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.

Issue 153 No Middle Managers August 29, 2013

I'll be gone tomorrow and thus be unable to post..as such I will see you all Monday. Enjoy the article and have a great weekend.

What if there was no actual management in a corporation? Would it fail? Well that depends on your business model. Here is how it works.

What is it?: Well the companies that embrace the idea of no middle managers are unique. They do not need people to tell them to do their job. Not only do they do their job, they are already highly motivated and self regulating. And that is actually how the model works. In order for there to be no middle managers in a corporation a company needs people hire only self motivated people who are comfortable with a boss less environment. That environment is also purposely built to work. As such, companies like GitHub (a five year old collaborative software company in San Francisco) or 37signals (another software firm) have it so that its employees may hop on a project in any capacity and then switch roles as needed. Ideas are shared informally and may also go out the door without approval of a lead manager. Sure there is top management, but that is also somewhat informal as well. It does have some advantages as it eliminates pointless titles and bureaucratic bloat in a business which saves money. It also allows some members to work at home as well (especially as software can be made anywhere you have a decent enough computer to use {these are tech companies if you have not noticed yet}). Overall it is based around the same principle as one of 37signals mottos "hire managers of one."

Managers do have there advantages: Professor Ethan Mollick of the University of Pennsylvania's Whaton school looker at 395 companies in the video game industry using 12 years worth of data It found that despite all other factors, middle managers accounted for "22.3% of the performance differences among companies, more than three times as much as the game designers who invent story lines and characters." Basically, middle managers help the bottom and the top of a business communicate which is essential.

Compromise: It has been recognized by companies like Github with its now 200 plus employees that managers are in fact needed in a certain capacity and as such has installed some over site. But they want to maintain freedom and keep out the hierarchy. So the people there avoid the term manager (this goes for the top positions too). Tom Preston-Werner the co-founder and head of Github (what he describes as in name only) prefers words like leader, or the companies acronym "PRP" primarily responsible person." They still allow ideas and decision to go public without approval though as they still hire self regulated people. Some businesses rotate managerial roles amongst the staff where they would keep track of group performance and "ensuring goals are met." The manager of the month would also handle customer-support requests (as this was the customer support section of the business). As such while their smaller counterparts may still be able to get buy without managers, the larger companies are finding creative solutions to maintain the speed and efficiency of the no manager business model (a staffer can potentially overrule his boss on a plan in certain instances in this model). Speed is probably the best advantage this model gives with respect to decision making.

Conclusion: This article comes from The Wall Street Journal "Some tech Firms Ask: Who Needs Managers? Among Smaller Companies, Disdain for Hierarchy Collides With Need for Oversight" by Rachel Emma Silverman. And I decided to show this model (or models) to you all as an alternative some businesses are trying. It seems to work mainly in tech and programming companies as that is where it is suggested that this business model is often used. It is important to note that this model will not work with employees who need that manager looking over their shoulder to make sure they are doing their job. So if you do try this model, be careful to only hire the best and only for roles that they are not only suited for, but who are capable of being their own boss. Good luck in all your endeavors everyone.

Issue 152 Postal Booze August 28, 2013

As the post office is running out of money, they are looking for creative solutions to gaining revenue. This idea was brought to my attention via the Huffington post from CNBC ("U.S. Postal Service Alcohol Delivery Idea Criticized by Merchants").

The idea: The premise is simple, let the post office be able to deliver alcohol and other spirits via the mail. It is a sound idea that I endorse completely. U.S. Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe wants the post office to be able to ship cases of 2, 4, or 6 bottles of booze at a flat rate price. Upon delivery it would have to be signed for by a person over the age of 21 (as proposed in a bill by the U.S. Senate).

Benefits: Money is to be made from this idea. For one, it allows the post office to finally be able to mail alcohol which it was originally banned from doing (they asked people to cover any labels or logos that pertain to alcohol if they reuse a box of spirits). As it stands now the post office lost $740 million in the third quarter of 2013. However, this may help make up for their losses and fund the retirement and health pensions that have become so burdensome to its business.

Consumers are also helped by this as they now have the option to mail beer, wine and others to their friends and neighbors across the entire continental U.S. Let us face it, America likes its spirits and having the option (especially during holiday season) would be worth it to consumers and some sellers. Likewise brewers and wineries would gain the ability to ship their product throughout the U.S. and thus bump up sales. It gives small brewers a chance to be recognized beyond their town boarders, and wineries the chance to attract more people to their brand. Basically you can have your favorite wine shipped directly to your house from the winery rather than go to the store only to find out they do not sell that particular brand. Flexibility becomes key which allows people the freedom of choice (in their glass that is). Many craft brewers already ship through licensed distributors, but this allows them to cut out the middle man.

Problems: Even though it can be done, there is one big problem. State and local laws have to be complied with. A dry county (a district where the sale of alcohol is prohibited to patrons) may prohibit mail order booze. State laws may interfere with times of delivery, or even the type and amount of alcohol that may be mailed and delivered at a given time. Also, it may not be worth the cost to some brewers who may need to hire extra staff just to pack up the boxes and maintain order just to mail the booze in the first place. Beer is "heavy, fragile and perishable" so shipping may actually become a nightmare. Let us also not forget that local liquor stores don't like the idea of mail order booze cutting into their bottom line as it adds more competition. Of course State and local laws may try to protect those local stores from losing money as well.

Conclusion: The Colorado based Brewers Association, which represents 1,797 U.S. craft and larger beer makers has said that certain small brewers with "specialty beers would have an interests in the USPS option." So the idea does have traction and as such will generate revenue for all involved. I can imagine battles in court however over the legality of dry counties and similar laws which may infringe on "interstate commerce." All I can say is that freedom of choice is essential. As such the freedom to buy and sell goods must have no restrictions (excluding prohibited items) to help maintain that freedom. Therefore as a libertarian, I see this as a step in the right direction for the country. Yes I do understand that much of the domestic violence and spousal abuse is due to alcohol and that teens may drive while under the influence, but that is all about personal responsibility. Domestic violence would happen with alcohol regardless and teens driving while intoxicated also will not change as far as I can see. I also endorse reducing the age restrictions on the purchase of alcohol as it has been shown that the younger you are exposed to spirits in general, the less likely you are to drive intoxicated, or drink in excess. So let us loosen up the system and mail some booze.