Saturday, September 21, 2013
She was trusted to provide safe passage, but turned out to be a thug.
I
post this because we have to bring back SHAME to those who do wrong.
People know this woman. Know what she did. NOW she must be shamed.
Even if the cops don't throw the book at her, its time for those around
her to call her what she is... a thief. IF we all did this with the
miscreants among us there would be fewer miscreants.
Back away from the crack pipe... back away
A man obviously drunk or stoned speaking on the debt ceiling issue:
“Now, this debt ceiling — I just want to remind people in case you haven’t been keeping up — raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt; it does not somehow promote profligacy. All it does is it says you got to pay the bills that you’ve already racked up, Congress. It’s a basic function of making sure that the full faith and credit of the United States is preserved.”
He went on to suggest that “the average person” mistakenly thinks that raising the debt ceiling means the U.S. is racking up more debt:
“It’s always a tough vote because the average person thinks raising the debt ceiling must mean that we’re running up our debt, so people don’t like to vote on it, and, typically, there’s some gamesmanship in terms of making the President’s party shoulder the burden of raising the — taking the vote.”
“Now, this debt ceiling — I just want to remind people in case you haven’t been keeping up — raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt; it does not somehow promote profligacy. All it does is it says you got to pay the bills that you’ve already racked up, Congress. It’s a basic function of making sure that the full faith and credit of the United States is preserved.”
He went on to suggest that “the average person” mistakenly thinks that raising the debt ceiling means the U.S. is racking up more debt:
“It’s always a tough vote because the average person thinks raising the debt ceiling must mean that we’re running up our debt, so people don’t like to vote on it, and, typically, there’s some gamesmanship in terms of making the President’s party shoulder the burden of raising the — taking the vote.”
Friday, September 20, 2013
Why did Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis create a website called “Mohammed Salem”?
Are we allowed to ask why this mass-murderer would’ve created a site called “Mohammed Salem”? Was he a fan of Emirati soccer player Mohammed Salem Saleh Al Saadi? Did he appreciate the work of Palestinian photojournalist Mohammed Salem, or the Dubai news anchor with the same name? Or perhaps one of the other Mohammed Salems out there in the world?
That must be it. It couldn’t have anything to do with Alexis’ own religious beliefs, because by now everybody knows he was a Buddhist. So it’s safe to assume that this whole “shooting” was a false flag operation by teabaggers who hate Obama because he’s black. They framed yet another innocent African-American and killed him for no reason. (sarcasm)
Why did Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis create a website called “Mohammed Salem”?
That must be it. It couldn’t have anything to do with Alexis’ own religious beliefs, because by now everybody knows he was a Buddhist. So it’s safe to assume that this whole “shooting” was a false flag operation by teabaggers who hate Obama because he’s black. They framed yet another innocent African-American and killed him for no reason. (sarcasm)
Why did Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis create a website called “Mohammed Salem”?
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Sunday, September 15, 2013
I believe that starting your own business (if you have the temperament for it) is the best way out of poverty.
The JOBS mentality is a four letter
word. There are ways to make it without looking to someone else to
pimp your skills and ability for a profit. NOT EVERYONE can do this,
but more can than currently do and the world is clamoring for people who
can do it on their own. IF you have a WSJ
subscription this is worth reading for the comments alone. I don't
know if Mr Aulet has ever started or run a business. I have formed
several corporations, made profit, sold them, some failed, some did just
OK but on balance has provided a good living. Most people don't know
how important FAILURE is. You must be prepared to flop and then get
back up again or you will never make it. Fear of Failure is the biggest
obstacle to success. This much I know for sure, those who have never
even run a lemonade stand can never succeed in business. From the
comment section, I agree with this:
Teaching entrepreneurship is like teaching fishing. You can read up on it, but the only way you're going to learn it is to DO it.
There are three things necessary to catch fish:
1. This fish gotta be there
2. They gotta be hungry
3. You gotta have your pole in the water
#3 is the most essential. You don't catch fish under any circumstances unless you're fishing.
That's pretty much the way business operates: the customers have to be there, they have to want the product or service, and you have to be there dangling the bait in front of their eyes and waiting for them to bite.
FROM TODAY'S WSJ
Teaching Entrepreneurship Is in the Start-up Phase
Students are clamoring for instruction, but it's hard. There are no algorithms for success.
By BILL AULET
Forget medical school or law school. These days, record numbers of high-school and college students say they aspire to be entrepreneurs. At Yale University, for example, over 20% of the undergraduates indicate that they are interested in pursuing entrepreneurship as a career. Compare that with 1980, the year I graduated from Harvard. I didn't know what the word "entrepreneur" meant—and neither did any of my friends.
There is good reason for this trend. Traditional career paths no longer offer the security they once seemed to guarantee, and startups promise young people independence, control and the possibility of making good money.
As head of the Martin Trust Center for MIT MITD +1.92% Entrepreneurship, I welcome this enthusiasm. But my excitement is tempered by the reality that meeting the expanding demand with quality educational offerings will be a significant challenge.
Teaching entrepreneurship well is really hard. I know this because when I first started teaching, I did a terrible job. As a former professional basketball player and an experienced entrepreneur, I fell back on convenient sports analogies: Work hard, be smart, stay up later, get up earlier. Be prepared. I chose success, and you should too! My lectures got high ratings from students, so I assumed they were effective.
I was wrong. Teaching entrepreneurship is difficult because the subject itself is idiosyncratic, contextual and experiential. Unlike chemistry, math or computer programming, there are no definite answers in the startup world. By definition, entrepreneurs are doing the unknown and the untried, so there are no algorithms for success.
Making matters worse, there is a limited amount of scholarship and data that exists on what makes startups succeed or fail. As a result, the intellectual and scholarly vacuum is often filled by anecdotes. We've all listened to a version of "it all started in the garage with $20." Entrepreneurs are prone to mythologizing the early days of their businesses, yet these stories mislead those who aspire to follow in their footsteps.
Yes, entrepreneurs need the can-do spirit that makes them believe they can build a successful company out of a proverbial garage. But to succeed, they also need excellent execution skills.
These skills can be taught. I've witnessed this at MIT. Companies such as Hubspot, a marketing software company that employs hundreds and is worth hundreds of millions of dollars was born in our classrooms.
While entrepreneurship will never be fully like law, medicine or accounting, colleges need to start thinking of entrepreneurship as a discipline that demands similar academic rigor. At MIT, we admit students with a passion for building companies; often they have a particular idea they want to pursue. We bring in real entrepreneurs who talk about how to meet a payroll, for instance, and academics who make sure lessons are statistically valid.
The combination is the key. By the time our students graduate, they should know to build a successful team and bring breakthrough products to market.
As the Kauffman Foundation has documented, the majority of jobs that are created these days come from startups. These companies are the country's economic lifeblood and often address problems in critical areas like the environment, health care and education. The entrepreneurs who devote their working lives to creating these companies deserve more than what they seem to get from paying $50,000—and often much more—for a degree.
So here is one pep talk I stand by: Schools like MIT must do a better job of teaching entrepreneurship. While we professors should encourage the spirit of a pirate in our students, we need also to focus on teaching the execution skills of a Navy SEAL. Our approach must be scalable to meet the surging demand.
If we don't, and students go out into the world lacking the entrepreneurial skills they need, at some point there will be a backlash against entrepreneurship as an educational discipline and even as a pursuit in life. Such a setback is one that the U.S. economy can ill afford.
Mr. Aulet's book, "Disciplined Entrepreneurship: 24 Steps to a Successful Startup," was just published by Wiley.
Teaching entrepreneurship is like teaching fishing. You can read up on it, but the only way you're going to learn it is to DO it.
There are three things necessary to catch fish:
1. This fish gotta be there
2. They gotta be hungry
3. You gotta have your pole in the water
#3 is the most essential. You don't catch fish under any circumstances unless you're fishing.
That's pretty much the way business operates: the customers have to be there, they have to want the product or service, and you have to be there dangling the bait in front of their eyes and waiting for them to bite.
FROM TODAY'S WSJ
Teaching Entrepreneurship Is in the Start-up Phase
Students are clamoring for instruction, but it's hard. There are no algorithms for success.
By BILL AULET
Forget medical school or law school. These days, record numbers of high-school and college students say they aspire to be entrepreneurs. At Yale University, for example, over 20% of the undergraduates indicate that they are interested in pursuing entrepreneurship as a career. Compare that with 1980, the year I graduated from Harvard. I didn't know what the word "entrepreneur" meant—and neither did any of my friends.
There is good reason for this trend. Traditional career paths no longer offer the security they once seemed to guarantee, and startups promise young people independence, control and the possibility of making good money.
As head of the Martin Trust Center for MIT MITD +1.92% Entrepreneurship, I welcome this enthusiasm. But my excitement is tempered by the reality that meeting the expanding demand with quality educational offerings will be a significant challenge.
Teaching entrepreneurship well is really hard. I know this because when I first started teaching, I did a terrible job. As a former professional basketball player and an experienced entrepreneur, I fell back on convenient sports analogies: Work hard, be smart, stay up later, get up earlier. Be prepared. I chose success, and you should too! My lectures got high ratings from students, so I assumed they were effective.
I was wrong. Teaching entrepreneurship is difficult because the subject itself is idiosyncratic, contextual and experiential. Unlike chemistry, math or computer programming, there are no definite answers in the startup world. By definition, entrepreneurs are doing the unknown and the untried, so there are no algorithms for success.
Making matters worse, there is a limited amount of scholarship and data that exists on what makes startups succeed or fail. As a result, the intellectual and scholarly vacuum is often filled by anecdotes. We've all listened to a version of "it all started in the garage with $20." Entrepreneurs are prone to mythologizing the early days of their businesses, yet these stories mislead those who aspire to follow in their footsteps.
Yes, entrepreneurs need the can-do spirit that makes them believe they can build a successful company out of a proverbial garage. But to succeed, they also need excellent execution skills.
These skills can be taught. I've witnessed this at MIT. Companies such as Hubspot, a marketing software company that employs hundreds and is worth hundreds of millions of dollars was born in our classrooms.
While entrepreneurship will never be fully like law, medicine or accounting, colleges need to start thinking of entrepreneurship as a discipline that demands similar academic rigor. At MIT, we admit students with a passion for building companies; often they have a particular idea they want to pursue. We bring in real entrepreneurs who talk about how to meet a payroll, for instance, and academics who make sure lessons are statistically valid.
The combination is the key. By the time our students graduate, they should know to build a successful team and bring breakthrough products to market.
As the Kauffman Foundation has documented, the majority of jobs that are created these days come from startups. These companies are the country's economic lifeblood and often address problems in critical areas like the environment, health care and education. The entrepreneurs who devote their working lives to creating these companies deserve more than what they seem to get from paying $50,000—and often much more—for a degree.
So here is one pep talk I stand by: Schools like MIT must do a better job of teaching entrepreneurship. While we professors should encourage the spirit of a pirate in our students, we need also to focus on teaching the execution skills of a Navy SEAL. Our approach must be scalable to meet the surging demand.
If we don't, and students go out into the world lacking the entrepreneurial skills they need, at some point there will be a backlash against entrepreneurship as an educational discipline and even as a pursuit in life. Such a setback is one that the U.S. economy can ill afford.
Mr. Aulet's book, "Disciplined Entrepreneurship: 24 Steps to a Successful Startup," was just published by Wiley.
Crooks in Sheeps Clothing
Eric
E. Whitaker, Obama's close friend and Jeri L. Wright, daughter of
President Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright have been embezzling
money from what was supposed to be Charities and Grants to help poor
people. I know when big shot Wall
Street executives do it, it's just as evil, but when you stand up and
say, "Its for the Children or this is to help the poor" and you steal
the money to live large (see Jesse Jackson Jr) that seems particularly
egregious. At least when Wall Street Steals, they do it honestly... no
pretense of helping anyone. SMH
This interactive map shows how the money in the USA has moved because of bad politics, bad tax burden, poor economic strategy and just plain safety.
It has fled states like CA, IL, MI, OH, NY, NJ. Two TRILLION dollars
in the last ten years. When a tax base
gets too small, taxes go up and the money flight goes faster. This is
NOT good news for states like MI and IL. When Money flows OUT Jobs dry
up. How you vote tells your leaders how to govern. Voting is WRONG
today. Fiscal and social conservatism attracts money, liberalism drives
it away. Class dismissed
Explore the Data
www.howmoneywalks.com
How
Money Walks maps this great migration of American income and raises
important questions about American tax policy and how it profoundly
affects growth and development in our country. Why did so
Answering machine message,
"I am not available right now,
but thank you for caring enough to call.
I am making some changes in my life.
Please leave a message after the beep.
If I do not return your call,
you are one of the changes."
I didn't write this, but I wish I had. This is about the war on Christianity being waged in our government and military. Corruptions starts at the head:
In 1954, the American Legion sponsored a series of network television broadcasts called "Back to God." On one of those national telecasts, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appeared from the White House. He thanked the American Legion for urging Americans to acknowledge God in their daily lives.
Then the President said, "As a former soldier, I am delighted that our veterans are sponsoring a movement to increase our awareness of God in our daily lives. In battle, they (the veterans) learned a great truth, that there are no atheists in the foxholes."
Can you imagine this happening today?
The President humbly referred to himself as "a former soldier." In truth, he was one of only five Americans to earn the rank of five-star general. He was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe in World War II. He and General George Washington are undeniably the most widely admired soldiers in American history.
Fast forward to 2013. An Air Force chaplain at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson near Anchorage, Alaska, wrote a column for the base website. Keep in mind that Lt. Col. Reyes is a chaplain. He titled his column: "No Atheists in Foxholes: Chaplains Gave All in World War II."
His look back at the contributions and sacrifices of chaplains on the battlefields of World War II quoted one of America's most beloved soldiers and Presidents, Dwight Eisenhower. Now, that sounds like pretty safe territory for a military chaplain to tread, doesn't it? An officer whose job is to provide spiritual comfort and guidance to his troops remembering the sacrifices of other officers who provided spiritual comfort and guidance to their troops on the battlefield? And basing it on a quote from one of America's greatest soldiers and Presidents?
Wrong.
Folks, this ain't 1954 and that ain't your Daddy's Oldsmobile!
Chaplain Reyes was reprimanded for the column and his base commander publicly apologized for not stopping him from discussing religious subjects on the base website. What was the chaplain expected to discuss? Automotive repair tips?
So what has changed since 1954? Lots of things, obviously, but two stand out: 1. These are the last days. 2. Mikey Weinstein.
You probably remember Mr. Weinstein from previous programs. He heads the benignly and misleadingly named Military Religious Freedom Foundation or MRFF. (A more appropriate name would be the Military Freedom FROM Religion Foundation.)
The MRFF protested the chaplain's column and within five hours it had been removed from Elmendorf's website.
Apparently no place or venue is safe from Mr. Weinstein's near-omnipresent gaze. He's the guy who publicly called a Christian service member sharing his or her faith "spiritual rape." He has labeled Christians "monsters," "terrorists," and "enemies of the Constitution."
Who cares, you say? He sounds like a nut! Well, I agree, but President Obama doesn't. In fact, Weinstein has become the Administration's go-to guy on topics of "religious tolerance" in the U.S. military. Which sounds about par for the course these days -- pick someone who has NO religious tolerance to advise the brass on religious tolerance.
Just a few short decades ago, our national leaders actually promoted faith in God and the inclusion of God in the life and fabric of the nation. You see, they faced the specter of an opposing world superpower who sought to eliminate God and vest His authority in the State.
They understood that America's strength lay in her citizens' belief in and obeisance to an authority higher than man-made government: the Divine Creator. That freed us from the doubt and indecision and fear that pervades when the conduct of our lives is determined solely by whoever is in power at the moment.
It's a short and undeniable principle: Man changes. God doesn't. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or brain surgeon to figure which of the two will provide a more stable national environment.
On August 21, 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill sat together, with hundreds of sailors and marines, at a church service aboard the HMS Prince of Wales in a harbor on the coast of Newfoundland. They sang the hymns of the church and drank in the strength provided by a mutual spiritual heritage and faith in a common God.
Later, Roosevelt told his son that the service "cemented us" for the dark days of World War II that lay ahead. Churchill wept during "Onward, Christian Soldiers" and later remarked that, "Every word seemed to stir the heart. It was a great hour to live."
It brings tears to my eyes just writing these words. My friends, that is a world that is long past.
In Britain today, fewer than 10% attend religious services, and a majority of those are Muslim. Now, the number one choice for a baby's name in the UK is "Mohammed."
In Luke 18:8, Jesus Himself asked this question: "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" Some studies show that atheism will replace "religion" as the dominant spiritual practice by 2041.
I personally don't worry too much about atheism because every man and woman has an innate awareness of God. But I do worry about the church. Will we become so desperate to attract people to our pews that we'll modify and water down the message of the Gospel? Perfect examples of this are the liberal denominations that have become like empty sepulchers. And now it's happening in many evangelical mega-churches.
At the rate we're going, and if the President and his party get their way, I'm not certain Jesus will find faith in the military when He returns. Likewise, I doubt He'll find faith in the ranks of academia or even in the lower echelons of our educational system. It appears that faith is in achingly short supply in the entertainment business already. Government, at least on the federal level, has already declared its independence from faith and conscience. Many believe that business, especially Big Business, turned its back on God long ago and worships only at the altar of the dollar.
So where will Jesus look for faith when He returns? In your heart and mine. That's why, no matter what happens in the world around us (and it's happening fast and furiously), stand confidently on the firm foundation of God's immutable promises to us. "Then after the battle you will still be standing firm." (Ephesians 6:13, NLT)
How to get a job in a jobless economy:
There has been a major shift that has taken place. Much of it having to do with government interference and of late, Obamacare. For an employer it has become almost impossible to make sense out of hiring anyone full time for any job (other than at the very top). There is nearly a third added overhead in employing someone full time. To pay someone $10 per hour now costs $15 and getting more expensive.
Hence, except at very large corporations (McDonalds and WalMart), the job that pays a decent wage at the low end of the scale is gone.
There is however a strategy that works. One I became aware of 2 years ago. One I now use. As an employer I can hire people to work as contractors for me. The independent contractor thing worked pretty well up till a few years ago... then once more the heavy boot of government came down upon us all. That door closed. The result was that people lost their jobs. Whatever government touches, it destroys.
The new strategy is this: Figure out what you know how to do, skill wise. Something that someone would pay you to do. Something that has value. Something that is worthwhile for someone to pay you for. Form a small corporation with what you do as a name. IE Cleanwindow llc. You become the only stockholder, the only participant. You present yourself to people willing to pay you for the service you provide. NOW you can work as many hours as they want to pay you for. You bill them as a corporation. You indemnify them from all otherwise claims. They have no risk in hiring you. It is purely arms length. You become the ultimate independent contractor. Government would be hard pressed to challenge you or your (employer) client on this arrangement.
I know several people who have created exactly this arrangement and who have created a very effective firewall against the IRS and all the government interference. It is becoming a standard practice in many fields. Sales, Software Development, Skilled Contracting, Project Management, Technical Services and other things that can be presented as part of the array of talent needed to run a company.
Informally you are an employee. Formally you are a corporation supplying another corporation services (without the overhead).
I know this seems like a lot of fiddling around, but the barriers erected by government to hiring have become so high we no longer can operate in this economy. This is not a Republican or Democrat thing. This is the insatiable voracious appetite of an out of control congress, senate and executive branch to suck the money out needed to keep the machine going.
What you would be doing is guerrilla warfare... but it's essential.
Survival is all you have.
Hence, except at very large corporations (McDonalds and WalMart), the job that pays a decent wage at the low end of the scale is gone.
There is however a strategy that works. One I became aware of 2 years ago. One I now use. As an employer I can hire people to work as contractors for me. The independent contractor thing worked pretty well up till a few years ago... then once more the heavy boot of government came down upon us all. That door closed. The result was that people lost their jobs. Whatever government touches, it destroys.
The new strategy is this: Figure out what you know how to do, skill wise. Something that someone would pay you to do. Something that has value. Something that is worthwhile for someone to pay you for. Form a small corporation with what you do as a name. IE Cleanwindow llc. You become the only stockholder, the only participant. You present yourself to people willing to pay you for the service you provide. NOW you can work as many hours as they want to pay you for. You bill them as a corporation. You indemnify them from all otherwise claims. They have no risk in hiring you. It is purely arms length. You become the ultimate independent contractor. Government would be hard pressed to challenge you or your (employer) client on this arrangement.
I know several people who have created exactly this arrangement and who have created a very effective firewall against the IRS and all the government interference. It is becoming a standard practice in many fields. Sales, Software Development, Skilled Contracting, Project Management, Technical Services and other things that can be presented as part of the array of talent needed to run a company.
Informally you are an employee. Formally you are a corporation supplying another corporation services (without the overhead).
I know this seems like a lot of fiddling around, but the barriers erected by government to hiring have become so high we no longer can operate in this economy. This is not a Republican or Democrat thing. This is the insatiable voracious appetite of an out of control congress, senate and executive branch to suck the money out needed to keep the machine going.
What you would be doing is guerrilla warfare... but it's essential.
Survival is all you have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)