Issue 173 Ted Cruz September 30, 2013

Have you heard of the name Texas Senator Ted Cruz? Well he is the man that is leading the fight to defund the affordable care act, better known as Obama care. He recently spoke on Tuesday into Wednesday for a full 21 hours in a filibuster on the Senate floor. He beat out Senator Rand Paul's filibuster by a whole 10 hours. By why did he do it? What was the point of blocking all progress in the Senate?

The Reason: Senator Cruz wanted to bring attention back to an issue that some people seem to have either forgotten or have given up on. That issue of course is Obama care. In the recent budget legislation there is a provision that will defund Obama care completely and thus end its current and future harm to the United States and our health care system. It has already been shown that about sixty plus percent of Americans want it gone. So Cruz felt that the filibuster will force attention back on to the issue so that it would make it harder for the Democrats and Republicans to vote against it. Basically he wanted them to know that the American people will be watching.

Current effects of Obama Care: At this point many people have already seen a rise in health insurance coasts with some experiencing a 20 to 60 percent increase in premiums. Some families are expected to see a whole $7,000 increase to their yearly health care costs. There have been insurance blackouts which is where insurance companies refuse to cover anyone in a given area. This has already occurred in Louisiana and a few other states. Co-pays for doctor visits and some medications have increased. At current the law stipulates that if a doctor gives too many tests or too little number of tests the doctor will be penalized financially even if the cause of the ailment has already been found on the first test. In addition, the law taxes medical devices including their use. As such the price of health care is rising even higher. What else is in Obama care has yet to be seen as the legislation is so long and the regulations (some of which are still being written) are so big that no one knows how badly our health care system will be affected. All we know is that the most expensive health care in the world is only going to go up in cost. This is what Ted Cruz wishes to stop.

Party Reaction: The Democrats do not have to do anything to stop Senator Cruz. They don't have to because the Republican Party leadership is annoyed with the way Senator Cruz is handling the Obama care situation. Cruz has as of now become a house hold name, and the party leadership doesn’t like that because it gives him credibility if he was to run for a higher office. Let us not forget that Cruz has only been a Senator for eight months and there is a seniority system in congress. Basically, the party leaders are supposed to tell you to jump and you say "how high?" Cruz and other Senators like Rand Paul prefer to ignore such childishness. But this has not stopped the Republican leadership from bashing Cruz every chance they get.

Conclusion: It is simple, if you want Obama care gone melt the phones in Washington D.C. Protest your congressmen and Senators declaring that if you do not vote in favor of defunding Obama care then we are voting you out. This also means you will stand behind Ted Cruz who at current still holds onto the reason he went into office, to do the right thing. The party leadership on both sides is all about control and maintaining power. But if we vote the losers out and replace them with more Rand Paul's and Ted Cruz's we may even stand a chance of forcing term limits on Congress. So let us get behind reform that gets the government monkey off our backs. Let's support Ted Cruz and his efforts to stop Obama care.

Issue 172 Libertarians part 2 September 27, 2013

Even libertarians have their disagreements. There are in fact two major disagreements in the libertarian club. They are the entitlements and abortion. These issues have and will continue to divide libertarians into the Democrat and Republican Party's. So let us go over these big disagreements.

The Entitlements: Many libertarians want a smaller government. For members of the libertarian crowd that means eliminating Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (and in many cases all other welfare as well). The reason libertarians feel that the entitlements can be removed is because charities would take up the mantel left behind to help these people. And this is true, charities used to do this job back before the existence of welfare or any of the entitlements. Charities later shrank due to their job being taken over by welfare. Whenever welfare and entitlements fail, then charities are there to pick up the pieces. At one point, charities had a system that kind of acted like an insurance policy. You would donate every month to the charity (usually a church or temple) and then if you ever fell into poverty that money would be used to help you. These charities also were able to distinguish between those who needed the most help and those who needed none (or needed to be cut off). Government cannot make such distinctions as it can only follow a one size fits all approach. If it were not for the fact that approximately 75% of welfare helps the rich, then libertarians would probably have a different opinion.

As to those who fear losing the entitlements. They are those libertarians who feel that it is needed. They are willing to break with the libertarian ideology to protect what they see as an essential safety net. For them, charities are welcome, but are not seen as having the ability to save everyone, let alone help everyone. It comes down to morality, do I cut off an imperfect system that is working, or do I go back to a system that I never grew up with or know how to operate. As such it is also part fear. Thankfully, this debate between libertarians is largely respectful and if proof can be provided as to a viable alternative that would ease their fears, and then they would embrace it.

Abortion: This is a major issue for everyone. Debates on this issue date back to before the founding of the United States. For libertarians who believe that people have the right to do what they want to do with their own body they generally are in favor of abortion. If a woman carrying a child wants to abort during the legal length of time (the first trimester) then they embrace it. However, libertarians like Ron Paul want abortion aborted. They want a society free of abortion if possible. The reason is because the pro-lifers in the libertarian circles view that killing a child at any stage of development as infringing upon the right to life of another human being. As such they share the Church's and Conservative scientist’s point of view that life begins the moment the egg is fertilized. This debate will of course always be heated, because it is the rights of one human being having to be put up against another’s (the as yet to be born). As such, when it comes to coming to common ground, they will agree on abortions in the cases of rape, incest and the mother’s life being in danger. But this is only the case when cooler heads prevail. As such, this debate is usually kept on the back burner until the issue comes to the forefront of politics once again. I personally do not believe in abortion. I will accept it in the case of a mother’s life being in danger so long as all other options have been exhausted. I will also regrettably accept it in the case of rape, but I would prefer the rapist getting aborted first (I know four victims of rape so please understand where I am coming from). Incest I'm iffy about even though the whole child born of two relatives is more than likely to end up with some sort of genetic defect. It is still a life in my eyes. Well as I said, the libertarians are as divided on this issue as anyone else. Everyone has an opinion; I just hope everyone is willing to listen to each others.

Conclusion: These are the two prime disagreements in the libertarian club. Those who share the ideology also face a few other disagreements like the right to die, or if the department for environmental protection should even exist. However, those others usually pale in comparison to debates on entitlements and abortion. All I can do now is thank you for reading and I hope you get something out of today’s issue. So thank you for keeping an open mind and reading my blog. Thank you for hearing me out.

Issue 171 Libertarians Part 1 September 26, 2013

What is a libertarian? Many people really do not know what it means to be a libertarian at all. In fact some even confuse them for Liberals who are associated with the Democratic Party in the United States. In truth the name Liberal was stolen from today's libertarians by the progressives during the early 1900s so as to gain more support and thus become the Liberals of today. But who are these libertarians?

We want smaller government: Libertarians’ believe that government is inherently corrupt and has a penchant for becoming totalitarian. So any government expansion is looked at with close scrutiny. As libertarians see government as an ever encroaching blob that destroys people’s rights, we libertarians feel that government should stay within the confines of written law. Thus, when it comes to the federal government’s powers in the United States, it is believed that the government cannot do anything that is not expressly granted to it by the Constitution. Likewise the States and local governments should also be limited to their specific roles in society as a whole. So things like education stay at the community level, while things like war and peace stay at the federal level. From there it comes down to respecting the boundaries between the different levels of government in order to maintain balance and prevent government over reach.

Mind your own Business: One of the key features of libertarianism is the motto "mind your own business." It was in actuality the first motto of the United States. And libertarians in general follow its principles. No one should know what you’re doing and when except for the people you want to know. That means no government looking at your bank account. It means no State officials dictating the healthcare you want. If you want someone to know something then you will tell them or let people find out.

As long as it does not harm others: Another key feature of libertarians is that if your actions would intentionally (and in some cases unintentionally) harm others, then you will not be allowed to do that. So things like drugs and alcohol are allowed. Gun ownership is ok. All the way up to religious rites that involve sacrifices. The only time this stops is when an act that would harm another occurs like murder, rape, theft, assault, and the like. Morality does play a role, but your own morality is yours and belongs to you. You are allowed to raise your children to share that same morality, but don't expect others to entirely agree with you. Libertarians value a society of freedom and choice above all else. Just don't infringe upon the rights of another and then you will fit right in.

Free Markets: Libertarians want an open and free market with as few rules as possible. They want unrestricted trade with other nations. In addition, they want a society where anyone can start a business at any time with equal chances of success and failure. In other words, if the owner screws up then he loses his business. If the owner is successful, then the business prospers. No too big to fail garbage. It is all about people being able to succeed when and where they want to.

Conclusion: To achieve these ends libertarians stand for the basic rights that allow people to defend their liberties. Those rights are the freedom of speech and the press, the freedom of association, the freedom of religion, the freedom of expression, and the freedom to live a life of your own choosing. Some of the examples may look extreme and may portray libertarians as wanting a libertine society. However, libertarians want a society with the freedom of choice and free from tyrants (or potential tyrants as the case may be). You can see examples of libertarianism in places like Sweden and Switzerland with respect to economics and drug laws. Basically it’s about freedom to try, buy, succeed or fail. This is a libertarian in a nut shell and I am one of them.

Issue 170 Pay College Sports Stars September 25, 2013

Some people think a college sports star must make a lot of money. Well that would be the case if they are picked up to play professionally. In truth, to my knowledge, no person playing on any college team is paid. I think this should change.

Status Quo: At current, a college sports star and the rest of the members of a college team are not paid to play. They at most get a few perks and a free ride via a sports scholarship to attend college. Some think it is OK not to pay these men and women because they are getting a break on having to pay for school. But what some people do not realize is that some of these college athletes cannot even afford to pay for a ticket to let their own mothers to come watch them perform.

What should be: The men and women in a college sport are professionals. Every time they perform they are making the college money. Some of these colleges like Notre Dame make millions every game. College football alone is a multimillion dollar industry. Basically, if you compare the scholarships some of these athletes have to how much money the college makes off them; it becomes clear how the students are being robbed of their efforts. It is true that these college sportsmen and women get that proverbial free ride, but after they graduate they may end up poor. That is right, despite the degree that they receive, they may still have to desperately look for work. As I stated in the "status quo" section, some of these college sports stars cannot even afford to pay for their mothers to see them play. As such, why bother with a scholarship when the college should be giving the athletes a cut of the profits coming from their hard work. Only a select few sports stars make it to the big leagues and thus the big money. But if these college professionals get paid for their efforts they at least get a much better head start than they would have with a free education.

Conclusion: Some may be thinking that the almost free college experience is worth it. That getting money for their performance on the sports field pales in comparison to the over all college experience. I may even hear from some of you that they don't deserve to be paid for doing a "college sport." Well I'll tell you this. You have no right to tell anyone how to spend their money. If they choose to put their money else were then let them. Charge them for going to college like a normal student, but pay them a professional salary for their performances on the field like they deserve. The college will get the money back with respect to tuition, and the students who play the sports will get a better head start in life. It comes down to paying the college athlete their fare share like they do in the professional leagues likes the NFL, NHL, MLB, and NBA. Those professionals in the big leagues get paid to perform. It is only right that college athletes get paid to perform in the same way.

Issue 169 Tools a Jury needs Sptember 24, 2013

There are certain tools and practices a jury has in some States within the U.S. that others do not. I feel that three such procedures would benefit the process of seeking the truth in the court room.

Let the Juror's ask questions: This is a practice done in Arizona. Jurors at specified times in the trial may ask questions to clarify information. I remember when I was a juror on a case that I desperately wanted to ask a question of one of the witnesses. However I was blocked by New York law. I felt it was unfair as I felt that I could not properly make a judgment on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Likewise, many of my fellow jurors felt the same. Sure, it may slow down the court some by the jury being able to ask questions themselves, but in order to ensure the jury properly understands the facts they need certain questions answered. In the case I served on, we came to the conclusion reluctantly that the defendant was guilty. We only found out later that he was a big time drug lord which was the sole reason that made us all feel better. So why not give the jury a chance to go into the deliberation room and come up with a few questions that they can ask the witnesses?

A Juror should be allowed to take notes: Another issue I found in New York's jury system was that we jurors could not take notes on the case. So we would forget facts and events that occurred in the case which could have potentially lead to an innocent man going to jail. Sure we had access to all the evidence, but we were left to try and figure it out at the end on what event took place and when. Thankfully my fellow jurors had really good memories or we would have gotten lost with all the different evidence that was just dumped on us. By not taking notes we could not spot inconsistencies in different testimonies or get a handle on the different events and how the evidence flowed together. Jurors can be easily instructed on how they should take notes so as to avoid confusing themselves and the different testimonies if that is needed. So let them take notes.

A smaller Jury: I like how Florida has a smaller number of jurors. In Florida there are six jurors and two alternates. In New York there were 12 of us and two alternates. Is it really that necessary to have that many people serving on a single jury? Would it change the chances of a person being declared guilty or innocent? I think not. After serving my self I can say that the result would generally have been the same whether we were six jurors or 44. The reason I say this is because of the evidence. If evidence is collected properly and presented to the jury in a clear and concise manor, then there should be nothing to cause any justice seeking individual cause for alarm. Also, a smaller juror means a faster jury selection speeding up the trial a bit. It would also save the courts some money as well.

Conclusion: These are what I feel would aid in making it easier for a juror to do their duty. I still believe that a professional jury is best, but with these tools and practices it should be easier for a juror to do their job.

Issue 168 Professional Jury's September 23, 2013

Many people in America dread getting that notice in the mail saying it is time for you to serve. Many go reluctantly, but still see it as a civic duty. Even I went to serve. Of course I fell asleep in the court room for a good 30 seconds before the Judge yelled at me, I was happy to go. But what if we had true professionals who are trained to be impartial? What would that be like?

Motivation: For one, having a professional jury would get rid of those individuals who serve reluctantly or fall asleep (like me). In other words we will have motivated people who wish to carry out justice. And we do need people who want to seek the truth. I believe that the people who choose to become a professional juror are those motivated to arrive at the best conclusion based on the facts presented in the case.

Advantages: Some clear advantages would come from the type of training these professionals would need to receive. They would have to know law up to a certain extent and as such be familiar with the terminology used in the court room. No more lawyers having to dumb down the language or jurors getting lost when a legal objection is presented. These professionals could keep up with the faster pace of a speedier trail and thus save the courts and the defendants money by making a traditionally long trial shorter. Basically, a professional juror would be a professional listener who could discern facts from conjecture.

Training: I believe a professional juror would need some sort of training. For the most part, I would have them trained in the basic terminology of the legal profession. This would be in an effort to reduce miscommunication in a court room between the lawyers and the jury. A professional juror would need training to discern facts from conjecture in a lawyer’s legal argument. Also, a basic knowledge of law would also aid in ensuring the professional jurors know and understand why an objection is being carried out, why something may be stricken from the record and so on. Finally they would have to be trained with the ability to turn off their opinions and become as impartial as possible. This last part is obvious as an impartial jury is the only true one that can give the best judgments (at least that is what we have come to believe). Basically all this training I feel is what amounts to a two year associates degree in college.

The lawyer’s wont like it: Lawyers in selecting jurors look to see who is most susceptible to their arguments. The opposition approves or disapproves the juror. Basically it is a game in trying to figure out which juror gives them the best chance of winning and ultimately a juror is chosen. This professional system would eliminate such a practice as much as possible. A lawyer does not want a truly impartial person and as such would be totally against this.

Conclusion: Professionals would require professional pay. Pay high enough to keep them on the job and also attract new people to take up the mantel of a professional juror. So something like $80,000 a year may be appropriate. Of course these individuals would need health care and a retirement package as well. The costs would be offset by not having to seek out as many people from around the country to serve on a jury and these professionals can serve on multiple cases at the same time (this is a possibility depending on how well they are trained). Overall, this is just an idea that may never take off. People have this idea that you need a jury made up of your peers. A professional juror would of course be one of your "peers," but people as a whole may not see it that way. It is a concept and that as they say is that.

Issue 167 Syria and WMDs September 20, 2013

As you may have heard, Syria has agreed to a deal to disarm its chemical weapons. Russia mad its move (as I suspect that they were the ones who gave the chemical weapons to the Syrians) so as to cover its butt, and look good for the international community. But I have doubts as to the overall intentions of both my country and that of Russia. I state now that this is all my opinion and opinion exclusively.

Syria's intentions Assad: The reason that Syrian President Assad agreed to the deal was to prevent other countries from entering Syria and siding with the rebels. Even though Al Quada and other Jihadist infiltrated the rebels with western governments like the U.S. supporting them (who is giving them weapons) will mean Assad's forces will be out numbered and out gunned. Let us face it; Russia is not going to fight a proxy war against the U.S. and other countries to save Assad. The Russian government is smart and they know how the international power struggle works. America is weakening and Russia is looking to take the top spot. As such Assad surrendered to the international pressure to stall for time. He needs to suppress the rebels, or at least buy time to escape along with his loyalists to another country. In addition, this gives Assad a chance to stay in power as he does have support from groups like Hezbollah and even Iran who are sending in Iranian soldiers to fight for Assad. Russia and Iran need Syria for an upcoming oil pipeline which can either go from Russia, through Iran and finally into Syria up into Europe, or it will go from Qatar into Saudi Arabia into Syria and then into Europe. It is no wonder why Qatar and Saudi Arabia have decided to back the rebels and even go as far as to say they will help pay for most of the conflict (they stand to get their money back and more).

Syria's intentions Rebels: The rebels are a hodgepodge of various groups. Some are Kurds seeking autonomy. Others are those who seek democracy. But unfortunately for both groups, terrorists have infiltrated the rebels. Many foreign terrorists see this as apart of the greater Jihad and are also using this conflict as a recruiting tool. What people may not know is that the rebels are almost entirely Sunni Muslim while Assad and his Soldiers are Shiite Muslim. This conflict goes back to the days when Muslims argued over who should succeed in leadership in the Muslim faith. So this conflict is as old if not older than the hatred that radical Muslims have for Israel and the Jews. As such, the Jihadist terrorist rebels seek control and power over the region to suppress their Shiite brethren. There are even unconfirmed reports that Sunni rebel groups have wiped out Shiite rebel groups. So aside from taking control and making a Sunni government, the rebels and the intentions of each rebel faction are far from clear.

The rest of us: The United States feels it is doing its duty as the world police by saying they will interfere in the conflict. Russia as you know needs allies in the region and wants the oil pipeline to be successful. Sunni Muslim countries want the oil pipeline for themselves. The European Union has the same stance as the U.S., but does not have the resources to mount a long term conflict. International groups that advocate for human rights and peace sided with the rebels under the naive notion that democracy will solve the problem of conflicts in the region. Sadly the democracy they speak of died with the Athenian City State. What they need is a republic, but so far, the only truly successful republic is still the United States (though like all democratic forms of government they face collapse). So what is to be done?

Conclusion: What is best is also the choice no one wants to hear. That is for the conflict to continue. Buy keeping the battles going, the Russian and U.S. governments can draw out the conflict to bring in more Jihadist terrorists. By doing so, there will be less to cause trouble in their own countries and allied countries. For those terrorists who cannot afford to go, the intelligence agencies can sponsor them (secretly of course) to go there to fight for "their" cause. With the fighting centralized in one location the Jihadists will have less of a chance to recruit as many new members and their numbers will dwindle do to this slow down and them being suicidal fighters to begin with. Both Russia and the U.S. can agree on this strategy as both face the same problem with Jihadists (the U.S. being declared the "great Satan" by Jihadists and Jihadists in Chechnya fighting the Russians for control). A win win for the two "great" super powers. As to the innocent victims in between, well that is where intelligence agencies come in again to smuggle people out of the conflict. In addition, hit teams will be used to keep either side from becoming too powerful. The U.S. will even be able to drain Iran of its financial resources due to their support for Syria. Basically every one wins except the Syrian people themselves. But I would not be surprised to see the conflict explode further into Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey. At that point, it stops being a rebellion and it becomes World War III. I pray that this does not happen, but it may be the most likely scenario.

Issue 166 Stop "Q" Frisk September 19, 2013

Everyone has heard of the Stop and Frisk program in New York City. But for those who don't know, it is where the police randomly search people for weapons. This program has come under fire and has people looking for an alternative.

History: The Stop and Frisk program came out of the attacks of September 11, 2001. The idea was to prevent other terrorist threats from happening on soft targets like the subways and in tourist traps like time square. Later the program was copied by other law enforcement agencies due to its effectiveness as it not only deterred terrorism, but other crime as well. In fact the program in its first years confiscated numerous illegally obtained weapons and drugs. As a result, crime has gone down.

Controversy: What the argument is about is race. Even though the searches are in general random, the stop and frisk program in black communities has been deemed raciest. However it is not raciest in the first place, it was simply the fact that disproportionately black men were being caught will illegal drugs and guns. As such the black community felt as if they were being targeted.

On top of this, the program itself is deemed unconstitutional. As it violates the requirement that police need to have a warrant to conduct a search. Therefore, if at any time the program is brought before the courts questioning its constitutionality, it would fail.

What’s to be done: Well for some, they want the program to be eliminated. They of course say this due to the "racism" and how it is unconstitutional. But there is a good solution. That is for the officer to use police techniques to decide if the person is first worth calling over. That means looking at the persons clothing and items from afar and asking to themselves, is that what a terrorist or a criminal would wear or is that how a regular person would behave. From there the officer would question the person to see if they have reason to want to search that person’s bag. In short, the officer would chit chat with the individual long enough to know if that person could be a potential threat to society. If the person is deemed OK through the casual conversation, then the person may move along fine. However, if the person shows signs of stress or other symptoms of wanting to escape the officers questions (outside of wanting to get to work) the officer will ask to search their bags. Key word is "ask." This eliminates the unconstitutional element completely from the equation for if the person submits to the search then it is voluntary and thus no warrant is required. The individual is still free to refuse, but most will not because they know that they will then become suspect in the eyes of the police. Also, if carried out this way it would still deter crime. Basically this is how Stop, Question and Frisk will work.

Conclusion: Most of the time the Stop and Frisk program works as described in “the what’s to be done” section of today's issue.  Police generally don’t want to interfere with people’s daily lives.  However, most people don't actually realize that. People want it gone partly because it is an inconvenience and because of the number of African American Men being caught with illegal paraphernalia. Truth is the program just needs a re-branding to keep up with the general populace who don't pay attention because let's face it; they just want to go about their daily lives unhindered. I like the re-branding of the program and the methodology behind it as people will feel less like criminals being asked about their daily routine. I don't know what to do with the whole racial element as that is something the black community has to address when it comes to their kids, and male adults.

Issue 165 Guidlines for leadership September 18, 2013

Following on the heels of Issues 163 and 164, leadership becomes critical. As such what is needed to be a good leader?

1. Create an ethos to accomplish mission and/or goals.

People need to not only know what they are working toward but the methodology behind it. They need a uniting ethos to keep them motivated and enable them to work together for their common goal.

2. Be mindful of other commitments.

As a leader you must be mindful of all the jobs and tasks assigned to your company, division or section. But this also includes the commitments that your individual employees have. This may include their children, their elderly parents or even a second job. Helping them work in the company while ensuring they can maintain their commitments aids in keeping up moral. But it also helps to garner respect.

3. People are more important.

When it comes down to it, your business and your workers come first. If forced between harming your business/ workers or losing a contract then you should probably loose the contract.

4. Intuition is a leadership tool.

Use your intuition to decide what is right for the given situation. It may be wrong latter, but not acting on a situation can be much worse.

5. Ensure individuals and their positions are adaptable.

People in a corporation need to know they are valued. By giving them flexibility either at the personal or the position level it will allow the person to solve problems and meet goals that much more easily.

When all is said and done, a good leader requires the respect from his/her workers. These guidelines help, but they cannot do it alone. They cannot force people to respect you as a leader. Respect will always be earned. Good luck to all you leaders and potential leaders out there.

Issue 164 Personal Managment 2 Spetember 17, 2013

Part 2 is all about promoting individuals (which can also be used for the hiring process as well). Remember, putting the right individuals in the right positions is crucial to maintaining good work flow and running a successful business overall.

1. Performance, Competence and leadership potential are the primary considerations for deciding if a person gets promoted.

Each of these qualities is judged separately to find the best overall measure in comparison to other eligible persons who want the same position. This insures that only the best qualified person gets into the position that they are needed in most.

2. The qualities for each of the aforementioned in number one are determined by the individual person’s attributes and traits.

Basically, know each of the skill levels of your employees and how well they work with others. Know about their personality and what makes them a good worker.

3. To help decipher who is the best candidate, hold a yearly test to determine these traits and attributes. Then if they qualify hold an interview before a panel.

The tests help you figure out overall levels of ability and help you measure your workers against each other. Once these measurements have figured out the necessary measurements in number one, the panel looks into the overall personality and ability. It will determine if the person is worthy of the position over another talented individual.

4. All appointees are only to be employed when all talents are confirmed.

Basically, ensure they are as good as they look.

5. If this process is being used to hire someone new then you separate them into general applicants and applicants who have committed crimes or are involved with scandals.

General applicants move on, but those with black marks on their record must be evaluated to insure that they are still worth hiring despite their history and that it will not negatively impact the company if they are hired.

Of course the same principle of placing people into positions that they are most useful in is still maintained to insure the jobs assigned are done quickly and efficiently.

Issue 163 Personal Managment 1 Spetember 16,2013

Managing a business is a very tough task. But if you already own a business you should have already realized that. There are tips though that can help a person manage a business however which I have collected from various sources. So here are some of those tips.

1. Principle: Hire those more talented than yourself.

The reason for this is so that they can make up the differences in your own weaknesses. People with talent will get the job done with little effort and as such they can handle a larger work load. All this equals more profit.

2. Remove those who are unqualified for a position and place them into one that they are useful in.

Basically, rather than firing a talented individual, first look to where their talents and skill can be best put to good use. As such, you retain a skilled worker and maintain an efficient work flow.

3. Manage people as if they were volunteers.

You pay people for their work because you value their efforts. But this is not always enough. By managing them as if they were volunteers it allows them to feel as if they are more valued then just their work.

4. Treat as an associate.

While you can manage them like volunteers, you must treat them as if they are your partners in the business. So even the lowest person on the corporate ladder can feel valued.

5. Employees must be challenged (knowing and believing in mission).

By keeping employees busy with tasks that suit them, but also challenging them will prevent them from getting board. A board employee loses their moral and thus brings everyone in the company down as well.

6. Capitalize on people’s strengths and Knowledge.

You do not have to wait to place a person with talent in a position that would best help the company prosper. If a person has prior knowledge and understanding they can be useful even as an advisory role and that knowledge should be taken advantage of.

Hope this all helps. See you all for part 2 on promotions tomorrow.

Issue 162 Orwell's language rules Spetember 12, 2013

Well George Orwell had his own rules for language. As I cannot say it any better than him, I will simply re-write them for you here for your own personal use.

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

(Basically avoid such this as they over complicate your point or thought).

2. Never use long word where a short one will do.

(Aka, don't use a word like "excommunication" where a word like "banished" would and could be used instead).

3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

(You can see I am trying to do that right?! But yes, keep you sentences simple and free of complexity where ever you can so as to not over complicate your message).

4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

(I learned this lesson over time, and it was hard for me as I always used to write in the passive. Basically by keeping the message or your writing in the active, you provide action to your words. Make your words represent what is happening now, not what has happened).

5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

(By using words from any of what Orwell describes above, you complicate your message and thoughts. People will not understand the word Scuttlebutt, but they will understand the word gossip).

6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

(In other words, if there is no other way to say it, then break these rules. If you try to change a sentence to make it simpler where such simplicity cannot exist due to the overall message then you are just going to loose that message by changing it. You can only keep it as simple as the rules of language will allow).

I prefer Orwell's rules to Luntz's mainly because I like George Orwell. But use these and Luntz's rules as you wish. I wish you all luck in your own written and vocal endeavors.

I'm off to another wedding so I will be unable to post tomorrow.  So enjoy the weekend and see you all Monday.

Issue 161 Words that work 2 September 11, 2013

Part to of Frank Luntz's advice is the rules he prescribes for writing and public speaking. These tips (which I attempt to follow) can help you craft your own message to your audience.

The Rules:

1. Simplicity: In other words say what you need to say in the easiest most understood form possible.

2.Brevity: Keep it short. People don't want to listen to some long drawn out argument or rhetoric.

3. Credibility: Keep yourself credible by actually knowing what you are talking about. Or get someone with credibility to deliver your message for you. If there is no credibility coming from the speaker or writer then people will not listen.

4. Consistence: Be consistent in your argument. You are not allowed to flip flop with your message let alone in the same sentence. If you do, you may loose credibility and your message and point will be lost.

5. Novelty: Be unique in your delivery. In other words be yourself and have your own way of speaking that is attractive to you selected audience.

6.Sound: How you speak matters. If you sound passive, angry or sincere dictates how the audience will react. So cater your sound and even the tone of your words to suit your message.

7. Aspiration: Show that there are solutions. Show that there is hope to resolve a situation. People are turned off by being depressed.

8. Visualization: If you do not have visual symbols or need some form of reinforcement to your point create or tell a story that gives your words a physical form. Like when you talk about slavery, you do not just say it is bad. You tell people of the scares left behind by the whips.

9. Questioning: Involve your audience to keep their attention. Ask them if they will stand to fight an injustice if there is one. Ask them if they want a better life.

10. Context: Context matters. By keeping your arguments within the context of what you are talking about (slavery with slavery, health care with health care etc.) you prevent confusion and keep the message and information on track.

Well these are the 10 rules. I hope you all find them helpful. Remember to par them up with the information provided in Issue 160 to ensure your words work.

Issue 160 Words that work 1 September 10, 2013

Frank Luntz wrote a book known as Words That Work.  In it he explains the use of language and how it can be best used to deliver a message.  I.e. What is the difference between the Estate tax and the Death tax?  None, as they are the exact same tax.  It is just that the nickname of the tax "Death Tax" provides a stronger response from people.  Given this example, I will provide you my readers with his advice and rules on language. 

1st:  "The meanings are shaped and shaded by the regional biases, life experiences, education, assumptions, and prejudices of those who receive them."    In short, all your life experiences and how you perceive the world dictate how you respond to words.  As such you may have to cater slightly to your audience with respect to what you are presenting to them to better deliver your message.

2nd:  "getting the order right language lesson: A+B+C does not necessarily equal C+B+A - order of presentation determines reaction.  The right order equals the right content."  Basically, we need to put our message in the proper order to elicit the proper response.  This makes a difference as if something like health care reform is presented in such a way that people will loose coverage first and then you say your solution which may cause this.  You sabotaged your own message.  But if you say it in a way that makes it as if your solution will stop people from no longer being dropped from their health care then people will be more likely to listen.

3rd: Visual symbols are also essential.  Those visuals aid in getting the message across to your reader or your audience.  So if you can provide a chart or a picture to help support your evidence, then do so. It will make it that much easier to get your message across.

See you tomorrow for Frank's 10 rules.

Issue 159 Sharia Compliant loans September 9, 2013

We keep hearing about Sharia compliant banks? Mainly because the Middle East is an opportunity to expand businesses and that includes banking. But because many of those countries follow Sharia law, they must follow a new set of rules on how to collect money and do business. One of those ways is Sharia compliant loans.

Based in faith: A sharia compliant loan cannot have any interest attached. Interest on a loan is strictly forbidden. Also, as part of the pillars of Islam, a certain portion must go to charity. Imams have set down these conditions based on what has been written in the Koran itself, and the Sharia laws which it contains. It is essentially a type of loan based on faith itself.

The loan: Basically a person applies for a loan in the standard way anyone normally would in this system. But the catch is that you must pay a percentage of that loan back on top of that original amount. In other words you can get a $100 loan (simplified example) but you will have to pay the business a 10% fee for the loan itself amounting to $10 in this example. This surcharge is the replacement to the traditional interest in western countries systems. But it does not end there. To be Sharia compliant, the loan must also have a certain amount go to charity (charity is compulsory in Islam). Therefore, (using my aforementioned simplified example) an additional 10% ($10) may be charged specifically to go to charity. So you borrowed $100 but had to pay back $120. Like I said, this is a simplified example and the amounts borrowed, along with how much going toward the bank and charity will vary.

Can it work here?: Yes, of course it can. But this is only if an enforcement mechanism exists to ensure a person will pay back the loan. I do not know what enforcement mechanisms are used in other countries with this type of loan, but I imagine a type of repo-man taking property if the person fails to keep up with their payments. This system can be used by banks to their advantage as it is almost guaranteed that they will make a profit off the loan (though they may not do the charity part, and leave that to their public relations divisions). How a bank uses this and if they will beyond the Muslim community is an interesting topic of discussion.

Conclusion: I make no illusion that there may be much more to a Sharia compliant loan. I am just reiterating what I have been told. As I found it interesting, I thought I would share this alternative method of loans that can potentially be used to help certain people who normally would not be able to pay back a loan that uses simple interest. As to whether this is a good idea in general is a topic for another time however. Till next time.

Issue 158 New Terror Tactics September 6, 2013

When they killed Osama, they captured a lot of intelligence data. That data included some other ideas on how to attack America and other enemies of Al Quada. Here are some of those ideas.

Forest Fires: By starting a forest fire, a terrorist can cause a nation to spend lots of money trying to get it under control. In addition, if that fire reaches a population center it causes not just physical damage, but economic damage as well. This economic damage comes from businesses being forced to close, homes needing to be rebuilt, and hundreds of tons of plant life that may need to be replanted to prevent other disasters like mud slides. Basically, we are being hit in our wallets and anyone dying is a bonus to these terrorist groups.

Hacking: This tactic has the benefit of gathering money for the organization. By hacking into an account of an individual or business they can take their money or take proprietary knowledge and sell that information to gain revenue for future operations. In addition, they can give information to America's competitors just to harm businesses in the U.S. which also can decrease economic opportunity.

Hijacking: We all know about the pirates who kidnap people and take ships off of Somalia's cost line. But did you know that this is also a source of revenue for terrorists. By getting ransoms for peoples safe return a terrorist’s organization gets more money. Also, some of those vessels may not get returned and could be potentially turned into sea born bombs. One of Al Quada's ideas was to take over an oil tanker and ram it laden with explosives into New York harbor to cause massive loss of life and cost us millions in clean up and damages.

Indoctrination: Groups like Hezbollah have been taking young Spanish teens to Iran for indoctrination into the most radical and violent forms of Islam. Then they send them to Mexico to sneak over the boarder and even sneak operatives from various allied terror groups into the country. They are already finding terrorist propaganda and materials on the U.S. and Mexican boarder.

Maintaining the "us versus them": To recruit new members, leaders sympathetic to the jihadist cause stoke the fires of hatred. It is always us versus them with these people, and they want to keep it that way. Anything that goes wrong, they blame America, Jews or another target of opportunity no matter how far away or unrelated a person/group is to the event. Rising anger turns to violence and that can be used by terrorists.

Conclusion: These are just some of the new methods terror groups like Al Quada are using at the moment. All I can say is be careful and stay safe.

Issue 157 Couter-Hack September 5, 2013

Should businesses fight back against hackers? In my opinion they should. Let us face it, government cannot do it alone. They are incapable of protecting all of us even with all the resources a government has at its disposal (this includes the U.S. too). So let us evaluate the status quo, the positives and the negatives. (Derived from The Economist August 10-16th 2013 issue "computer hacking: A byte for a byte")

Current: Companies are under attack by hackers. "An annual study of 56 large American firms found that they suffered 102 successful cyber-attacks a week between them in 2012, a 42% rise on the year before." Digital defenses like fire walls and anti-spy ware and malware protections can only do so much. Hackers now come in two forms. They work for/are criminals that are most likely in a group, or they work for a government like the hackers in China. If and when these hackers choose to attack a system or an individual computer, the defenses can be overridden and defeated. Basically, there is no longer any true defense.

Pros: Firstly, this becomes a new business model that gives hackers an alternative to working for criminals, or the government. So it will create jobs. It will also enable firms to track any stolen data back to the source and retrieve said data. Therefore the proprietary information is retrieved from the hackers’ computer and prevents leeks of that info. This is the idea that is most popular as it prevents any damage to a computer network. Alternatively there is an idea of licensing hacker groups that can be hired out to hunt down and "deal with the hacker" on the firms’ behalf. Also, governments can provide more information on current and future cyber threats along with any and all materials that a business can use to defend themselves with (or fight back). All together, firms are empowered to protect themselves without the need for government support.

Cons: The negatives are surprisingly few from what I read. Having other hackers track down and eliminate enemy hackers via computer is scary only because hackers cover their tracks via routing data through multiple computers (often without that person’s knowledge). Counter hacker groups may cause collateral damage to innocent people’s computers. Governments also fear that their efforts may be undermined. The U.S. has urged Russia and China to rein in their unofficial hackers and the U.S. support of the international convention on cyber-crime. But from my perspective government can't ever do enough to solve the problem of illicit hackers taking peoples data. There will always be collateral damage to a computer network as well. So both these cons are mute for me.

Conclusion: Businesses despite all the money they take in are at the mercy of hackers. They need an equalizer. That equalizer is another hacker. Let's stop relying on a bloated ineffective government to protect our data, and instead fight back our selves.

Issue 156 Free speech and clowns September 4, 2013

If you haven't heard we all have this right. It is essential for the transmitting of ideas from one person to another. Even speech we do not agree with must be maintained as if one form of speech becomes intolerable, then all speech is under threat.

The Clown: At a rodeo at a fair in the United States, a rodeo clown donned an Obama mask. People at the event said it was funny as the clown made a fool of himself. But others did not. The NAACP saw it as racism and called on the secret service to investigate. Others acted to ban the clown from the fair for life. But this is free speech people responded in return. It did not matter though, as it was seen by the people who saw racism and hatred that it was a threat to the President. Mind you, other rodeo clowns have worn masks of past presidents such as both President's Bush and Bush Jr. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Of course Nixon was mocked as well. It was neither racism nor hatred that made the clown wear the mask of Obama, it was speech and entertainment.

Are we really that intolerant: Yup we are very intolerant to other people’s ideas. We want to believe in only our own ideas and shut out those that disagree with us. When confronted with ideas that run counter to ours we tend to get aggressive. If our opinions and facts are proven wrong, we go through a denial phase. Does it make sense that we would reject others ideas when we are wrong? Yes as we are human. There was people burning the American flag and burning effigies of President Bush Jr. but still the Secret Service did not act on those because they where not a threat, and neither is that clown. It is most probably in my opinion that the reason people reacted so harsh to the clown and his mask is because of the past treatment of Black Americans in the U.S. Apparently we need to grow up a little.

How can we get tolerant: It is simple to become a better person. If you do not agree with a person you have two options. You either can engage in peaceful logical debate or simply ignore them. It is your right to disagree, but not to shut a person up. There is a difference between respecting another individual’s right to speech and shutting them out of society. Sure you can say you will not have them in your store for their actions like the Mayor of San Francisco who shoved his tongue down women's throats, but if it is speech like mockery like a clown or Bill Mar then just look away and cup your ears. You don't have to listen at all. We have to remember that even if it is speech we do not agree with, we have to defend people’s right to say such things.

Conclusion: This rodeo clown thankfully has only been banned from that one particular fair. But others are still trying to ban him from being a clown completely. He has a right to free speech and so do you. The past history of the United States is not an excuse to put the fear of God into anyone. Be the better person and let go of your fear and anger or you will only hurt future generations. Remember your speech may be the one being cut off next.

Issue 155 Egypt Lost September 3, 2013

The country of Egypt is on fire. Due to CIA meddling under (possibly) the Bush Administration and under the Obama Administration, the country's leader was overthrown in a somewhat peaceful transition to a democratic government. However, that was not to last as the Muslim Brotherhood, the political and religious part was put into office. As it turned out however, the Muslim Brotherhood shed their moderate positions and became fully radical as they had finally obtained power. What people did not know, or just did not want to see was that the Brotherhood is political/religious parent of Al Quada. They want Sharia law and other aspects of radical Muslim theology implemented into government. This resulted in the military forcing them out of power and the cause of the current violence in the streets. So how can the United States correct its mistake? How can our government answer for causing this death and destruction?

We failed: Our American government thought we could export democracy, but instead we exported chaos, and hatred for my country grew. We have to learn that we cannot force our ideas on people. People may want to help with all there might to save everyone, but the truth is even a group can be powerless even if that group is one of the strongest nations on Earth. Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Libya, Turkey, and many of the other Arab spring countries are dismal failures of our decisions to meddle in others affairs. It can also be said that we are obsessed with these primarily Muslim countries due to their oil. But, is it worth the blood shed of the innocent men and women in those countries? Is it worth the sacrifice of our soldiers and their families? For me, it is time to divorce ourselves from that region save for maybe our only ally Israel who is standing at the brink of annihilation by its neighbors.

Can we do anything?: There are two things we can do. The first is to evacuate families of people like the Coptic Christians who face oppression and violence in Egypt for both their beliefs and their siding with the military in the Muslims Brotherhoods removal from power. Coptic Christians saw the writing on the wall that they would become victims of Sharia law and be forced into oblivion and they are paying the price for choosing freedom as their churches are burned and their brothers and sisters murdered in the streets. Get them out. Help them by getting them asylum in the United States. We as a nation will welcome such hard working people who have been primarily impoverished all their lives to our nation. We want people like that as they are the kind of people who will take what little is given and make something out of it with a greater value. Likewise there are other people of different faiths and even some members of the Muslim population who also need to escape. Thus I call on the State department to focus on helping these people who need our help the most.

Our second of the two options is to cut off aid. It is imperative that we stop giving money to the Egyptian government and the rebel groups in the area. Yes people will die without that aid, but more people will die with that aid going there. In truth that money does not only help feed people, but it is used to get guns and ammo to continue Egypt's death spiral. It is time to stop perpetuating the violence.

Conclusion: We caused this horror as citizens to by electing Presidents who thought it was their duty to change the world. But it was not their duty to cause war and mayhem. If you truly want to help people around the world, then don't through money at their feet. Do not manipulate their governments and cause revolutions. Just be a beacon of hope by being an example of how a government should act towards its people. Let people have freedom in our own country to people in others will see what we have and want that too. And when they want it, they will enact change under their own power, and all we have to do is welcome them with open arms. So let us get out of this tragic political game of power.

Issue 154 The 4 essentials of welfare September 2, 2013

We have always talked about solutions to the welfare problem, but not the specific aid that welfare should give to the needy. So here they are the four essentials.

1. Medical Aid: People need to have their health maintained. But people on welfare (those who are not abusing the system) typically get sick. This is due to the lack of proper nutrition which weakens the poor person’s immune system. As such, making sure the poor have access to doctors to treat diseases is essential to keeping these people alive and healthy. This can be done in several ways however. You can give these people access to top quality health care by subsidizing health insurance so that the poor can go to any doctor of their choosing (that is if the doctors accept that insurance of course). But there is also the free clinic model which gives the poor access to care for free. Religious institutions and doctors may donate their time to helping the sick as well (something that can be sponsored by government or done as charity). However, these models seem to work best, but each has a draw back. Subsidizing health care or providing health care at the governmental level is expensive and the doctor is also under no obligation to accept the impoverished person’s coverage (though this is fairly rare). The free clinic model has the stigma of not always being the best in terms in the quality of care, while the religious and charitable model may be too small to help everyone. Each has a draw back, but they do help in there own way.

2. Food and general aid: Food and basic clothing are key to keeping people from having to need medical care, let alone starve. Soup kitchens and organizations like the Salvation Army help feed the poor and provide access to clothing and other items that people are in need of. By providing food we prevent people from being malnourished, keep them physically fit so that they have a wider options when it comes to job selection when they finally try to get off welfare. Clothing also is essential, for it not only keeps people warm in winter and cool in summer, but a suit that has been donated goes a long way in helping the impoverished person in an interview as they attempt to get off welfare. Donations seem to work best in combination with soup kitchens when it pertains to ensuring that the welfare is not abused. But there is also the food stamp model which helps the poor pay for the food that they want. However, it is easier to commit fraud in this system and the government has a vested interest in saying what an impoverished can and cannot eat. In a sense it is a potential waste of resources. But we are here to dissect what welfare should address, not how to fix it.

3. Job Training: Yup, job training is included. One part of the reason why people lose their job is because their skills become outmoded. In the age of computers and high tech devices it becomes harder to find a job suitable to skills of a previous generation such as wood working. People who do not find their niche or who appear to be under performing due to their lack of knowledge with technology and newer technology will be the first to be let go in times of financial crisis. Private groups and Charities due offer job training as well.  Businesses that see good people that just need a chance will also help them to learn the skills they need. But that is not always enough. As such government also provides job training, whether it is them training the individual themselves or paying a private company to do the same job. Tax brakes are also offered to businesses if they themselves just need that financial leeway to train people themselves. There is no easy answer to this problem.

4. Unemployment: The final component is unemployment aid. This is simply money given to individuals who have lost their job and need help paying the bills. Sometimes it will be combined with the money that goes toward food and clothing as well. Usually the money you receive here is contingent on something like looking for a job, or has a set limit as to how long you may be on this form of welfare. As such, this may also be combined with job training so that once training is complete and you get a job you no longer receive benefits. Though there are people who abuse this system by making it look like they want a job, showing up for an interview and giving the worst impression possible just so they can continue to receive aid. The only proven way to get off unemployment and get some job training is to implement a welfare to work program where poor people are placed in jobs and they move up on their own while welfare like unemployment and food stamps slowly disappear as income increases. Let us face it; there is a way to make it work.

Conclusion: Welfare is a safety net. It is not meant to give out free cell phones, cars (yup this was done) or to allow people to abuse the system. What people do not know is that more than 70% of programs designed to help the poor end up helping the rich and the freeloaders exclusively. So maybe it is time we got back to basics and help the poor only when it comes to the essentials.