Category: Politics

The Crypto What

When I first heard of cryptocurrencies, I immediately reflected back on the time when I sat with Mondex, in my portfolio of technologies.

We believed that you needed a point of origination responsible for issuing an amount of value that the economy could sustain in this card based electronic format.

Typically, the architecture assumed somebody would take monies on deposit or cash and exchange it for this digital currency, with the sovereign authority responsible for issuing the Mondex, multicurancy currencies, or its agents, the Banks.

It was assumed, when the digital currency form Mondex reached a critical element of the economy; transfer the origination function to the appropriate national authority.

My first memory, of bitcoin., is 2012, maybe 13. Here was this very ingenious cryptographic method of recording every transaction as a ledger entry created the ability to create a currency that was represented by records on a ledger that could only be written to, was signed.

And, had an immutable characteristic that guarantee nothing in the past could be changed.

Ok

Consensus leads to expense.

But, consensus assures trust

In an environment of zero trust.

The world then 2008

and

now 2025.

When did we stop trusting the party in the USA responsible for the money supply.

Do we intend to leave control with the speculators

BLOCKCHAIN Economy

A Conversation with Gemini

What is the economic reality of blockchain write only databases or ledgers.

Show thinking

Okay, let’s break down the economic reality of blockchain-based databases or ledgers, focusing on their characteristic as largely “append-only” (data is added, but extremely difficult to modify or delete once confirmed).

The economic reality is complex and highly dependent on the specific use case, the type of blockchain (public vs. private/consortium), and comparison to traditional database solutions. Here’s a breakdown:

  • 1. High Costs (Often Higher than Traditional Databases):
  • Development & Implementation: Building and integrating blockchain solutions requires specialized expertise, which is often expensive and less common than traditional database skills. Setting up nodes, smart contracts, and ensuring security is complex.  
  • Transaction Costs (Gas Fees): Particularly on public blockchains (like Ethereum), every transaction (writing data) requires a fee paid to network validators/miners. These fees can fluctuate wildly and become prohibitively expensive, especially for high-volume applications.  
  • Energy Consumption: Proof-of-Work (PoW) blockchains (like Bitcoin, though Ethereum has moved away) are notoriously energy-intensive, leading to high operational costs and environmental concerns. Proof-of-Stake (PoS) and other consensus mechanisms are more efficient but still require infrastructure and incentives.  
  • Storage Costs: Every node in the network typically stores a copy (or at least the headers) of the entire ledger. As the ledger grows, storage requirements increase across the network, although solutions like sharding aim to mitigate this.  
  • Scalability Limitations & Costs: Many blockchains face limitations in transaction throughput (transactions per second). Scaling solutions (like Layer 2 networks) add complexity and potential additional costs or trust assumptions.  
  • 2. Economic Benefits (The Value Proposition – Where Costs Might Be Justified):
  • Trust & Transparency: In scenarios involving multiple parties who don’t fully trust each other (e.g., supply chain, consortiums, international trade), the shared, immutable, and transparent nature of the ledger can reduce the need for costly intermediaries, audits, and reconciliation processes. This disintermediation is a key potential economic benefit.  
  • Immutability & Security: The high cost and difficulty of altering past records provide strong data integrity. This is valuable for applications where tamper-proofing is critical (e.g., land registries, intellectual property, voting systems – though practical implementations vary). This reduces risks associated with data manipulation or fraud.
  • Automation via Smart Contracts: Smart contracts can automate agreements and processes based on ledger data (e.g., automatic payment release upon verified delivery). This can reduce administrative overhead and speed up execution, potentially lowering costs.  
  • Resilience & Availability (Decentralization): A truly decentralized network has no single point of failure, potentially offering higher uptime and censorship resistance compared to centralized databases (though many “enterprise blockchains” are not fully decentralized).  
  • 3. The Crucial Question: Is Blockchain Economically Viable for a Specific Use Case?
  • Comparison to Alternatives: For many applications, a traditional, centralized database (SQL, NoSQL) managed by a trusted entity is far cheaper, faster, more scalable, and easier to manage. The key economic question is whether the unique benefits of blockchain (trustlessness, transparency, immutability) outweigh its significant costs and complexities for that specific problem.
  • Problem Fit: Blockchain makes the most economic sense when:
  • Multiple, mutually distrusting parties need to share and agree on data.
  • Immutability and auditability are paramount.
  • Disintermediation offers significant cost savings or efficiency gains.   A degree of decentralization is required for resilience or censorship resistance.
  • Private/Permissioned vs. Public Blockchains:
  • Public: Higher potential for true decentralization and censorship resistance, but often higher transaction costs (gas fees), lower throughput, and less control. Economic model often relies on native tokens.
  • Private/Permissioned: Controlled by a single entity or consortium. Generally faster, cheaper transactions (no public gas fees), and higher privacy, but sacrifices decentralization and potentially some trust benefits. Costs are shared among participants or borne by the managing entity. Often closer to a shared, immutable database than a truly decentralized system.
  • 4. Economic Reality Check:
  • Hype vs. Reality: Many proposed blockchain use cases haven’t proven economically superior to existing solutions after the initial hype.
  • Adoption: While adoption is growing in specific niches (DeFi, supply chain pilots, cross-border payments, NFTs), it’s far from mainstream for general database needs.
  • Immutability as a Drawback: The inability to easily change or delete data can be an economic liability, especially concerning errors, updates, or regulations like GDPR’s “right to be forgotten.” Workarounds exist but add complexity and cost.
  • In Conclusion:
    • The economic reality of blockchain ledgers is that they are often more expensive, slower, and more complex than traditional databases. Their economic viability hinges entirely on whether the specific problem requires the unique benefits of decentralization, transparency, immutability, and trust reduction among multiple parties, and whether these benefits provide value that significantly outweighs the higher costs and inherent limitations compared to centralized alternatives. For many standard data storage and retrieval tasks, traditional databases remain the far more economical choice

Margin Satisfaction and the Golden Rule

https://claude.site/artifacts/071508b2-0cfc-4832-89b5-63769bcdf0c3

Marginal Satisfaction: A Different Measure of Success

In a world obsessed with profit maximization and shareholder returns, we often overlook a fundamental question: What truly creates satisfaction in our economic lives? The concept of marginal satisfaction offers an alternative lens through which to view our economic decisions and structures.

Beyond Monetary Metrics

Marginal satisfaction examines how each additional unit of a resource, experience, or product contributes to our wellbeing. Unlike the relentless pursuit of financial growth, it acknowledges that satisfaction follows a curve – additional wealth, consumption, or profit provides diminishing returns once basic needs are met.

This perspective challenges the Friedman Doctrine that has dominated business thinking for decades, which states that a company’s sole responsibility is to increase profits for shareholders. While this approach has created enormous wealth, it has also contributed to:

  • Environmental degradation
  • Widening inequality
  • Worker exploitation
  • Social fragmentation
  • Ethical compromises

The Golden Rule Economics

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This ancient wisdom appears across cultures and faiths, offering a profound economic principle as well as a moral one.

When applied to business and economics, the Golden Rule suggests that true satisfaction comes not from maximizing one’s own gain regardless of impact, but from creating mutual benefit. It recognizes that our economic destinies are intertwined – that an economy built on exploitation eventually undermines itself.

Voices of Balance

Many visionary leaders have recognized the need to balance shareholder value with broader stakeholder concerns:

  1. Paul Polman transformed Unilever by eliminating quarterly reporting to focus on long-term sustainability, demonstrating that purpose and profit can align.
  2. Hubert Joly revitalized Best Buy by investing in employees and creating a people-centered culture that ultimately delivered strong financial results.
  3. Rosabeth Moss Kanter has consistently advocated for the stakeholder approach, arguing that companies serve society best when they consider all constituencies.
  4. Larry Fink of BlackRock has used his influence to push companies toward stakeholder capitalism, recognizing that long-term value creation depends on serving broader societal needs.
  5. Marc Benioff of Salesforce embodies the 1-1-1 model: dedicating 1% of product, equity, and employee time to philanthropic causes while building a highly profitable company.

These leaders understand what marginal satisfaction economics suggests: that beyond a certain point, additional profit provides less satisfaction than meaningful impact, purpose, and contribution.

What Would Jesus Say?

The teachings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels offer a powerful perspective on economics and satisfaction:

“What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?” (Matthew 16:26)

Jesus consistently challenged the prevailing economic wisdom of his day, suggesting that true wealth lies not in accumulation but in contribution. He warned about the spiritual dangers of greed and taught that we should care for the poor and marginalized.

“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:25)

These “red letter” teachings don’t condemn business or profit itself, but rather the prioritization of wealth over human dignity and spiritual values. They suggest that true satisfaction comes from living in alignment with deeper purposes – creating value for others, serving needs beyond our own, and recognizing our interconnectedness.

The Path Forward

Embracing marginal satisfaction economics doesn’t mean abandoning profitability. Rather, it means recognizing that profits are one measure of success among many, and that beyond a certain point, additional profit yields less satisfaction than purpose, contribution, and mutual benefit.

By balancing shareholder value with stakeholder wellbeing, we can build businesses and economies that generate not just financial returns, but true and lasting satisfaction for all.

Made with Claudia.ai after chats with Gemini, and ChatGPT.

Is it a lie 3500 years old

Think Gaza, The West Bank, Syria, Jordan, Suez, and Israeli as The Land of Canaan.

The lie embedded into a book of Lore, Myth and explanation of the unknown. Ultimately the tribes beliefs and truths.

Genesis 12 The Call of Abram (Ac 7:2-5)[12:1] Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. [2] I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. [3] I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”*[4] So Abram went, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. [5] Abram took his wife Sarai and his brother’s son Lot, and all the possessions that they had gathered, and the persons whom they had acquired in Haran; and they set forth to go to the land of Canaan. When they had come to the land of Canaan, [6] Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak*[Or terebinth] of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. [7] Then the LORD appeared to Abram, and said, “To your offspring* I will give this land.” So he built there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him.

I struggle to believe my God would decide to vanquish some to give to another with war and violence justified in anything but your proof.

The Dark Within: A Reckoning of Power, Truth, and the Path We Did Not Take


We are not born with blood on our hands.

We are taught to see clean hands as weak.

Power does not always corrupt. But it always tempts. It whispers that we are the exception.

The Golden Rule does not break from ignorance—but from entitlement.

Zoroaster named it before doctrines hardened: the light and the dark dwell not in heavens, but in us. Each choice bends toward harmony or harm.

Siddhartha saw it through silence: suffering is born not of sin, but of craving, illusion, and fear.

He offered no punishment. Only understanding.

Jesus echoed them both: “The kingdom is within you.”

He cast out no demons but those we empower. He did not condemn. He invited.

Still—we built crosses. Crowns. Contracts. Statues to power. Churches to house whom?

  • We wrote rules to silence questions.
  • We turned reverence into ritual.
  • And we anointed exemption.
  • We claimed chosenness.

And in doing so, we carved out circles—some within, most without.

To be chosen became license.

But the moment we believe our tribe exempt, we forsake the truth that could have freed us all.

Now, we ask: Why not?

Why do we not live by the one rule every tradition speaks?

Because to follow it would unravel what we’ve built.

Because to live it would make no one the exception.

Yet still—it calls.

  • Because it waits.
  • Because it endures.
  • Because it is the path we did not take.
  • Until now.

Moving from Darkness to Light

Can We Keep Everyone in the Light and Help Others Come Out of the Dark?

The age-old battle between light and darkness isn’t just religious metaphor – it’s deeply rooted in our DNA and shaped by our environment. As someone who is spending time studying both ancient wisdom and modern science, I’ve come to realize that our capacity for darkness is neither purely inherited nor entirely learned. It’s a complex dance between our genes and our experiences.

Think about death. Our ancestors knew something we often forget: how we treat death reveals everything about how we value life. Ancient cultures didn’t just acknowledge darkness – they developed intricate rituals to process it, understand it, and ultimately transcend it.

But here’s what keeps me up at night: if darkness lurks in both nature and nurture, can we ever truly help someone step into the light? Science suggests yes. Our genes aren’t our destiny, and our environment isn’t our fate. Modern research shows that the same genetic variants that can make someone vulnerable to darkness can also make them more responsive to light.

The real question isn’t whether we can help others find the light – it’s whether we’re willing to understand the darkness first. Every faith tradition that survived since ancient times has grappled with this challenge. They didn’t just condemn the darkness; they sought to understand it, contain it, and sometimes even transform it.

So maybe that’s our path forward. Not denying the darkness exists, but recognizing it as part of our shared human experience – one that we can help each other navigate through understanding, compassion, and deliberate action.

Because in the end, light doesn’t eliminate shadows. It helps us see them clearly enough to find our way through.

What are your thoughts on helping others find their way from darkness to light? Share your experiences in the comments below.

What Donald Trump Should consider

I asked Claude, the app, on my Samsung S22. With tariffs and taxes plus policy what would it take to bring manufacturing back to America without requiring the import of labor.

Here is her response

Let me analyze this through the lens of what a single 4-year administration could realistically accomplish:

Short-Term Actions (1-4 years):

Environmental/Climate:
– Executive orders on emissions standards
– EPA regulations on manufacturing pollution
– Tax incentives for clean manufacturing
– Fast-track permits for clean energy manufacturing
– Require environmental impact studies for new facilities

Consumer Demand Drivers:
– “Buy American” federal procurement requirements
– Consumer education campaigns
– Trade policies favoring domestic production
– Incentives for retailers to stock domestic goods
– Support for domestic supply chain development

Manufacturing Incentives:
– Immediate tariffs on targeted imports
– Tax credits for reshoring operations
– Grants for workforce training
– Fast-track permitting for new facilities
– Infrastructure spending to support manufacturing

Longer-Term Effects (Beyond 4 years):
– Reshored manufacturing facilities take 2-5 years to build
– Environmental improvements from shorter supply chains
– Workforce development programs bear fruit
– New domestic supply chains mature
– Consumer behavior shifts solidify

Key Limitations:
1. Many changes require Congressional approval
2. Legal challenges could delay implementation
3. International trade agreements restrict some actions
4. State/local cooperation needed for many initiatives
5. Market forces may resist rapid change

The most effective strategy would likely focus on:
1. Actions within executive authority
2. Programs that can be funded through existing mechanisms
3. Initiatives that create momentum beyond the term
4. Partnerships with state/local governments
5. Private sector incentives that encourage long-term investment

The Path Forward

Reimagining Economic Systems: A Framework for Universal Prosperity

In our current global discourse, we often find ourselves trapped between two seemingly opposing economic models: the perpetual growth economy and the sustaining economy. But what if we could create something better? Something that combines the innovative drive of growth with the wisdom of sustainability, while ensuring no one is left behind?

The False Dichotomy

For too long, we’ve been told we must choose between economic growth and sustainability. The growth model promises opportunity but delivers inequality and resource depletion. The sustainability model offers stability but might limit human potential. Neither fully addresses the needs of all people – the 100%.

A New Framework: Progressive Sustainability

What we need is a framework that transcends this artificial division. I call it the Progressive Sustainability Framework. This approach combines three essential elements:

1. Universal Economic Security: Ensuring everyone’s basic needs are met through guaranteed access to housing, healthcare, education, and nutrition.

2. Innovation with Purpose: Maintaining the dynamic drive of market economies, but directing it toward solving real human challenges and environmental regeneration.

3. Democratic Resource Management: Treating our planet’s resources as a common heritage, managed sustainably for current and future generations.

Constitutional Evolution

Implementing this framework in the United States would require significant constitutional evolution. Our current constitution, brilliant as it was for its time, never anticipated the global challenges we face today. We need new amendments that establish economic rights, ensure sustainable resource management, and redefine corporate responsibility for the modern era.

This isn’t just theory – it’s a practical framework for building a better world. By combining economic security with innovation incentives and sustainable resource management, we can create a system that truly works for everyone.

The real question isn’t whether we can afford to make these changes. The question is: can we afford not to?

Your thoughts and perspectives on this framework are welcome. How do you envision a economic system that works for everyone?

—
This post explores ideas for evolving our economic and constitutional frameworks to better serve all people while ensuring long-term sustainability. Join the discussion in the comments below.

Navigating a Divided World: A Personal Approach

The current political climate can feel overwhelming, especially when it seems like the world is moving in a direction that doesn’t align with your values. But remember, while we may not be able to control the larger political landscape, we can control our own responses and actions.

Prioritizing Self-Care

  • Mental Health Matters: Practice mindfulness techniques like meditation or yoga to reduce stress and anxiety.
  • Physical Well-being: Ensure you’re getting enough sleep, eating nutritious food, and exercising regularly.
  • Digital Detox: Limit your exposure to news and social media, especially if it’s causing you distress.

Engaging Constructively

  • Educate Yourself: Stay informed about current events, but be mindful of the sources you rely on.
  • Open Dialogue: Engage in respectful conversations with those who hold different views.
  • Support Positive Change: Volunteer, donate, or advocate for causes you care about.

Protecting Your Peace

  • Set Boundaries: Limit your exposure to negativity and toxic people.
  • Focus on What You Can Control: Concentrate on the things you can influence, like your own actions and choices.
  • Practice Gratitude: Focus on the positive aspects of your life, no matter how small.

Remember, it’s okay to feel overwhelmed or frustrated. The key is to find healthy ways to cope and channel your energy into positive action. By taking care of ourselves and engaging in constructive dialogue, we can navigate these challenging times with grace and resilience.

Developed with the help Gemini

I listen to J D Vance

Over the last several days, I’ve been listening to an interview with J D Vance on the New York Times Podcast The Daily.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/1PYZ9PxZCJrYxV9zuxzvSo?si=syhv9iSpSyW5aTKQC-wssg

What is interesting is I agree with many things he says. But the logic gets turned around and circular. On one side he talks about the fundamental reality. American businesses and individuals hire these immigrants creating illegal subcultures unable to ask help of the Police to police their communities.

But like with the tarrif they forget who ultimatelynpsyd for any tax the government imposes. Government sanctioned project cost tax payers money or add to our debt.

That begs another conversation about debt. And, how it gets confused with debit. He then twists himself up about abortion, women’s right to choice, compounded by the complexity of should the states decide. Whereas I would argue neither of you havento right to decide what I do about protecting my life and body. Yes a fetus that is unable to care for itself becomes what?

Is it, by itself able to survive, or does its life also become part of the formula of the woman’s rights to a life. Here we can then embrace social norms to balance sensitivities that will arise between different reading of faith based documents. YetnI think we all agree it is not the publics right to decide. It is the doctor, family and faith leaders and other parties that help the girl deal with her life decisions.

Vance was twisted without clarity but to bounce back to the original mantra of States decide. No the public not the government decides.

This whole issue of immigration gets to the question of how we think about people wanting to come to this country. I hear different issues arising around how we manage immigration in whichever is political.

Bottom line I fear the nature of the man.


Letter to members of the Republican party

Dear Members of the GOP,

As you are aware, income inequality and poverty are ongoing challenges in our society that have a detrimental impact on individuals and families, particularly those with lower incomes. Despite the strength and resilience of the American economy, many of our citizens struggle to access basic necessities such as food, housing, and healthcare.

I write to you today to urge you to consider the importance of a comprehensive safety net in addressing these challenges. A safety net that provides a basic level of income, housing, and healthcare support can help to ensure that all individuals and families have access to the basic necessities of life. Additionally, access to education and job training programs, such as vocational training and apprenticeships, can help to increase social mobility and promote economic opportunities for all.

I understand that as a party, you value the principles of individual freedom and limited government intervention. However, I believe that providing a safety net and access to education and healthcare is not only morally right but also consistent with these principles. A safety net can help to ensure that all individuals have the opportunity to succeed and reach their full potential, regardless of their background or economic circumstances. It can also help to promote greater income equality and access to opportunities, which can lead to a happier and healthier society overall.

I hope that you will consider the importance of a comprehensive safety net in addressing the ongoing challenges of income inequality and poverty in our society. I would be happy to discuss this further and provide additional information and research on the topic.

Sincerely,

Thinking Voting

Today we seek to ensure each citizen eligible to vote can vote. Issues like location, geography, education are all elements of the values we must embrace as we work to assure the citizens ability to vote.

The first question of voter and eligibility takes us into the realm of who or how elections are managed. Candidates, contests, question are all elements of what is presented to the voter as a ballot. According to practices and rules, contests involve selecting candidates. While questions focus on yes/no answers or a score.

Anonymity creates a need to construct a mechanism to assure one vote per voter while preserving the privacy of the voters identity. This one requirement solved reduces the risk landscape significanttly and complicates the angle of attack.

Adhering to a security first continous improvement principles and integrating prevention and detection into the design of the source code.

I believe Voatz has solved the most challenging task and embraced best of breed components and partners to build a secure immutable record of each unique anonymously signed ballot.

The rest, as long as vendor certification mechanisms and coherent standards exist, has been done over and over again in: financial services, government services, defense, health, and retail. With sound software design and release procedures, built on quality principles inherent in the companies ethos

All we need is the right to improve democracy.

No one is chosen

How can any tribe claim to be chosen?  When so many other cultures and tribes emerged in other parts of the globe.  Each grew up with an understanding of the unimaginable Creator. God, by whatever name.

This elemental craving to be better than another goes back to the emergence of language. When we learned to communicate with together we began to wonder: how or why?

These two questions get more complicated when we wonder how those lights appear in the night sky or why the rain does not soak the earth.

Yet up against the Mediterranean this band of escaped Egyptian slaves claim lands from the inhabitants.

A long time ago out of Northeastern Africa Homosapien emerged.

Homo sapien an interesting evolution of the primate. They settled in tribal communities. Evolved and seeking shelter, food source, drinking water, and sanitation together.

A new world order seems to be the next step in man and woman’s evolution. Division twin tribes, cultures, people and religion create animosity. It is this animosity built on fear often times we we must address as we evolve.

Where would I live if both ice caps melted and all glaciers disappeared. How much water did you put on the Earth? Somewhere on what will become Eastern seaboard is where Philip wants to build, I’m home.

The next question, when does it matter. If I think of myself 2050 I would be 96. If I think beyond, 21 sounds like a good number.

The Israel mistake – Sheikh Jarrah – is part of Palestine

In August 2009, the court evicted the al-Hanoun and al-Ghawi families from two homes in Sheikh Jarrah and Jewish families moved in based on a Supreme Court ruling that the property was owned by Jews. The United Nations  coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Robert Serry condemned the decision: “These actions heighten tensions and undermine international efforts to create conditions for fruitful negotiations to achieve peace.”[34] The US State Department called it a violation of Israel’s obligations under the Road map for peace.[35] Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said “Tonight, while these new settlers from abroad will be accommodating themselves and their belongings in these Palestinian houses, 19 newly homeless children will have nowhere to sleep.”[34] Yakir Segev of the Jerusalem municipal council responded: “This is a matter of the court. It is a civil dispute between Palestinian families and those of Israeli settlers, regarding who is the rightful owner of this property… Israeli law is the only law we are obliged to obey.”[36]

Sheikh Jarrah –  https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sheikh+Jarrah/@31.7743298,35.2207493,13z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x150329c27b01f693:0xce2261ccf7265d95!8m2!3d31.790504!4d35.228707

In 2021, clashes occurred between Palestinians and Israeli police over planned evictions in the neighborhood.[37][38]

Israeli Palestine May 12th, 2021

12 May 2021

 

Voter suppression cannot be what the political parties seek

I am confused. I thought the goal of a democratic society was to ensure each citizen of age had the ability and the right to vote. In 2020 there was and still is a pandemic often in history there have been natural disasters these challenges create issues voters have to consider when attempting to voice their intent on who shall represent them at a city, municipal, county, state, or federal level.

Many legislatures, Secretaries of State, or Lieut. Governors decided to expand the ability for voters to vote by mail. Our previous president argued mail-in voting was subject to fraud and built a case or better-said conspiracy theory that would allow him to contest the election of Joe Biden as the 46th president of the United States. Now the GOP is busy attempting to rewrite the law that will remove the ability of those unable to attend the voting place to use mail-in ballots. Why one should ask! To restrict the number and class of people who can vote in a democracy is unacceptable. Our political class should wish and work and make sure our democratic process of voting enables each of us the ability and the right to vote. Any attempt to limit someone’s ability to vote should be classed as a criminal act. By making this statement one could easily argue the GOP are criminals.

Often in history, those who seek power seek to suppress those who wish to also participate. We can only hope the good people of this country will decide that we are a free nation built upon laws that engender respect and seek to include everyone.

Social Media and the Threat of Mis or is it Dis Information

A long time ago, while installing Voice, Video, and Digital services on Trading Rooms in London and on Wall Street, stories of dis-information and the ability to manipulate the market were often told around the Bar at Harry’s on Hanover Square. Today we see manipulation in the political and economic spheres capable of alternating world order and drives nations into Civil war.

We must find a way of removing the risk of misinformation and restore truth and fair play into everything we hear and do.

Gamestop_mess