#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
#principles #ResigningOnPrinciples #ResigningOnPrinciple #jobs Many government employees are resigning because their bosses want them to violate their principles. Such behavior deserves admiration, but not everyone can afford to do it. Many people so desperately need their jobs they can’t just say, “I quit.” If the violation of principles is so extreme, it might be better to let the boss fire you without legitimate cause, because you’ll have better standing in court, should you go that route. If you have a job that is in great demand, then quitting on principle is indeed the right thing to do. The federal government is undergoing extreme turmoil. Many believe it is totally unnecessary. People are being fired without going through the necessary process. Those doing the firing are just flying by the seat of their pants, without careful analysis and without regard for the consequences to the agencies they are cutting. As a result, they are trying to rehire some of those employees after realizing they had made a mistake. Certainly, everyone wants the government to be as efficient and as cost-effective as possible. But, everyone also wants a government that works. Despite a lot of anti-government rhetoric, most people in the U.S. depend on their government for something, even if it’s just safety and security in their lives. We don’t live in a nation of hermits. Frustration with government procedure is common, but few people who think about the issue want to see those services go away. The principles come in when those doing the firing violate the way the agency(ies) they are cutting are supposed to work. Many agencies operate independently, without favor to anyone and for the best results for everyone. It seems that those doing the firing want these agencies to be more selective about who they are serving. If you have a relatively low-level job in these agencies, you may have little choice but to follow orders, even if those orders are coming from someone who may not be entitled to give them. Or, you can say NO, or even HECK NO, and accept the consequences. If you consider yourself a good, principled person, this may be difficult. Your principles may indeed be worth more to you than your livelihood. But, you also must understand that not everyone can feel that way, even if they want to. So, if you can, stick to your principles. They have served you well throughout your life and career. If you can’t, you must do what you must to survive. Will all this have a good result in the end? No one knows. But, for the short term, there will be chaos and personal disruption. Here’s to hoping everyone lands on his or her feet, no matter what happens. Peter
#economy #government #GovernmentEmployees #tariffs #inflation #eggs Egg prices are soaring because of the bird-flu spread. That is likely to affect prices diners will pay in restaurants. If the market doesn’t bear those higher prices, restaurants could go out of business. Then, if a number of federal employees lose their jobs, unemployment could go way up. If those workers do not have paychecks, they won’t spend as much. It could put other stores out of business. Will those furloughed federal workers find private-sector jobs? Perhaps some will. Perhaps others may have to take jobs that don’t pay as well as their government jobs, or do not have the same benefits they had with the government. That will affect their spending, which could trickle down to other businesses. When tariffs are added to the mix, they will raise the cost of many other goods. Most, if not all, of those increased costs will be passed on to consumers. Much of this economic turmoil is government inflicted. Much of it is unnecessary. Most people want to see government run as efficiently as possible. Many want to see less government overall. Almost no one wants to see a broken government – particularly one that was broken deliberately. The act of breaking government eventually will affect most, if not all, U.S. citizens and residents. Even if you believe government needs to be overhauled, there are ways to do it that are both legal, humane and proper. They do not involve potential invasions of individual privacy. Objections to what is going on are largely not objections to efficiency and lowering costs. They are over the manner in which they are being accomplished. Perhaps some good will come from this turmoil. Perhaps we will be in a better place after the operatives are finished. But, in the meantime, the economy – and the personal wealth and well-being of many individuals—could be adversely affected. If you don’t like what’s going on, tell your representatives. Their jobs are on the line if the outcome is not good. It’s easy to be frustrated, exhausted and demoralized by what is happening. But, as with most adversity, one has to look for what is good in one’s life, what can’t be taken away and what each person can do to improve his or her own future. It takes great personal strength to do that during these times. Here’s hoping that everyone finds that strength and uses it to better his or her own life, and the lives of others. Things are what they are, but they don’t have to be this way. Peter
#children #IndependentChildren #SeeSomethingSaySomething #AdultSupervision A boy, 11, walks to the store alone, about a mile from his home in North Georgia. A neighbor sees him without an adult and reports his mother to authorities. The mother is arrested. The boy was not in danger and was not doing anything wrong. In decades past, giving children some independence was not only allowed but encouraged. Those of a certain age remember being dismissed from the house on Saturday or summer mornings and told not to come back until lunchtime. No parents were watching them. They could, essentially, do what they wanted, with whom they wanted and go wherever their legs could take them for a few hours. If they got in trouble, they paid for it later. If they got lost, they had to find their way back home. Today’s climate requires, in many cases, more scrutiny of children. There is much more trouble they could get into today than children could in the past. More prevalent today are pitfalls of drugs, violence, gangs and even non-custodial parents that could pose a threat to children. In the North Georgia case, those pitfalls may have been less of a threat. As discussed last week, it’s difficult to be an independent person today, even as a young adult. It’s difficult to create a life without help. Does the lack of independence as a child contribute to that phenomenon? That’s a difficult question. Make no mistake. It’s important for neighbors to look out for each other. If you see something wrong or threatening, say something. It’s also important that if you see nothing wrong or threatening to mind one’s own business. Authorities should judge reports of child neglect carefully. Perhaps, if they are called to a scene, they should be inclined to watch the child for a time to see whether there is a problem. If they see no problem, they, too, should drive away. If they see something that may be amiss, it’s OK to ask the child whether everything is OK. If the child says yes, and they still suspect something, keep watching. Children have to learn to navigate life on their own, even at a young age. They also should learn to be aware of their surroundings, know the risks and dangers of certain activities and know what or who would be a threat to their well-being. Small risks are OK. Skinned knees are not life-threatening. And being encouraged to take small risks can encourage them to take bigger risks as adults. Life is not without risk and parents need to help prevent risk aversion as their kids grow. The lesson here is to let kids be as independent as possible within their confines. Neighbors should be watchful but not intrusive. We all benefit when independent children become fully independent adults. Peter
#aging #demographics #BeingYoung #BeingOld #children #families China, Japan and other countries are seeing their populations age. The U.S. is also heading in that direction. How and why is this happening? People are getting old and dying, but fewer young people are having children to make up for it. There are all kinds of blame for this to go around. China, for example, once had a one-child policy to control overpopulation, as many of its baby girls were sent elsewhere for adoption. That policy apparently is now backfiring on the Chinese. In the U.S. and other developed countries, more young people are putting off having children, or even getting married. The largest percentage of college students in the U.S. is women, implying that women suddenly are more interested in establishing careers than motherhood. There are reasons for this. First, many marriages do not last, and women do not want to be left with no way to make a living if a marriage fails. Second, if a marriage survives, or, even, thrives, two incomes are needed to build a decent life. Even with two incomes, young people are paying a lot more for necessities than their parents or grandparents did. Housing, no matter where it is, is in short supply and is expensive. Food costs a lot more than it once did. Consider how the price of eggs affected the last presidential election. So, being a young person in his or her 20s just beginning adulthood is not necessarily an enviable place. These circumstances have older people celebrating that they are old. The biggest family expense may be children. They need to be fed, clothed, kept healthy and educated. Even in countries in which the government helps considerably with those expenses, it’s still difficult for young people to have and support families. In countries in which the government declines to provide sufficient help to families, the challenge is much more difficult. When both parents work, children need to be cared for. Such childcare often goes unsubsidized, so the parents decide whether one of their jobs is worth that expense. If the answer is no, they are likely to put off having children or quit a job and suffer financially. Longing for past eras, in which partners played specific family roles, will not bring back those old days. In short, countries are aging because it is difficult to be young today. If governments want their demographics to improve, they must take action to help young families. It’s great to give young people the freedom to create their own lives, but, today, more often than not, they can’t do it without help. Moms and dads are finding their financial ties to their children last well into adulthood. This may prevent some from living out their elder years the way they would like. When mom and dad are gone, their children may miss that support. So, countries will continue to age. They will continue to struggle finding young workers. They’ll continue to see many family units with only one or two people, and no or few children. If it’s seen as a problem now, time will only make it worse unless some intervention occurs. Trying to bring back life from decades past is not a solution. Governments will have to adjust policies to make and grow young families. If they don’t, the old will continue to age and the young will continue to struggle. Peter
#education #PublicEducation #bathrooms #BookBans #pronouns #SchoolSports It’s tough to improve public education when officials – many of whom are elected – talk more about bathrooms, book bans, pronouns and whether transgender students should play on girls sports teams. No one seems to be talking about things like middle school design, high school size and pupil-teacher ratios, as they had in the past. But, maybe that’s the point. If officials focus on seemingly extraneous issues, public education will go away, and students will be left to fend for themselves in the private school market. Maureen Downey, recently retired education columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, addressed this in her November 26, 2024, column. On the federal level, there’s a push to abolish the U.S. Department of Education. Of course, the states do not want to see the federal education money dry up, but they just don’t want all the regulations that may come with that money. Besides, the bathroom and book-ban talk gets many voters riled up, Downey points out. Regardless of what anyone thinks of public schools, they have to take every kid. Private schools can discriminate about which kids they take. And, if public schools are underfunded, the students are very likely to be less well educated, especially when school officials focus more on extraneous, but provocative, issues more than they focus on student achievement, getting the best teachers and having everything students need to get the best education possible. But, some elected officials don’t necessarily want smart kids. The smarter the kid, the smarter the adults they will become. They may actually see the extraneous issues for what they are, and vote out some of these elected officials. These officials may prefer to simply teach obedience rather than creativity. They see danger in encouraging kids to have minds of their own. These same officials also oppose widespread immigration. If the children we are educating don’t have the smarts it will take to do the jobs of tomorrow, those brains may have to come from other countries. Many highly technical U.S. jobs are held by people with very foreign-sounding names. Some of these are American, but some are not. As Downey points out, 56 percent of Georgia students test below proficiency in algebra. Algebra is the beginning of more advanced math, which is and will be required for the jobs of the future. As discussed here previously, there’s a desire to control smart people, including teachers. Discrediting their work, creativity and ingenuity enhances desired political narratives. If children become too smart, they can discredit and disprove those desired political narratives. Therefore, highlighting extraneous issues in education creates the anger the officials want and makes it easier to dismantle public education. So, if these officials succeed, if you have a student with disabilities or other learning issues and you are forced into the private market to educate them, good luck finding a school that will take them. If your child is shut out of the private education market, it won’t matter what bathroom or pronoun that student uses. Peter
