Vote From the Horse’s Mouth

August 16, 2012 by Leave a Comment
The Horse's Mouth

Oddly enough, we’re relating politicians to horse mouths, not the other end of the animal

In listening to the political rhetoric this election season, one phrase comes to mind, “straight from the horse’s mouth”. I’m hearing many politicians put a lot of words into their opponents’ mouths. In many cases, the claims are outrageous. Assertions of politicians wanting to hurt people, charges of hidden agendas against women or other interest groups, and accusations of criminal activity are just a few examples of all sorts of the crazy things being levied.

What I humbly suggest to all voters this year, regardless of which way you ultimately vote, is to base your vote on what is coming from the proverbial horse’s mouth. Instead of believing the wild accusations an opponent says about a candidate, listen to what the candidates themselves actually say. Yes, that means you must trust what the candidates are saying, but at least for this election, that’s probably your best bet. This year’s election is shaping up to offer voters something that we haven’t seen in a long time: races where the distinction between candidates are very clear.

Once all the rhetoric is distilled down, it seems that this year’s major races are largely shaping up to be a contest between people who believe in a drastically different size and role of government. What you as a voter need to decide is your belief in big government or small government. If you believe big government is the answer for society’s problems and want to see government get bigger, you have some obvious choices. If you think big government is the problem and would like to see it shrink so that the people can resolve their own problems, you have some other clear choices. Everything else the candidates talk about, especially the claims they make about their opponents, are mostly distractions. Don’t get caught up in them, particularly the negative attacks. Simply decide how you feel about the size and role of government, find the candidate that claims to line up with your view, and vote that way.

Now if you are having trouble understanding and deciding on the proper size and role of government, then let’s talk …

Filed Under: Liberty

Microsoft’s Perception Problem

August 3, 2012 by 1 Comment
Steve Ballmer Scratching Head

Microsoft may not know how to solve this problem

If you miss what’s happening then the same kind of thing that happened to IBM or many other companies could happen to Microsoft very easily. – Bill Gates, circa 1995

In this quote Bill Gates was talking about the last major transition that occurred in the technology industry. The emergence of the personal computer during the 80’s and early 90’s sunk many early technology companies and almost toppled even IBM. Bill Gates recognized that no matter how big a company is, a significant shift in technology can undermine a business model almost overnight. This was one of the reasons that under Bill Gates, Microsoft was merciless to their competitors and almost as merciless to their own strategic partners. Bill Gates saw nearly everything as a threat and he was not going to let an up-and-coming new technology do to Microsoft what the personal computer did to IBM.

Fast forward to today and we see that Bill Gates’s prophecy is holding true. Microsoft, as many other Old World technology companies, are struggling to find relevancy in The New World of Technology led by companies such as Apple, Google, and Facebook. Once dominant, Microsoft and their OEM partners settled for complacency in the PC market while companies began to grow empires in the new markets of Internet, social media, and digital media players. For many technology companies such as RIM (BlackBerry), the knockout came with the one-two combination of the iPhone and iPad. For Microsoft, they’ve been knocked down, but the question is can they get back up. And if they do manage to get back up, will they ever resemble the dominant company they once were?

It’s no secret that Microsoft’s future hinges on how well they execute their launch of Windows 8. Windows 8 is the lynchpin of Microsoft’s strategy to recapture the title of the world’s leading technology company. Microsoft’s plan is pretty simple. They want to bring a new and unified Windows interface to PCs, laptops, tablets, and smartphones. By doing this, Microsoft believes they can leverage their dominance of the PC market to jump-start their entry into the mobile market. They believe Windows 8 will be the bridge between the Old World and the New World of Technology. On the surface, this sounds like a fair plan. Many people are familiar with the Windows operating system so it could follow that they’d like to extend that familiarity to their other devices as well. However, Microsoft’s entire plan revolves around a key assumption. It is this assumption that ultimately will doom Microsoft’s strategy and possibly the company itself.

What goes around, comes around.

Microsoft makes the assumption that the familiarity people have with Windows equals an enthusiasm for the operating system. At first glance this assumption might seem valid. After all Microsoft Windows is still the most popular operating system in the world. PCs running Microsoft Windows continue for the time being to outsell most other computing devices. So with all those Windows computers being sold, it would seem to follow that Windows is a popular operating system. The fallacy in this assumption, however, is that the people using Windows-based computers actually like Windows. Consider these facts:

  • The vast majority of PC purchases are made by large companies. Enormous volumes of purchases are controlled by a relatively few people in IT departments. Large numbers of people who ultimately use the computers generally didn’t have a say in the purchase decision.
  • Until recently, most people based their individual technology purchasing decisions upon what they used at work or were recommended by their IT departments.
  • The early history of the PC market was marked by compatibility issues. It was difficult to share data or software between different computing systems, entrenching many users into the Windows platform over several purchase cycles.

However, things have changed over the last several years:

  • Smartphones and tablets have expanded the definition of what people consider “computers”. Sales of these mobile devices have definitively impacted the PC market.
  • Society is much more tech-savvy now. Consumers are no longer relying on IT departments for their information, are now making their own purchase decisions, and are increasingly buying non-Microsoft devices.
  • Compatibility issues are much less prevalent now, removing the long-standing hurdle to using non-Windows platforms.
  • The predominant force in the technology industry is now the Internet.

Don’t burn your bridges behind you.

Even with all the above points, the biggest issue working against Windows is the very familiarity that Microsoft thinks is an asset. Yes, most people have years of experience dealing with Windows – but most of that experience has been exasperating! Years of putting up with viruses, awkward user interfaces, instability, and the general hassles of Windows have left people with a bad taste in their mouths. Microsoft thinks that people’s familiarity with Windows means they are comfortable with it. On the contrary, most people want to run screaming from Windows! Where Microsoft thinks that continued sales of Windows means market acceptance, the reality is that for years people didn’t think they had a choice. So they put up with Windows and when time came to buy a new computer, they begrudgingly purchased another Windows PC. But now people are able to confidently choose non-Microsoft platforms and are increasingly doing so. The proof is in the pudding: Apple is the most valuable company in the world, having surpassed Microsoft as the most valuable tech company two years ago. Once people realized a clear alternative to a PC running Windows, they are switching in droves.

Be careful how you treat people on your way up – there may not be anyone around to catch you on your way down.

For years Microsoft was the bully in an abusive relationship. They pushed around their partners and they abused their end-users. It is well-known that Bill Gates had an extremely strong desire not just to be successful, but to crush and eliminate all competition. It was easily evident in their actions during the 1990’s. I remember telling people back then that Microsoft’s actions would come back to haunt them. You simply can’t treat people and companies as badly as they did and expect them to support you in the long run. Now it seems that my prediction is finally coming to fruition. Just like the bully that suddenly finds himself with no one on his side, Microsoft is about to find out that no one really cares if they fall.

You’ve made your bed – now lie in it.

There is really only one group of people who actually want Windows to succeed. Those who have a vested interest in Windows and Microsoft. That includes obviously Microsoft executives, employees, and stockholders. PC vendors also want to see Microsoft succeed. Those who make their living supporting Microsoft technologies such as corporate IT departments and Old World technology journalists also would like to see Microsoft continue their dominance. Suddenly, their job security is at risk as the world starts to shift away from the Microsoft dominated PC era to the New World of Technology. Many of these people wish that things would just go back to the way they were – where they were the decision makers and they could influence the technology people chose. They’ll do (and are doing) everything they can to convince people that Microsoft’s resurgence is right around the corner – just give them a little more time and they’ll be back in the driver’s seat. But Pandora’s box has been opened and there’s no closing it. People are now very familiar with a life away from Microsoft and there’s no way they’re going back to the one who abused them for so many years.

Karma is a bitch.

Some of you may be thinking that my viewpoint is overly-simplistic. But I can tell you that a lifetime spent working with technology has taught me that many things in the tech industry are just that simple. It has also taught me that history repeats itself – as Bill Gates himself recognized. Microsoft and the PC industry were caught with their pants down. Now Microsoft wants to be a player in the New World, and are trying to position themselves as a technology innovator. However, Microsoft represents the Old World of Technology to many people. That Old World was not a happy place for the majority of tech users and they aren’t in a hurry to return to that way of life. This perception is ultimately Microsoft’s biggest problem and one that Microsoft may not be able to overcome.

Filed Under: Technology

The Freeman’s Creed

July 28, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Freeman's CreedI recently stumbled upon the following quote:

I am free because I say I am. My freedom is not dependent on any government benefit or piece of legislation. My rights are inherent in the fact that I was born a sovereign being. They are non negotiable. Government can list them and protect them, but my rights are not theirs to give or take away.

I tried to find where this saying came from but I could not find a source. Oddly enough, the only place I could find it was a couple of web sites, but the most common hit was this particular Facebook posting by Daniel Stratton, a political candidate/commentator from New Zealand. I asked and he was not the originator of this quote. If anyone has any information on where this quote came from, I’d love to know.

In the meantime, I think this “Freeman’s Creed”, as I will call it until otherwise corrected, absolutely deserves its own place on the Internet. Instead of pledging allegiance to a flag and the government it stands for, perhaps we should be encouraging our children (and ourselves) to recite this? What do you think?

Filed Under: Liberty

Microsoft’s Bad Omen

July 25, 2012 by Leave a Comment
Black Cat

A black cat is nothing compared to losing $492 Million

Outside of tech circles, the news that Microsoft reported their first ever quarterly loss appeared to receive very little attention. When I first heard that Microsoft reported a loss after 26 years of profitability, I about peed my pants. We know the New World of Technology is taking its toll on the Old World companies, but could Microsoft really be suffering that badly already?

As soon as I could read some news reports, it turns out the main reason for the loss is that Microsoft was taking a $6.2 billion write-down against their 2007 purchase of aQuantive, an Internet advertising company. The investment in aQuantive wasn’t generating the revenue it expected. So this appears to be mostly a one-time event, not necessarily an overall trend. Most analysts are downplaying the event as insignificant. Nothing for Microsoft or their investors to worry about, most financial and technology pundits claim.

But as I further analyzed the news, I realized that this event is in fact a little more significant than what the analysts and Old World journalists are attempting to downplay. If nothing else, taking a nearly half-billion dollar loss so near to their do-or-die launch of Windows 8 just seems like a bad omen.

Here’s what this loss really highligts about Microsoft: history has shown they’re not really good at competing outside of the PC market. This is just the latest, most glaring example. They bought aQuantive with the intent of competing with Google’s advertising network. Obviously that didn’t work out so well to the tune of $6 billion. But let’s look at some other examples:

  • Internet: Remember MSN? “The Microsoft Network” was supposed to compete with AOL as well as the Internet itself.
  • Search Engine: The MSN name was given to a search engine in 1998, before it was renamed Windows Live Search in 2006, shortened to Live Search in 2007, and then Bing in 2009. The purchase of aQuantive was designed to work with Bing. Again, none of these ventures have been particularly successful for Microsoft.
  • Music Player: Microsoft’s attempt to create an iPod-killer resulted in the Zune device, which was unceremoniously cancelled last year.
  • Smartphone: While having some success in the Old World of Smartphones, Microsoft has yet to truly get out of the gates with something to compete with the iPhone. Their “Kin” phones were infamously cancelled after 6 weeks. After screwing over their Windows 7 Phone customers recently, one must wonder if they have a chance with Windows 8 Phones in the near future.

To be fair, Microsoft’s Xbox line of video game consoles has been an overall success, although never approaching the dominance Microsoft had with Windows and Office. But Nintendo’s Wii shook up the video game market starting in 2006 and now Apple’s iOS devices and mobile gaming are shaking up the market again. So the future of the Xbox and all game consoles is unclear, perhaps another victim of the New World of Technology.

The bottom line is that in markets where Microsoft can’t leverage the dominance of Windows and Office over their vendors and consumers, they don’t compete very well. So while analysts may be shrugging off this half-billion dollar loss, they are missing the fact that for Microsoft to be successful in the future, they must be a viable player in the New World of Technology. The PC era is ending and Microsoft has no proven track record of being able to compete in anything other than the PC market. The future isn’t exactly bright for Microsoft. If Microsoft doesn’t execute their mobile strategy to near perfection – and do it soon – this loss may be a foreshadowing of what is looming down the road.

Filed Under: Technology

Broad-Based Prosperity

July 25, 2012 by 2 Comments

ProsperityRead my Obligatory Obama Disclaimer if you haven’t already.

Given some recent comments coming from Barrack Obama, I thought I would finish an article I had started writing a few months back.

During a speech given in early April, Obama is quoted,

“Broad-based prosperity has never trickled down from the success of a wealthy few. It has always come from a strong and growing middle class.“

Let’s break down some of the assumptions this statement infers:

  • Only a relatively few people can ever be wealthy.
  • Middle class is all the broad majority of us can ever aspire to.
  • Broad-based prosperity is being suppressed by the wealthy.
  • Wealthy people are obligated to give others their money.
  • Americans are inherently greedy.
  • Spreading prosperity requires the force of government.

Now I don’t know about you, but I believe there is room in the world for more than just a few wealthy people. Why should people settle for someone telling them that middle class is all they will ever be? Isn’t that striving for mediocrity? Why can’t we all aspire to be wealthy? Shouldn’t we be focusing on making everyone as wealthy as possible, instead of browbeating people for being “too wealthy” and trying to bring everyone down to middle class?

There is an assumption made by some that wealthy people should be required to give their money to others. That regardless of how much someone may donate to charity, or how much they spread their wealth by spending it on the products and services of others, they still somehow “owe” money to everyone else. As if people have some sort of “right” to the wealth created by others.

Note that there is a big difference between the idea that people should be charitable and voluntarily help others, and the idea that people must be charitable and forced to give up the wealth they created. Those who believe people are greedy and will only help others if forced have a very negative view of the world and this country. Charity stops being charity when it is forced at gunpoint. By believing that force is the only way to create “broad-based prosperity”, they create class warfare where none necessarily existed. They create a perpetual us-vs-them mentality that stymies wealth creation at all levels, effectively counteracting the spread of the prosperity they claim they want to create. Ultimately, they implicitly advocate a violent society.

Unfortunately, this idea that government force is required to spread prosperity is at the core of Obama’s way of thinking. This statement is only one example. “You didn’t build that” is another. Worse, this idea is shared by too many big government politicians and those who support them. Honestly, I think it spits in the face of the American Dream. Obama and those who believe in government force are basically saying that Americans can not be trusted with their own wealth. In other words, we can’t be trusted with our own freedom. I’m not sure if anything could be more insulting to an American.

Let’s get one thing straight. Wealthy people do not suppress prosperity. Wealth is the result of prosperity. Wealthy people can and do share their wealth. There seems to be a train of thought that rich people hoard their money and keep it out of the hands of everyone else. Nothing could be more ridiculous. People with money tend to spend it. Seriously, just think about it for a minute. If you’re not rich, what would you do if you became rich? Would you lock away your money in a safe and just leave it there? I doubt it. You would probably buy a few things or hire a few people. You might start a business or grow your existing business. Perhaps you might invest some of it. And maybe, just maybe, you would *gasp* donate to charity. In actuality, you probably already do many of these things today. If you were rich, you’d just do them all on a bigger scale. If you do these things, don’t you think other wealthy people already do exactly that?

Ironically, only two sentences after his above quote, Obama refutes himself (and makes my previous point) by stating,

“That’s why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so they could buy the cars that they made.”

Wait a second! A wealthy person actually decided to share his wealth? Without the force of government making him do so? Preposterous! Next you’re going to tell me that Henry Ford created a charitable foundation and started a hospital using his own money. That certainly can’t be true. Wealthy people simply don’t share their money, according to Obama and big-government politicians.

Let’s get real. Prosperity, broad-based or otherwise, can only be hindered by big government interference. The bigger the government, the bigger the taxes. By draining wealth out of the economy, there is less wealth that can be voluntarily shared by those who have created it. There is less wealth available that could be used to generate even more wealth. Instead it is siphoned off to pay for layer after layer of unproductive bureaucracy. If you think we can’t trust Americans to share their own wealth, do you really think we can trust a group of unaccountable bureaucrats to do it for us?

The reality is that wealthy people are the most generous. It only makes sense that those with the means to be generous in fact are. The proof is in the pudding, as year after year, studies show Americans are the most generous people in the world. Imagine just how much more generous we would be if government let us all keep more of our own earned wealth.

Filed Under: Liberty

Remember, Remember, This Sixth of November …

July 7, 2012 by Leave a Comment
V

Together we shall give them a sixth of November that shall never, ever be forgot!

Remember, remember!

This sixth of November,

The Obamacare treason and plot;

I know of no reason

Why the Obamacare treason

Should ever be forgot!

For some reason The Fifth of November rhyme has been stuck in my head ever since I first watched the movie V for Vendetta only a few weeks ago  (yeah, I know … I need to get out more). I’m no poet, but after the now infamous Supreme Court Fail it took just a little adaptation and this little ditty was born. Please feel free to spread it around.

Filed Under: Liberty

The Civil War Over Obamacare

July 6, 2012 by 1 Comment

Obamacare

Regardless of how you feel about Obamacare, you must agree that it is one of the most bitterly debated issues in recent history. I personally can not remember an issue in my lifetime that has so polarized and divided the country. Whether you are for it or against it, here are a few facts to ponder:

  • Twenty-six states were part of the case brought before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare
  • 4 of the 9 Supreme Court justices thought it was unconstitutional
  • The one justice that swung the decision originally thought it was unconstitutional and only later changed his mind.
  • The constitutionality of the law was not upheld under the authority originally cited by the legislature that passed it
  • Back when the law was before congress, Obamacare had difficultly getting enough support to pass.
  • With barely enough votes to gain a majority, Obamacare could only be passed using a “reconciliation” procedure that up until that point had only been applied to budgetary matters, not laws creating new policy.

If you knew nothing else, just looking at the facts above, it’s easy to see that Obamacare is a divisive issue. But if you spend any time on social media or keep up with current events, it’s obvious that Obamacare is a hot button topic.

We as a country need to start looking at whether Obamacare is worth the virtual civil war it is causing. Whatever the potential benefits of the law are, we need to start asking ourselves if a law that:

  • introduces such unprecedented changes to the country
  • was passed with the bare minimum of support and only through the use of a controversial legislative procedure
  • was barely upheld by the Supreme Court
  • was only upheld on a controversial technicality
  • has over half the states in the union opposed to it
  • has so many people fighting tooth and nail against it
  • and is stirring up so much ill-will and hatred

is worth the trouble it is causing? This law is supposed to help people, yet all it seems to be doing is generating unhealthy animosity. Yes, people of all political persuasions want affordable healthcare. But do you want it in this way? At what cost to the country are you willing to pay to go along with Obamacare? It is worth tearing the country apart? Could there be better options that don’t pit neighbor vs. neighbor?

Let’s put aside all the debate about constitutionality or taxation or freedom. We should get rid of this law simply because the bad sentiment it is generating is virtually destroying the country. I think it’s a clear-cut case of the cure being worse than the disease. If you claim to believe in the spirit of what Obamacare is supposed to achieve, you know this is the right thing to do. See you in November.

Filed Under: Liberty

Maybe Walking on Train Tracks Isn’t Such a Good Idea

July 5, 2012 by Leave a Comment
Headphones and Train Tracks

This is a bad idea of epic proportions.

In just over the span of a month, two teenagers in my area have been killed by walking on train tracks while wearing headphones. Almost certainly, the kids simply couldn’t hear the trains coming over the music they were listening to. While I feel for the friends and family of these unfortunate kids, by watching the media reports of the accidents, I get the feeling that we’re about to see some blame being shifted to the technology.

I don’t know about you, but when I was young, my parents emphasized to me just how dangerous train tracks could be. From their lessons, there would be no way in hell I would think about walking on train tracks, much less do it while listening to headphones! Still to this day, on the rare occasion that I need to walk across train tracks, I don’t mess around with them. Even though where we live there are many fewer train tracks than there were when I was growing up (most of them have been turned into bike trails) I’ve taken the time to talk to both my daughters about the dangers of train tracks.

Certainly, the problem isn’t listening to music. The problem is listening to music while in a potentially dangerous situation. And to be fair, I’ve not heard anyone directly blaming the technology for these horrible accidents. But these are the types of situations that big government politicians love to sink their teeth into. So don’t be surprised if we see a politician or candidate bring up some sort of initiative to ban kids wearing headphones in public or some other such nonsense. It’s exactly the sort of measure that will accomplish almost nothing while taking away precious law enforcement resources to infringe on the rights of free people. It would also serve to reinforce in our young people that government is here to run your life and it is OK to sacrifice rights in the name of protecting people from themselves. While incidents like these are tragic, the continual erosion of our freedoms is more tragic.

Filed Under: Liberty, Technology

Shouldn’t the President Know This?

July 5, 2012 by Leave a Comment
Obama face palm

Maybe I should read that Constitution thing sometime.

Please see my Obligatory Obama Disclaimer prior to reading this article.

During a naturalization ceremony held in the White House on Independence Day, President Obama is quoted, “What a perfect way to celebrate America’s birthday, the world’s oldest democracy, with some of our newest citizens.” As I’ve written about before, the United States is a republic, not a democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear a single time in the United States Constitution nor in the Declaration of Independence. It’s a little detail of how our government is supposed to work that you would hope the President of our country would know.

To be fair, President Bush also used the phrase “world’s oldest democracy” so it’s not just an Obama thing. In fact, most politicians never mention the republic and only speak of democracy, so we shouldn’t be surprised. But we need to start holding our elected officials accountable to at least understand the very basics of how the government is supposed to work. Because if that can’t get that little detail right, why should we expect them to get anything else right?

On a side note, during this same ceremony, Obama also was quoted, “… the values that we celebrate every Fourth of July: duty, responsibility and patriotism.” Um, what about freedom? You know that little tiny thing that is, oh I don’t know, the most important thing we have? The entire reason for celebrating the 4th of July? Well, if he doesn’t know that the country is a republic, maybe he’s just being honest about the values that he holds most important.

Filed Under: Liberty

If You Don’t Stand For Freedom, What Do You Stand For?

July 4, 2012 by 2 Comments
The Declaration of Independence

“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” – Thomas Paine

Happy Independence Day! Regardless of your political beliefs, I ask that you read this entire article in the spirit of freedom.

Whether you believe that businesses in this country are trampling on the rights of the people, or that special interests are manipulating the government into infringing the rights of individuals, I know that every political viewpoint believes that freedom is being oppressed in this country in one way or another. The problem, I believe, is that far too few people have a clear grasp of what freedom is. How can we all come together under the spirit of freedom when we don’t know that that means?

I don’t blame people for being misinformed. After all, they aren’t being taught the true meaning of freedom in schools nor is it being broadcast by mainstream media. Over the years, the true meaning of freedom has been twisted and corrupted for the benefit of various political agendas. But I do hold everyone accountable who does not take the time to research and truly understand what freedom is. If you aren’t clear on the meaning, how can you say you stand for freedom? There is nothing more important to cherish than your freedom. Every other ideal you hold dear means absolutely nothing without freedom. If you don’t stand for freedom, what do you stand for?

On this commemoration of the day that 56 men pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in the name of freedom for their countrymen, I challenge everyone to re-examine exactly what they stand for. Most people in this country say they believe in freedom, but actions speak louder than words. Freedom is one of those rare things in life that is black-and-white. Either you believe in freedom or you don’t. You can’t half-assed believe in freedom, because if you believe that there can be compromises to freedom, than you’ve compromised the very spirit of freedom itself. And the belief that infringing the freedom of others for some sort of “greater good,” is giving others the permission to infringe your own freedom.

To start, I recommend reading the book Healing Our World, by Dr. Mary Ruwart. It is actually free to read on-line, so there are no excuses for not reading it. Unlike most books that try to explain political concepts by using convoluted philosophical explanations, this book is extraordinarily simple to read and uses examples and analogies that are easy to grasp. The concepts are clear and touch upon almost every societal problem that motivate people of all political persuasions. I guarantee that you will find ideas in this book that will challenge your preconceptions, just as much as you will find thoughts that resonate with you in ways you were never able to put into words before.

If after reading this book and pondering the concepts explained within, you do not find yourself questioning the policies and systems of our government, then I suggest you allow the 4th of July to pass without fanfare from here on out. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, I you would seek as I seek, then welcome to a new consciousness. For just as the founders of this country proved, once you understand the true meaning of freedom, there’s nothing that can stop you from pursuing it.

Filed Under: Liberty
« Previous Page
Next Page »