#secrets #ClassifiedInformation #Signal #ChatApps #PersonalData #PublicInformation We all have secrets. Some have more secrets than others. Though many people would like to be “open books” about themselves, there are some things about people best left unknown. If you have a job in which you must keep company secrets, you can be placed in a quandary. Some company secrets, like proprietary formulas, should be kept. But, sometimes, if your company misbehaves or does illegal or unethical things, you may want to blow the whistle. Then, you have your quandary: Tell and lose your job, or not tell and keep it. The decision depends on the person and, to a lesser extent, circumstances. Government, in general, should not keep secrets. However, there are some government activities that require secrecy, to protect citizens, service members etc. This past week, some government secrets, designed only to be discussed in a secure facility that cannot be penetrated, were discussed on an open chat app called Signal, through a text chain. By accident, a journalist, who should not be seeing some of the information, was brought into the chain. The app is designed to delete the information after a certain time. Still, it could have been preserved by anyone in the chain via a screenshot. Although it’s likely the chat organizer allowed in the reporter by accident, each person in the chain should have been aware of EVERYONE who was receiving the information. It also begs the question: Do the officials in the text chain care more about keeping their discussions from the American public, since the information could be gone quickly from the public and historical record, than they do about foreign adversaries finding out about it? Having such discussions in secure facilities keeps it from foreign adversaries and unauthorized hackers, but preserves the information for historical purposes later. Also, the journalist who accidently was brought into the conversation showed much more discretion with the information than the officials who were supposed to have discretion. The journalist was obliged by his ethics to expose the mistake, without exposing the sensitive information contained therein. But, when other officials in the chat said publicly that no “classified” information was discussed, the reporter published the entire text to have others decide what should have been “classified.” Fortunately, the incident described had been completed. Recently released files from the investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 shed little new light, but exposed a lot of personal information of those who participated, which needn’t, and never should have been released. In the name of government efficiency, many unauthorized people are getting access to personal data of individuals, which they have no business having. Who knows what they will ultimately do with it. The worrisome pattern here is the effort to cover up things that should be exposed, while playing fast and loose with information that should be securely guarded. This should concern everyone. Some with power are putting our lives at risk. This outrageous behavior should not be tolerated, and those with the ability to stop it should do so immediately. If they don’t, they do not deserve to be in power. Peter
#science #knowledge #learning #reading #BanningBooks #neighbors In past decades, we wanted our children to be smarter and more knowledgeable than we are. We wanted them better educated than we might not have had the opportunity to be. We wanted them to be more successful at whatever they did, than we were. In recent weeks, that has changed. We now don’t want children learning certain things, reading certain books or even interacting with other children who might be, perhaps, different from them. We don’t want the agencies we rely on to conduct the research into diseases to help find a cure. We now don’t think colleges and universities, which in the U.S. are the envy of the world, should educate, research and otherwise do what they do best without constraints. The term “we” is certainly not everyone. Likely, it is not the vast majority of us. It is a small group of people who want to take the country backward, rather than forward. The next time someone tells you “I want to move forward,” you might ask them, “Are you sure?” If you are not among those who want to move backward, it is important that you, and those who agree with you, resist with every fiber of your being. There are certain things you can’t do without the power to do them, but there are many things you CAN do, even without the power you might desire. The best places to resist these trends are in the courts, at the ballot box and in the streets. Tell your elected officials what you think. The more people you have on your side, the more likely the officials will get the message. If your officials are not resisting these trends to your liking, check your state law to see whether they can be recalled. If they can, start a petition. If they can’t, work to make sure they are not re-elected. Whatever you do, VOTE whenever you have the opportunity. The U.S. is still, despite what some would prefer, a country by and for the people. People need to use their power to beat back the tendencies of some in power. You may be looking at what’s going on and wondering, “did I vote for this?” If you think not, you may not have been paying attention. These tendencies were well advertised ahead of the last election. But, that is thinking backward. Now is the time to think forward. It’s time to think about ways to move the country forward at a time when some are working to move it backward. Short of action in the courts, at the ballot box or in the streets, begin by being kind to your neighbor, even if he or she is different from you. Most mean you no harm. Some could even become your friends. And, always think forward, toward more knowledge, more science and a smarter population as a whole. The country, as you know it and would like to see it, will depend on it. Peter
#CryptoCurrency #crypto #investing #InvestmentPlans #FinancialSecurity Crypto currency looks appealing as an investment, but there are many pitfalls. Without going further, the best way to invest for your future is a plan for slow, gradual growth over time. There are quick bucks, but they are not always sustainable. There are shiny objects, trends and fads. But they are seldom permanent. As for crypto, it is seen as a way to invest in a vehicle that is completely unregulated – off the financial grid of stocks, bonds, banks, metals, commodities, real estate etc., that all have rules and laws regulating them. Violating those rules is fraud, and quite punishable. These are online memes. They have no value to back them up, other than the money people use to buy them. As traditional investment products have supply and demand scales, crypto has only a demand scale. Supply is irrelevant. MSNBC news anchor Rachel Maddow compared crypto coins to Beanie Babies. To those who don’t remember, the company Ty put out these stuffed toys decades ago that, according to the movement, would become very valuable. People were buying them in bulk for cheap, thinking they would become a collector’s item. When stores ran out of them, buyers stalked the UPS trucks, hoping to get back to the store as the new shipment arrived. Today, they typically sell for about $6 each. Hummel figurines were another past collector’s item. They were a bit more expensive than Beanie Babies, but their appreciation in value has become, well, suspect over the years. Crypto is the new thing. Folks with lots of money are getting in on it. Some people have been charged with fraud in connection with it. They also can be hacked, and an investor could lose everything. Another rule of thumb in investing: When the big investors decide to cash out, the smaller investor is left holding the bag. These small investors may have a nice online meme, but it could become worthless. So, if you are thinking of investing in crypto because it looks easy, lots of folks are getting in on it and it is completely unregulated, stop. Get some good financial advice from someone you trust. Whatever money you put into it could be gone tomorrow, or next month or next year. Anything is possible. The demand for crypto could go on for years. The big guys may not cash out or commit fraud. And, no investment of any kind, other than, perhaps, a bank account or CD that is insured, is guaranteed. But, crypto may be worth an extra careful look. The person of relatively low means almost always has the desire to make it big easily and never worry. That’s why the lottery and casinos stay in business. It may be too early to equate crypto with gambling, but it is plainly insecure as an investment. Remember: Trends tire. Fads fade. And shiny objects lose their luster. To repeat: If you want a secure financial future, be a good, diligent saver. Adopt a plan in which you contribute those savings over time. Stay disciplined and don’t spend the money too soon. Keep an eye on it, but don’t watch it constantly, because there will be ups and downs. Make changes as needed over time. Staying relatively consistent with a good plan is the best way to secure your financial future. Peter
#government #CuttingGovernment #GovernmentService #SocialSecurity #Medicare #Medicaid It’s really easy to hate government. It’s really easy to presume that government services are for “someone else,” perhaps someone undeserving of the favor. It’s easy, until something gets taken away from you that you did not believe was a “government” program, or that you had “earned.” Certainly, government is extremely in debt and that needs to be addressed. Certainly, also, there are places and agencies in government that could run more efficiently. But, think of government as a porcelain piggy bank. When it gets full, normally one would yank the stopper, take out some coins to buy what he or she had saved for and replace the stopper. Generally, one does not take a hammer and break the bank to smithereens just to get some money out. Also, believe it or not, bureaucrats are people, too. If you impulsively admire the sledgehammer or chain-saw approach to cutting government, you could be personally affected by it. Or, your spouse. Or, one or more of your children. Or, someone else you know and love. If you are used to getting government help through, say, veteran’s benefits or Social Security, how would you feel if those benefits were taken away? Yes, you have earned them, through service or contribution, but that doesn’t mean someone won’t, or can’t, take them away. Medicaid, which helps provide health care to those in financial distress, is used by more “everyday people” than you might think. It is not just for “welfare queens” and others you might dismiss as “undeserving.” For example, do you receive health insurance through your employer, or through your own insurance policy? If you don’t, chances are you are using Medicaid. Or, do you have a relative in a nursing home? Chances are, Medicaid is paying a good portion of that person’s care. Even if you are paying for the care yourself, most other patients in a nursing home rely on Medicaid because they simply cannot afford the daily fee for care. If Medicaid goes away, the nursing home likely would close. Then what, for your relative? The other danger from this meat-ax approach to cutting government is the access by unnamed, and certainly unapproved people to everyone’s personal data. Do you want your name, address, Social Security number and banking information in the hands of someone who should not have it? Some may extrapolate this concept to ask who might BUY all that data, and who would get the proceeds? In short, there is a right way and a wrong way to reform government. We all want government that is lean, but effective. The chain-saw approach might make great television, and some might say is long overdue. But, government agencies need to work for everyone. Former U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney, when he ran for president, said that 47 percent of the population is dependent on government for some funding in their lives. In reality, we are ALL dependent on government for something. The best things politicians can do is to make sure it works well for everyone, that everyone pays for it according to their ability to pay and that it runs as efficiently and fairly as possible. Peter
#leaders #tyrants #leadership #power #servants #sychophants Leaders look for win-win situations. Tyrants always want to win and always want their opponents to lose. Leaders build teams and help each member of the team succeed. Tyrants acquire servants, whose only job is to please the tyrant. As tyrants acquire servants, leaders serve their teams. Leaders don’t care whether they get credit for success. They ALWAYS take the blame for failure. Tyrants only want all the credit for success and none of the blame for failure. Leaders’ strength is not always shown, and they are OK with that. They are never cruel. Tyrants love to show “strength” through cruelty, implying that everyone else is weak. Leaders always want to accomplish, whether the accomplishments are obvious or not. Tyrants always want the “show” of success, regardless of whether what they are doing accomplishes anything worthwhile. Leaders look for good, qualified people, regardless of their opinions about the leader. Tyrants look for sycophants, whose main qualification is an opinion that matches the tyrant’s. Leaders make mistakes and admit to them. Tyrants, in their minds, make no mistakes. Only others make mistakes. Leaders create worlds around them in which everyone benefits, regardless of how much the leader benefits. Tyrants create worlds with them at the center, with only the tyrant and those loyal to the tyrant benefiting. Leaders give and get. Tyrants only take. Leaders know that helping others succeed is the only way to their success. Tyrants only want others to help THEM succeed. Leaders never look over their shoulders. If someone better comes along, so be it. The leader likely helped that person succeed. Tyrants always look over their shoulders. If someone better comes along, he or she is a fraud, in the tyrants’ minds. Who would you prefer at the top? Sometimes, what is an obvious answer does not translate as such to the populace. But, as the populace is fooled, they can then get hurt. It’s always best to choose those who know how to succeed properly. It’s always best to choose the unselfish, servant leader. Peter
