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.