have changed your opinion about that specific fact.
So Bush *is* conflating the two. Just not directly.
I admit to being cynical of Bush. But I think Bush has earned that cynicism most thoroughly. remember, he advertised himself as "a uniter, not a divider". But it became apparent from the beginning that his definition of compromise was that you had to change your position so that you agreed with him, while he didn't have to change a thing.
The simple fact is he is a spoiled bully who throws a tantrum when he can't get his way. Bolton's recess appointment today is a good example. Not to mention his condescending nicknames for his acquaintances. I could go on.
As to *gleefully* blaming Bush if another attack happens - IMO, if another 9/11-type attack happens in Bush's term, I don't think you'll see another Presidential election in our lifetime.
That sounds fine for test subjects in a situation where there is easy and immediate freedom of movement. Also the test subjects were allowed to remove glasses and contacts (they'd focus the microwaves). I don't know the physiology, but it seems to me that eyes would be the organ likely to be damaged first.
Now let's think about the real world. A mob is approching the Humvee where the ray-gun is mounted they fire a sweep pattern at them. The front line (the ones hit) falls back into the second line that's pshing forward creating a pileup of bodies. This is OK if they stop the beam at this point, it prevents the crowd from advancing.
But what happens if they keep sweeping the beam? Those people caught in front are going to get a lot more than just 2 seconds worth of heating, since they're simply *unable* to avoid it. Also, what if someone gets knocked unconscious, and cannot voluntarily avoid the beam? How much exposure time until their faces melt?
Now of course the question is, is this less injurious/more effective than other riot control methods, such as tear gas, machine guns, etc.? That I don't know, but I'm highly skeptical that this method is any better.
I was about 15 when BG came out. The pilot was one of the best 2 hours of TV ever.
Then the regular show started. The quickest "jump the shark" in TV history. I think I watched about three episodes.
As for ST:TOS, it was and still is different from every other show on TV. It had an optimistic vision of hunanity's future. War was never the answer, you might have to fight to get to the answer, but you never saw Kirk walking through the remnants of the civilization he just destroyed.
Yes, ST:TOS has elements that date it (Kirk's "babe" of the week, for example), but it's still the most forward-looking and humanity-affirming show that TV has ever produced.
Depends on where she sued. In the US the answer is no. Now in the UK the answer is yes.
In Russia, I can't imagine a judge would make a Russian citizen pay the court costs of a US Government organization, especially one the Russians have been so competitive with over the years.
Of course NASA wouldn't even bother to fight is, and if a court would summarily rule against them there's no way they would pay it, so it's really moot anyway.
Stevens and perhaps Ginsberg seem liberal because the court has moved so far to the right in the last twenty years, the replacement of Marshall with Thomas being the largest shift.
And your "modern definition" of liberal indicates to me exactly what the right-wing strategy has been: Demonize those on the far left (the liberals), and then gradually change the definition of liberal to move it farther to the right, and demonize the new definition as vociferously as you did the old.
Senate Minority leader Harry Reid has already sent President Bush a list of four Republican Senators who would be acceptable as SCOTUS Justices.
Reid's list: South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo.
Also, it Bush would use the Senate Democrats for ADVICE (the constitution says, "Advice and consent", and pick a nominee according to the advice, that the Democrats also would not seriously oppose. (A few will, but not enough to block).
When Clinton was president and had a Dem majority in the Senate, Clinton still consulted with Orrin Hatch about who the nominee should be. Clinton was considering Bruce Babbitt, but Hatch said that there would be a fight. Hatch suggested Ginsberg, or Breyer, and Clinton ended up appointing both of them.
Democrats are simply expecting that Bush show the same respect to them that Clinton showed to the Repubs when the R's were in the minority.
But, considering the typical m.o. of the Bush Administration, if they ask the Dems for Advice, I'll next be seeing pigs flying over my house.
Then with the fantastic way that Bush has handled the war on terror, he won my vote in 2004.
I'm sure glad so see that Osama Bin Laden and the rest of Al-Qaeda are taken care of so they won't threaten us any more. It's so much easier flying now that the terror levels been at Green for the past year. And we haven't had a terrorist kill a U.S. Serviceman for 9 months. Bush had just done a fantastic job!
</end sarcasm>
Excuse me, but what planet do you live on? You say you're socially liberal (Bush isn't) fiscally conservative (Bush isn't, since when is running up huge debts fiscally conservative?), and you laud Bush for the "War On Terra"(TM) when most of the responsible parties for 9/11 are still at-large.
And what is it you don't like about Dean, and why is Kerry an idiot? In your opionion, what radical changes do the Democrats need to make?
You say you don't want religious fundamentalists, but then you spout vague attacks on Democrats like you've been listening to Fox News all day.
Think about what you agree with and what true competence is, rather than obsess with the personalities. You don't have to like someone to respect them and work with them.
Re:This is the WORST time for a justice to retire
on
Justice O'Connor Retiring
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Only if one of the liberal members decided to step down would you see a massive swing in policy.
I agree with you, except for one thing: There aren't any big-L Liberals on the court.
The closest thing to a liberal is Justice Stevens, and he only seems so because the rest of the court is so right-wing. Blackmun, Brennan, and Marhshall were all more liberal than Stevens and were replaced by more conservative justices.
What we have is 1 moderate liberal (Stevens) 3 centrist judges (Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer) and 1 moderate conservative (Kennedy) and 3 extreme conservatives (Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas). O'Connor was typically another moderate conservative. She or Kennedy would usually be the decider in close cases.
Of course I expect George W. "Uniter, not a Divider" to nominate someone like Scalia or Thomas. After all, he was quoted as saying they were his favorite Justices.
Also one thing people forget to SOME extent, is that history tends to show that supreme court justices, no matter who pics them, generally have done their job as described, and thats to interpret the constitution and laws as set forth by Congress and the President.
In past Administrations, I would agree. But this Administration has made a partisan mockery of nearly every function of government. Scientific reports have been edited by industry insiders. Intelligence has been "fixed" to support policy. FEAR has been used to drive policies that have nothing to do with security.
No. It means that a VP who succeeds a President to office can run for two terms *if* he/she served less than half of the predecessors term.
So, since LBJ became prez in Nov. 1963, he was eligible to run in 1968, but chose not to.
Gerald Ford, had he been elected in 1976, would not have been eligible to run in 1980, since he became prez in August, 1974.
I always thought it was ironic that Republicans pushed through the 22nd amaendment is response to FDR, but then were upset Reagan couldn't run for a third term.
I think *you* are the one who needs a reality check.
The industry is hot *if* you live (or are willing to move) to the right area (and pay exhorbitant real estate prices) *and* you have the right skill set *and* you have the appropriate level of experience (not too much, not too little).
Where are the entry level jobs? Where are the jobs for 50-year-olds who still want to program? Why do kids see the job environment for IT people (and engioneers in general) and decide, "I think I'll study Business"?
While there are certainly some people that fit your description, most of the internet-boom-ITers who weren't any good are now out of the industry. The problems with IT unemployment go far deeper than your "blame the victim" mentality allows you to see.
Here's a clue: Bad things do happen to good people, and your broad brush is grossly unfair.
Do you think maybe all the kids entering college see all the 40-year-old out-of-work IT professionals and think, "Who needs *that* kind of career?", and go into "Business Administration"?
Slashdot Mirror
That was Will Rogers, in the 20's or 30's.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Will_Rogers
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I appreciate your comment. Unusually civil, especially for the Internet.
Upon further review, I believe that you are correct that a lot of gay activists are looking for that outside endorsement; that's a big reason why there is such a push for calling it "gay marriage" and not "civil unions". Their argument harkens back to the old doctrine of "separate but equal" (from Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court decision that justified school segregation until Brown v. Board of Education overturned it). It was found that by making the black and white schools separate, the separation made them inherently unequal.
So the gay activists, who are trying to achieve equal rights for gays in all aspects of society (remember that they don't have equal rights in many areas, including those I mentioned in my previous post), consider that anything less than calling it "marriage" (like "civil unions") falls into the "separate but equal" category, which means that in real life it is anything but equal.
I think many times things have been "redefined" for political purposes when the original definition was found to be too retrictive or discriminatory. Look at the way the franchise has been expanded. The status of "eligible voter" was originally limited to "white male property owner over 21 years old". "Eligible voter" has been redefined many times since then. I'm sure most of these definitions were for "purely political reasons." Does that make the re-definition invalid?
And as to the AC who claimed that homosexual lifestyle is a "choice", that is certainly a popular argument in conservative circles (see this link). However the majority of scientific research says that this is not the case (see this link). I think that current societal attitudes today allow for experimentation in that area (women more often, simply due to the safety factor with HIV) so it seems more people are choosing. But I believe that there is a definite biological preference one way or the other, and after some experimentation, they decide which way to go, because that's the way their inner orientation leads them.
Perhaps you haven't heard of recent cases where same-sex partners have been denied hospital visitation rights when their partner falls ill.
Then there are inheritance issues, Social Security, Medicare, and private insurance health benefits, where the same-sex partner can be left out in the cold completely by the laws currently in force, while hetero couples have no problems there.
It goes much much deeper that simply needing "outside reassurance of your union". Remember that 50 years ago, most Americans disapproved of mixed-race marriages (look up miscegenation) and that most states passed laws to specifically criminalize them. Do you really believe that mixed-race couples of the time were just needing "outside reassurance of (their) union(s)"?
Katrina wasn't simply "larger". Katrina was massive. It was twice as wide as Camille and four times as wide as Andrew. And Katrina was a high-end Category 4 when it hit land, and had been a 5 while still in the Gulf. The size and strength combined to make Katrina's storm surge higher than Camille's, and Katrina's effects far more widespread than any previously recorded hurricane, including the Labor Day and Galveston ones.
So this year is record-breaking in terms of the dollar amount of damage, though there are also other factors at work here, most notably the massive amount of coastal development in the region. that's happened since Camille.
I would guess (though I haven't seen numbers) that Katrina is the largest storm in recorded history to hit the US, in terms of the amount of energy contained. Camille had stronger winds, but a smaller area. Frances was bigger, but not nearly as powerful.
I know it's pretty much useless to ask, but could you please stop throwing around these unfounded accusations?
You make an unfounded accusation against Blanco, and then you complain about people making "unfounded accusations." Apparently the only unfounded accusations you don't like are the ones directed against George "What didn't go right?" Bush.
Here's a clue for you. The reason you can't find a link is because your story is not true. It's standard Bushian "The buck stops somewhere else" propaganda.
That, and tides.
See "Neutron Star".
Resetting the time on an electronic device is trivial.
I used to work for a company that build devices that sent time code signals, especially for radio, TV, and military applications.
Yes, setting the time is trivial. But until you make that change, the time is wrong, and all kinds of devices are out of whack (especially the ones that play pre-programmed commercials based on the time), so the device needs to be programmed to do the change automatically. We had the standard DST setting, but now all the users will be forced to custom program it to change the DST date correctly, since the standard program is no longer correct. And since this is just a little device sitting in this big complex system, every radio and TV engineer is swearing under his breath (or possible very loudly) at these people.
The funny thing is, I remember the 70's energy crisis where we had a year or two with full-time DST. They decided that the energy saved in the evening with later sunsets was used in the morning with later sunrises, and thus was a wash. Go figure. But since the Bushies seem to be igorant of history in general, it's not surprising.
Of course the cynic in me says they did this only to get the public all riled up about something trivial, and thus ignore the massive tax giveaways to large multinational corporations. But good old likeable GWB would never do something like that, would he?
That's why I support the abandonment of all interscholastic competitions (intramurals are OK).
You want a football team? Fine. Start a club and create one, just leave the schools out of it.
I think your perception is a bit tainted, too. Back to that later.
OK, I get the whole, "oceans can't protect us anymore" line. And that argument is reasonable. But what we forget is that Europeans have been dealing with all kinds of terrorists for a couple of generations. They've managed to adjust and protect themselves without destroying the fabric of their society. Perhaps we should look there as a guide rather that just strike out blindly in anger, no matter how justified that anger may be.
Regardless, I think you are badly misreading (perception issues?) Bush's line. Let's look at it critically.
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained."
This statement implies that 9/11 should change your opinion about the possibility that Saddam could be contained. But if Saddam wasn't partially responsible for 9/11, isn't he still contained. So in truth, even with other Islamist factions (al Qaeda) able to mount attacks, Saddam was still contained, and even the events of 9/11 should not have changed your opinion about that specific fact.
So Bush *is* conflating the two. Just not directly.
I admit to being cynical of Bush. But I think Bush has earned that cynicism most thoroughly. remember, he advertised himself as "a uniter, not a divider". But it became apparent from the beginning that his definition of compromise was that you had to change your position so that you agreed with him, while he didn't have to change a thing.
The simple fact is he is a spoiled bully who throws a tantrum when he can't get his way. Bolton's recess appointment today is a good example. Not to mention his condescending nicknames for his acquaintances. I could go on.
As to *gleefully* blaming Bush if another attack happens - IMO, if another 9/11-type attack happens in Bush's term, I don't think you'll see another Presidential election in our lifetime.
It's a question that pre-supposes a fact that hasn't been shown to be true yet, such as, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Wiki
That sounds fine for test subjects in a situation where there is easy and immediate freedom of movement. Also the test subjects were allowed to remove glasses and contacts (they'd focus the microwaves). I don't know the physiology, but it seems to me that eyes would be the organ likely to be damaged first.
Now let's think about the real world. A mob is approching the Humvee where the ray-gun is mounted they fire a sweep pattern at them. The front line (the ones hit) falls back into the second line that's pshing forward creating a pileup of bodies. This is OK if they stop the beam at this point, it prevents the crowd from advancing.
But what happens if they keep sweeping the beam? Those people caught in front are going to get a lot more than just 2 seconds worth of heating, since they're simply *unable* to avoid it. Also, what if someone gets knocked unconscious, and cannot voluntarily avoid the beam? How much exposure time until their faces melt?
Now of course the question is, is this less injurious/more effective than other riot control methods, such as tear gas, machine guns, etc.? That I don't know, but I'm highly skeptical that this method is any better.
I was about 15 when BG came out. The pilot was one of the best 2 hours of TV ever.
Then the regular show started. The quickest "jump the shark" in TV history. I think I watched about three episodes.
As for ST:TOS, it was and still is different from every other show on TV. It had an optimistic vision of hunanity's future. War was never the answer, you might have to fight to get to the answer, but you never saw Kirk walking through the remnants of the civilization he just destroyed.
Yes, ST:TOS has elements that date it (Kirk's "babe" of the week, for example), but it's still the most forward-looking and humanity-affirming show that TV has ever produced.
Depends on where she sued. In the US the answer is no. Now in the UK the answer is yes.
In Russia, I can't imagine a judge would make a Russian citizen pay the court costs of a US Government organization, especially one the Russians have been so competitive with over the years.
Of course NASA wouldn't even bother to fight is, and if a court would summarily rule against them there's no way they would pay it, so it's really moot anyway.
Free publicity. That's all it is.
Free publicity.
Thanks for making my point for me, Mr. AC.
Stevens and perhaps Ginsberg seem liberal because the court has moved so far to the right in the last twenty years, the replacement of Marshall with Thomas being the largest shift.
And your "modern definition" of liberal indicates to me exactly what the right-wing strategy has been: Demonize those on the far left (the liberals), and then gradually change the definition of liberal to move it farther to the right, and demonize the new definition as vociferously as you did the old.
I'm not buying it.
Senate Minority leader Harry Reid has already sent President Bush a list of four Republican Senators who would be acceptable as SCOTUS Justices.
Reid's list: South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo.
Also, it Bush would use the Senate Democrats for ADVICE (the constitution says, "Advice and consent", and pick a nominee according to the advice, that the Democrats also would not seriously oppose. (A few will, but not enough to block).
When Clinton was president and had a Dem majority in the Senate, Clinton still consulted with Orrin Hatch about who the nominee should be. Clinton was considering Bruce Babbitt, but Hatch said that there would be a fight. Hatch suggested Ginsberg, or Breyer, and Clinton ended up appointing both of them.
Democrats are simply expecting that Bush show the same respect to them that Clinton showed to the Repubs when the R's were in the minority.
But, considering the typical m.o. of the Bush Administration, if they ask the Dems for Advice, I'll next be seeing pigs flying over my house.
Then with the fantastic way that Bush has handled the war on terror, he won my vote in 2004.
I'm sure glad so see that Osama Bin Laden and the rest of Al-Qaeda are taken care of so they won't threaten us any more. It's so much easier flying now that the terror levels been at Green for the past year. And we haven't had a terrorist kill a U.S. Serviceman for 9 months. Bush had just done a fantastic job!
</end sarcasm>
Excuse me, but what planet do you live on? You say you're socially liberal (Bush isn't) fiscally conservative (Bush isn't, since when is running up huge debts fiscally conservative?), and you laud Bush for the "War On Terra"(TM) when most of the responsible parties for 9/11 are still at-large.
And what is it you don't like about Dean, and why is Kerry an idiot? In your opionion, what radical changes do the Democrats need to make?
You say you don't want religious fundamentalists, but then you spout vague attacks on Democrats like you've been listening to Fox News all day.
Think about what you agree with and what true competence is, rather than obsess with the personalities. You don't have to like someone to respect them and work with them.
Only if one of the liberal members decided to step down would you see a massive swing in policy.
I agree with you, except for one thing: There aren't any big-L Liberals on the court.
The closest thing to a liberal is Justice Stevens, and he only seems so because the rest of the court is so right-wing. Blackmun, Brennan, and Marhshall were all more liberal than Stevens and were replaced by more conservative justices.
What we have is 1 moderate liberal (Stevens) 3 centrist judges (Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer) and 1 moderate conservative (Kennedy) and 3 extreme conservatives (Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas). O'Connor was typically another moderate conservative. She or Kennedy would usually be the decider in close cases.
Of course I expect George W. "Uniter, not a Divider" to nominate someone like Scalia or Thomas. After all, he was quoted as saying they were his favorite Justices.
Also one thing people forget to SOME extent, is that history tends to show that supreme court justices, no matter who pics them, generally have done their job as described, and thats to interpret the constitution and laws as set forth by Congress and the President.
In past Administrations, I would agree. But this Administration has made a partisan mockery of nearly every function of government. Scientific reports have been edited by industry insiders. Intelligence has been "fixed" to support policy. FEAR has been used to drive policies that have nothing to do with security.
I'm betting he nominates John Ashcroft.
I like
Castle Not-Appearing-On-This-Server
No. It means that a VP who succeeds a President to office can run for two terms *if* he/she served less than half of the predecessors term.
So, since LBJ became prez in Nov. 1963, he was eligible to run in 1968, but chose not to.
Gerald Ford, had he been elected in 1976, would not have been eligible to run in 1980, since he became prez in August, 1974.
I always thought it was ironic that Republicans pushed through the 22nd amaendment is response to FDR, but then were upset Reagan couldn't run for a third term.
There is no spoon.
According the standard SI naming convention, gigabyte *is* 1,000,000,000 bytes.
If you're looking for the correct, though rarely used prefix that floats in the the computer world, it's "gibi".
kilo - 10^3
kibi - 2^10 = 1024
mega - 10^6
mebi - 2^20 = 1024^2 = 1,048,576
giga - 10^9
gibi - 2^30 = 1024^3 = 1,073,741,824
and so on.
Link here.
The Burger King at Schiphol airport (Amsterdam) gladly takes euros.
You didn't specify which airport.
I think *you* are the one who needs a reality check.
The industry is hot *if* you live (or are willing to move) to the right area (and pay exhorbitant real estate prices) *and* you have the right skill set *and* you have the appropriate level of experience (not too much, not too little).
Where are the entry level jobs? Where are the jobs for 50-year-olds who still want to program? Why do kids see the job environment for IT people (and engioneers in general) and decide, "I think I'll study Business"?
While there are certainly some people that fit your description, most of the internet-boom-ITers who weren't any good are now out of the industry. The problems with IT unemployment go far deeper than your "blame the victim" mentality allows you to see.
Here's a clue: Bad things do happen to good people, and your broad brush is grossly unfair.
Do you think maybe all the kids entering college see all the 40-year-old out-of-work IT professionals and think, "Who needs *that* kind of career?", and go into "Business Administration"?