NY Times article and comment

============quote ny times blogline==============

Globalization is often criticized because of the economic disruptions it creates, the diseases it can spread and the severe gaps in wealth it reveals. But in a new book, David Bornstein offers a different perspective on globalization that is thoroughly uplifting and encouraging.

In “How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas” (Oxford University Press, $28), Mr. Bornstein shows how new communications tools are allowing activists, whom he calls social entrepreneurs, to bring about change at the grass-roots level.

==============end quote=======================

I lack the fundamental activism to create such news items. However, I wish I had the time to spend to do such interesting social things. Being of a conservative ilk, I am suspicious of articles like this; however, I will try to go to the library to see what it is about before I pass judgement. Having passed considerable time without corporate level work, for which I was trained, I am even more suspicious of “social entrepreneurs” type philosophy – especially since, all those technical jobs are going bye bye.

I began working life as an electronic engineer and kept pace for two decades while maintaining a reasonable level of creativity. The sector I was in said you were dead after the age of 40 so I went to other endevours of a technical nature. Being of a conservative ilk and not having a lot of land to retire upon – I actually had this at one time long ago – I guess I am screwed!

We are an ever expanding, cutting edge technical & service based country – it must be so since we export tonnes of LABOR jobs. If you are technically dead after 40 what is going to keep us working in a technical based society? A damn good engineer & technical based person should expect to be a Wal-Mart employee or something of that ilk.

Ok, I did not stay focused on this one but I feel a lot better! Or should I say there are points of discontinuity but the idea I meant, but did not portray correctly, should prevail. Anyway you should know what I mean. Did I use ilk enough in this message?