Privacy vs. Security & Apple

        Privacy vs. security is a political debate that will probably never be resolved as long as the United States remains a democratic republic, and that is good.   

        Theoretically, I would have no problem with a responsible Federal Government invading my privacy if I am not doing anything wrong and that information was kept confidential, but that is a totally naive idea because the government is made up of people, and people are not always honest.  As the saying does; “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

        History shows that some people in government will use this information for political, personal, dishonest, and illegal purposes.  Recent events with the Internal Revenue Service and the National Security Agency have shown that people in government cannot be trusted with all this information. 

        The solution is quit simple.  The Constitution and the Bill of Rights clearly spell out how to deal with this controversy.  The Founding Fathers were very aware of personal privacy rights and the obligation of the Federal Government to provide security for the country.  We just need a common sense interpretation of the Constitution and not try to rewrite it for political purposes.

        In the private sector of our great country the question of security vs. privacy can be handled much easier with a little common sense.  After the San Bernardino terrorist attack, one of dead terrorist’s cell phone was recovered.    There was a very real possibility that this phone could contain information critical to protect us from future terrorist attacks. 

        One of the clear responsibilities of our federal government is to protect us from terrorist attacks.  The government needed this information, but Apple refused.  The government clearly worked within the Constitution and obtained the necessary search warrants.  Apple still refused. 

        Apple’s decision to not work with the government was based on projecting an image of absolute security for their users.  This was a stupid lose-lose decision.  By refusing to work with the government, Apple alienated customers concerned about a terrorist threat. 

        Apple forced the government to crack their security by other means proving the security was not as good as Apple claimed.  This alienated customers concerned about security. 

        Apple’s decision cost them with both customer groups.  It’s no wonder their stock is down.  If Apple would have quietly coopered with government they could have maintained the perception of absolute security for their customers and shown that they had an important role in fighting terror.  Sometimes I am amazed how top management of major corporations can be so short-sighted.  Unfortunately, this problem is not confined to the private sector.  Federal Government bureaucrats are even worse.

http://BusinessFits.com

What's Happening?

       Hillary R. Clinton was the “presumptive” Democratic Presidential candidate before her campaign started.  She was an ultimate insider with intimate connections to big money.  She assumed she would be the first woman President. 

     No one even dared to challenge Hillary.  There were only two other individuals in the first Democratic debate;  one of those individuals was Bernie Sanders.  Sanders is a 74 year old socialist who only joined the Democratic Party in 2015.  He has been an independent from 1979 to 2015 and was elected as a U.S. Senator from Vermont as an independent. 

      The amazing thing is that Hillary can’t get him to go away.  She is still trying to clinch the Democratic nomination for President.  How can this be happening?

      The Republican Presidential nomination has been just a strange.  We started with 17 candidates.  We had candidates with insider name recognition, senators, and governors.  We had black, white, and Hispanic candidates.  Both sexes were represented, and most of the candidates had big money backing and establishment support. 

      Donald Trump was one candidate who was somewhat of a joke.  No one took him seriously.  He was almost like comedian Pat Paulsen running for President.  He is now the presumptive Republican candidate. 

      The Republican Party establishment says Trump is not a true conservative or Republican.  They are right to the extent that Trump is the choice of the populace and not the establishment.  He rejects some of the Republican platform that has been a failure, such as trade and immigration policies. 

      Some Republicans are now endorsing him and the establishment will follow.  They have no choice, because if they don’t, the Republican Party will go the way of the Whig Party. 

      How did this happen?  Trump self-funded his campaign.  He had no organization or ground game.  There is no way he should have won.  

      Trump does some very unconventional things.  He says what he thinks and is seldom politically correct.  He says what he believes and does not care about polls.  He addresses issues like immigration and trade in a common sense way that no responsible politician would ever consider.  Trump is not a politician.  He is a businessman and a patriot.  He does not need to be President.  He believes the country needs Real Change, and feels it is his civic duty to run for President.  Do the people of this great country agree?

     In my book Business Fits, I say the basics of business never change.  The same is true for government.  It’s time we get back to the basics that made this country great. 

http://BusinessFits.com

Starting a Business is Too Risky

      “Starting a business is too risky.  A good job is the only real security.”  This is one of myths about starting a business that I address in my book, Business Fits. 

      This may have been true at one time, but is not true today.  Many of us have a hard time accepting the new reality.  I think it might be harder for women than men.  It is natural for women to want security for their families, even it is based on old truths rather than current realities. 

       There is a movie called A Great American Tragedy about a man who had it made until he lost his job in the aerospace industry.  The movie stars George Kennedy and Vera Miles.  The time period is about 1970, but is timeless in many ways and well worth watching. 

     Kennedy was highly educated with a very specialized job, and lived the good life.  When he got laid off, he thought he would quickly get another job.  He found there were no jobs for him.  It took him a long time to realize this fact and recognize that his life had changed for good.  Even after he understood the reality, he went through a long period of adjustment. 

       Kennedy luckily had a wife and family that were very supportive.  Unfortunately, this is not always the case. 

      We don’t know how things work out for Kennedy, but he  is finally adjusting to his situation at the end o f the movie.  Unfortunately, he may be making another common mistake for people in this situation. 

  Avoiding these mistakes is why I wrote Business Fits.  http://BusinessFits.com. 

      For the last sixty years government jobs offered the best security, but this could be changing.  I hope our bloated, inefficient, and corrupt federal government is due to change. 

Jail for Hillary?

        The first option is that Hillary is totally innocent.  She does claim it is all a Republican conspiracy.  If you buy that, I have a bridge to sell you. 

        The second option is that laws only apply to the poor.  If you are rich and part of the political elite, you are above the law.  Many people feel this is the case.  Even President Richard Nixon said, “If the President does it, that means it’s not illegal.”  Hillary is certainly rich and part of the political elite, so she will get a pass.

        The third option is that the political elite or establishment, both Republican and Democrat, does not want to have the public know how corrupt the establishment is so they all will give her a pass.  She will never be indicted in order to protect the integrity of the Washington DC establishment.    

        The fourth option is that she is elected President.  She will then have the power to make sure she is cleared of all charges.  She will put people in office that will do what she wants. 

        The fifth option is that Hillary does not get elected, but a Republican establishment candidate is elected.  All charges will go away for the same reason as number three.  The Washington establishment must be protected. 

        The sixth and last option is that a Republican outsider candidate is elected President.  In this scenario, Hillary will plead guilty to any possible charges, and President Obama will pardon her on his last day in office.  She must be rewarded for protecting him.

        There is no scenario that Hilary will ever serve jail time; her Teflon coating is impenetrable.  That is the nature of our present government.  Corruption is rewarded. 

        I hope that is going to change.

Marketing is Time Sensitive

        I have worked in marketing all my life.  It’s  interesting because the market is always changing.  A fortune can be spent on a study of how to most effectively market a product or service and the study may totally worthless by the time it is completed because the market has already shifted.   Consumer habits and technology are in a constant state of flux. 

        Advertising is only one small part of a marketing plan, and look at how it has changed.  There was a time when print ads in newspapers and magazines were the number one place for advertising budgets.  The effectiveness of print media was drastically altered by radio and TV.  Many advertising agencies fought this change.  

        TV advertising was very big for many years when there were only a few channels and everything was watched live.  Today there are hundreds of channels.  With the exception of the news and sports, I record everything, and when I watch, I skip the ads.  TV ads are not effective if no one sees them.  Super Bowl ads would be the exception, but those ads cost millions. 

        Computers, cell phones, the Internet, and social media have changed marketing and advertising.  Technology is constantly changing.  An Internet marketing tool may work great the first time and continually lose effectiveness with every succeeding campaign.  

        Promoting books is a good example.  One site may be very effective at promoting an author’s book, but loses effectiveness as the site has more competition and the novelty wears off for the consumer.

       I have seen new start-up businesses spend their entire marketing budget on an impressive website and believe that customers will flock to them.  A web site alone will not work; something has to direct the customer to the web site. 

        The tools and the media change, but the basics for marketing and advertising never change.  For example, the guideline for newspaper advertising stated that; an ad had to run three times for the consumer to see it, six times for the consumer the read it, and nine times for the consumer to remember it.  This is still true today.  An ad in any media will not produce significant results with a one-time exposure. 

        A complete market plan must be developed with an adequate budget for implementation.  For more about marketing, visit http://BusinessFits.com.

        Marketing of political candidates is the same in many ways.  The big difference is that results don’t have to justify the money spent on the campaign.  Big money will donate to all candidates and both parties; because they want to cover all their bases and receive the special consideration they are buying regardless of who wins.  They know their return on investment will be good as long as they can keep big government and the political elite in power. 

        This election may bring about real change.  Campaign tactics have changed.  Big money may not be able to guarantee an establishment candidate.  The establishment and big money are afraid of losing control.  We could actually have a fed-up public elect someone who will work for the people and not big government.

     As Lincoln said in the Gettysburg address, “…that the government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”  I hope we are there before it is too late.

I Need to Find a Business That Can't Fail

        “I need to find a business that can’t fail,” is one of the myths I address in my book, Business Fits.  There is no such thing.  No single business fits every person’s goals and talents.  No business fits in every area.  No business fits every individual’s investment guidelines. 

        Even if there were a business model that couldn’t fail, that business could still fail if the owner doesn’t follow the business system.  For example, if a business is dependant on direct mail for customers and the owner doesn’t send out any direct mail, the business will fail.

        The most common error is to think the product or service is so good and in such high demand, that customers will flock to the business. This is hardly ever true.  The potential customer may never know the product or service is even available without the right marketing. 

        A business might be right for Joe Blow who is an extrovert and loves talking to people and enjoys selling.  The same business could be a total disaster for Jane Doe who is an introvert and hates to sell.  Please note, I never mentioned a product or service.  It is irrelevant.

        For more about how to find the right business for you, go to:  http://BusinessFits.com

False Claims

       I have a couple decades of experience with franchising both on the franchisor side and as a franchisee.  Franchising is highly regulated, and the franchisor is prohibited from making earnigs claims of any kind except for Item 19 in the Uniform Franchise Offering Circular or UFOC.

      Anything that can be interpreted as an earnings claim outside of Item 19 in the UFOC is subject to both state and federal penalties, and civil actions.  I recently looked at a new franchise’s web site.  The site said, on average, a 100% Return-On-Investment was achieved in XX months.  This was definitly an earnings claim and illegal.  Learn more about franchising and UFOCs in Business Fits.   

                        http://BusinessFits.com

     Any business that makes false advertising claims is subject to civil actions and sometimes criminal charges.  Why do we not hold out government bureaucrats and politicians to the same standard?  We expect and accept politicians lying, and worse yet, these lies are believed.  Public servants should be held to a higher standard.

       The media and advertisers should be held liable for political false statements just like any other business.   This false advertising is more damaging to the general population than any false product or service advertising. 

      Super PACs seem to have no responsibility or liability to anyone including the political candidate they are supporting.  PAC is an acronym for Political Action Committee. I find it disgusting when a political candidate claims to have no control over the Super PAC.

     Political ads directed at the youth vote are some of the worst. They are so slanted and untrue that I find them offensive to my intelligence.  However, these false ads must be effective or money would not be spent on them.  IF these blatant lies are effective, what does it say about the political intelligence of our youth?

           Why do we accept that politicians lie?  They should be liable for their lies just like any business.  If they make the lies in Congress, I think they should also be charged with perjury.  Any statement in Congress should be considered to be under oath.

        There is one candidate, and only one, that agrees with everything I have just said.  If you agree with what I have said, I am sure you are voting for that person.  If you don’t know who it is, do some research.

       I hear people say that a Presidential candidate must be able to unify the party.  This is true for both Democrats and Republicans.  Personally, I could care less about uniting either party.  We have too much partisan division now.  I want a Presidential candidate that will unite the country including independents and people that have not been involved in politics before.

       Dr. Ben Carson and others have expressed an opinion that the Republican establishment would rather have Hillary Clinton win than Donald Trump because Clinton would preserve big government and Washington power.  This is scary considering they would be giving up their conservative principles and the Supreme Court for a generation.