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.