I hope everyone has a great Memorial Day weekend…and recalls what Memorial Day is all about. I'll borrow from WikiPedia to summarize it's meaning.
Memorial Day is a United States federal holiday which occurs every year on the final Monday of May.[1]Memorial Day is a day of remembering the men and women who died while serving in the United States Armed Forces.[2] Formerly known as Decoration Day, it originated after the American Civil War to commemorate the Union and Confederate soldiers who died in the Civil War. By the 20th century Memorial Day had been extended to honor all Americans who have died while in the military service[3]. It typically marks the start of the summer vacation season, while Labor Day marks its end.
-----------------
WOUNDED WARRIORS NEED TO BE REMEMBERED TOO--AND HELPED
I don't need to write more, because the link above connects to far more and better messages than I can deliver here. You see, it is no longer just those who lose their lives in war-time. We must honor, remember and help those who lost pieces of their lives, of their bodies and of their psyche to the horrors of war. The fine movie of a couple years ago, THE HURT LOCKER gave just one tiny glimpse into how they suffer and the brutal outcomes. These are mostly young people who sacrifice so we can enjoy the wonderful lifestyle we have.
-----------------
PRIZED POSSESSIONS?
One veteran shared with me his most prized possessions during his stint in Iraq: his camp stool (so he didn't have to sit in the sand) and his bucket (so he could have a little water nearby to wipe his face, and try to remove the ever-present sand and grime). What are your most prized possessions?
-----------------
THESE RETURNING FROM THE SERVICE NEED HELP WITH JOBS TOO
I know readers realize how tough it is for young people to find jobs these days. How about those people who suspended their normal life to go defend our freedoms and serve our country. They come back with a resume that must contain some unfamiliar skills for prospective employers to consider. Perhaps they should list sacrifice, heroism, honor, duty, loyalty and bravery. I'm not sure the exact job that qualifies them for, but I suspect they can use those traits in almost any responsible position. They just need time to learn the work, and have the chance to perform.
-----------------
THE POLITICAL CHALLENGE OF OPPOSING IDEAS--A LITMUS TEST FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS?
-----------------
BENGHAZI COVER-UP, IRS TEA PARTY TARGETING & ELECTION INFLUENCE, AP SEARCHES FOR COVERUP, FOX NEW REPORTER "AIDED AND ABETTED?"
And that is just in the past few weeks news cycle and since last year's pre-election news dump and manipulation. Can you imagine a more frightening array of government over-reach, deception, interference and downright intimidation. I am afraid to write freely any more, because I fear making it onto the "enemies list!"
-----------------
DEMOCRATS DIGITAL DOMINATION AND GET OUT THE VOTE TACTICS
If you don't know what "Inside the Cave" is all about, read up on it. If this doesn't concern you, I'd be surprised.
HERE IS HOW THE CAMPAIGNS AND OUTCOMES OF ELECTIONS IN THE RECENT PAST AND IN THE FUTURE, ARE FOREVER DIFFERENT.
-----------------
FOREWARNED IS FOREARMED
If we do nothing different, the outcomes will not change either. To put it another way, "If nothing changes, nothing will change," or the definition of insanity: "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."
CELEBRATE THIS MEMORIAL DAY, AND REMEMBER WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT
THEN GO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, IN WHICHEVER WAY YOU PREFER. BUT DON'T DO NOTHING--OR JUST "GRIPE ABOUT THINGS."
THE AMERICAN WAY IS TO TAKE ACTION…IF NOT YOU, WHO; AND IF NOT NOW, WHEN?
Ladies and Gentlemen I Give You The Illusionist, Barack Obama!
BY JOHN MARIOTTI
Many would say that the magician is the ultimate liar. His illusions are deceptive arts of the highest skill–but they seldom portray the truth of what is happening. These illusions are, in effect, grandly produced lies. When the magician wishes to perform one of his lies of legerdemain, he must distract the audience from what he is actually doing by doing something more grandiose so they won’t notice his real trickery.
Thus, he flourishes and gestures, drawing the eyes of the audience away from his real deception. The term used to describe the deceptive motion is misdirection. Boxers use feints; baseball pitchers use off speed pitches; football players step one way, but then pull the leg back and cut the other way; basketball players use head fakes, or ball fakes. The President of the United States may have honed his craft on the basketball court or on the streets of Chicago, but wherever he learned it, he is a master of misdirection.
This misdirection has never been on display more than in recent weeks. He released a vast treasure trove of US technology to the public not long ago. But why dump this valuable information into public use, and why now? It was an act of misdirection, to reinforce how transparent his administration is, all the while withholding realms of documents on more sensitive matters (like Benghazi?).
The IRS shocking misbehavior, targeting Tea Party and conservative organizations started back prior to the 2012 election. It was done to harass, slow down, and disable Obama’s opponents, and amazing as it seems, went largely undetected. Why? There were multiple misdirection efforts buried in his campaign, most of them blatantly untrue ads about his opponent, that drew attention away from the much more serious IRS misadventures already underway.
Now the election is over and The Illusionist succeeded in fooling the American voting public once again. He told them the economy was recovering, when it clearly wasn’t, but the grandiosity with which he repeated those lies convinced many that they were true. Now, after stalling the Benghazi coverup with the “fog of war” claims, until the election was past, it is becoming increasingly clear that al-Qaeda and/or some related Islamic terrorist groups were the culprits. When the truth starts coming out, more misdirection, subterfuge, and illusions are always needed.
Enter the IRS’ criminal behavior, about which President Obama can sound righteously outraged and claim no knowledge. Really? This IRS escapade started over two years ago, so it is inconceivable that a control freak like Obama would not know of it. Add another misdirection, the disclosure of the AP press fiasco, which was precipitated by his own insiders leaking information to the media. Once again, Obama is shocked! Who knew about this? Not him; not The Illusionist.
Both the IRS and AP issues were revealed openly by the government – Barack Obama’s government! And, guess what? The timing was just right to draw attention away from Benghazi coverup facts being exposed by authoritative whistleblowers. Now, after many months, it becomes simple for The Illusionist to step up to his stage and begin yet another performance.
First, Obama fires the Acting IRS Commissioner – never once mentioning that his temporary assignment was due to expire in just a few weeks. He never touches the next levels at the IRS,since they were likely his plausibly deniable henchmen! He speaks with great intensity about how bad this IRS behavior was, always distancing himself from the failure, after the fact.
Then he proudly and loudly demands that Congress increase funding for security at embassies. This is another misdirection, a modified rerun of an earlier one, which attempted to place blame for Benghazi on GOP spending cuts. Independent sources and insider testimony both (later) confirmed that no such spending cuts caused the Benghazi attacks to turn deadly.
No matter, because the misdirection worked long enough to move on with the “show.” Release 100 pages of emails about Benghazi, to claim transparency, and hope that no one asks for ten times that many emails that were certainly not released. Misdirection works again. Or has it?
As The Illusionist–President Barack Obama, continues to deceive and either directly or by omission, lie to the American people (always insulated by layers of staff – for plausible deniability) the need for still more misdirection grows. Now that the facts, the number of problems, and the depth of the deception is emerging, even his friends in the media feel betrayed and used.
Perhaps The Illusionist’s continued tricks are becoming too obvious. But fear not–he always has a few more up his sleeve. He might create an international crisis, as in a “Wag the Dog” kind of trick. Or he might resurrect some old campaign dirty tricks, and spread rumors about his foes-usually the GOP. Who knows what–but we know it will be something new.
There seems to be no level too low for this president and his cronies to stoop to maintain the illusion that they are doing the job they were elected to do, when clearly they are not. Obama’s latest move sends a clear message of disdain for objectivity in oversight, as he appoints a 42-year old White House crony “insider” as acting Director of the miscreant IRS, which will also takeover the vast Obamacare personal databases and implementation.
This time the illusion is frightening beyond belief – and it is really happening. The only hope is that the media and Congressional fact-finding will clearly reveal the irresponsible, illegal and unethical behavior of the parties involved, and their leader – The Illusionist, President Barack Obama. Somebody needs to pull back the curtain and expose him for the charlatan he is.
-----------------
IF YOU DON'T READ PEGGY NOONAN IN THE WSJ, YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED THIS.
IT IS EXCELLENT--AND SAYS SO MUCH ABOUT THE CURRENT SITUATION
Political abuse of the IRS threatens the basic integrity of our government.
We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they're seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration's credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don't look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone. Something big has shifted. The standing of the administration has changed.
As always it comes down to trust. Do you trust the president's answers when he's pressed on an uncomfortable story? Do you trust his people to be sober and fair-minded as they go about their work? Do you trust the IRS and the Justice Department? You do not.s
The president, as usual, acts as if all of this is totally unconnected to him. He's shocked, it's unacceptable, he'll get to the bottom of it. He read about it in the papers, just like you.
But he is not unconnected, he is not a bystander. This is his administration. Those are his executive agencies. He runs the IRS and the Justice Department.
A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere. If he is arrogant, arrogance spreads. If he is too partisan, too disrespecting of political adversaries, that spreads too. Presidents always undo themselves and then blame it on the third guy in the last row in the sleepy agency across town.
The IRS scandal has two parts. The first is the obviously deliberate and targeted abuse, harassment and attempted suppression of conservative groups. The second is the auditing of the taxes of political activists.
In order to suppress conservative groups—at first those with words like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in their names, then including those that opposed ObamaCare or advanced the Second Amendment—the IRS demanded donor rolls, membership lists, data on all contributions, names of volunteers, the contents of all speeches made by members, Facebook posts, minutes of all meetings, and copies of all materials handed out at gatherings. Among its questions: What are you thinking about? Did you ever think of running for office? Do you ever contact political figures? What are you reading? One group sent what it was reading: the U.S. Constitution.
The second part of the scandal is the auditing of political activists who have opposed the administration. The Journal's Kim Strassel reported an Idaho businessman named Frank VanderSloot, who'd donated more than a million dollars to groups supporting Mitt Romney. He found himself last June, for the first time in 30 years, the target of IRS auditors. His wife and his business were also soon audited. Hal Scherz, a Georgia physician, also came to the government's attention. He told ABC News: "It is odd that nothing changed on my tax return and I was never audited until I publicly criticized ObamaCare."
Franklin Graham, son of Billy, told Politico he believes his father was targeted. A conservative Catholic academic who has written for these pages faced questions about her meager freelance writing income. Many of these stories will come out, but not as many as there are. People are not only afraid of being audited, they're afraid of saying they were audited.
All of these IRS actions took place in the years leading up to the 2012 election. They constitute the use of governmental power to intrude on the privacy and shackle the political freedom of American citizens. The purpose, obviously, was to overwhelm and intimidate—to kill the opposition, question by question and audit by audit.
It is not even remotely possible that all this was an accident, a mistake. Again, only conservative groups were targeted, not liberal. It is not even remotely possible that only one IRS office was involved.
Lois Lerner, who oversees tax-exempt groups for the IRS, was the person who finally acknowledged, under pressure of a looming investigative report, some of what the IRS was doing. She told reporters the actions were the work of "frontline people" in Cincinnati. But other offices were involved, including Washington. It is not even remotely possible the actions were the work of just a few agents. This was more systemic. It was an operation. The word was out: Get the Democratic Party's foes. It is not remotely possible nobody in the IRS knew what was going on until very recently. The Washington Post reported efforts to target the conservative groups reached the highest levels of the agency by May 2012—far earlier than the agency had acknowledged. Reuters reported high-level IRS officials, including its chief counsel, knew in August 2011 about the targeting.
The White House is reported to be shellshocked at public reaction to the scandal. But why? Were they so highhanded, so essentially ignorant, that they didn't understand what it would mean to the American people when their IRS—the revenue-collecting arm of the U.S. government—is revealed as a low, ugly and bullying tool of the reigning powers? If they didn't know how Americans would react to that, what did they know? I mean beyond Harvey Weinstein's cellphone number.
And why—in the matters of the Associated Press and Benghazi too—does no one in this administration ever take responsibility? Attorney General Eric Holder doesn't know what happened, exactly who did what. The president speaks in the passive voice. He attempts to act out indignation, but he always seems indignant at only one thing: that he's being questioned at all. That he has to address this. That fate put it on his plate.
We all have our biases. Mine is for a federal government that, for all the partisan shootouts on the streets of Washington, is allowed to go about its work. That it not be distracted by scandal, that political disagreement be, in the end, subsumed to the common good. It is a dangerous world: Calculating people wish to do us harm. In this world no draining, unproductive scandals should dominate the government's life. Independent counsels should not often come in and distract the U.S. government from its essential business.
But that bias does not fit these circumstances.
What happened at the IRS is the government's essential business. The IRS case deserves and calls out for an independent counsel, fully armed with all that position's powers. Only then will stables that badly need to be cleaned, be cleaned. Everyone involved in this abuse of power should pay a price, because if they don't, the politicization of the IRS will continue—forever. If it is not stopped now, it will never stop. And if it isn't stopped, no one will ever respect or have even minimal faith in the revenue-gathering arm of the U.S. government again.
And it would be shameful and shallow for any Republican operative or operator to make this scandal into a commercial and turn it into a mere partisan arguing point and part of the game. It's not part of the game. This is not about the usual partisan slugfest. This is about the integrity of our system of government and our ability to trust, which is to say our ability to function.
A version of this article appeared May 18, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: This Is No Ordinary Scandal.
--------------------------
WHETHER ANYONE WILL EVER GET THE PROOF NEEDED TO PLACE THE BLAME WHERE IT BELONGS….
The bureaucrats at the Internal Revenue Service did exactly what the president said was the right and honorable thing to do
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Was the White House involved in the IRS's targeting of conservatives? No investigation needed to answer that one. Of course it was.
President Obama and Co. are in full deniability mode, noting that the IRS is an "independent" agency and that they knew nothing about its abuse. The media and Congress are sleuthing for some hint that Mr. Obama picked up the phone and sicced the tax dogs on his enemies.
Mr. Obama now professes shock and outrage that bureaucrats at the IRS did exactly what the president of the United States said was the right and honorable thing to do. "He put a target on our backs, and he's now going to blame the people who are shooting at us?" asks Idaho businessman and longtime Republican donor Frank VanderSloot.But that's not how things work in post-Watergate Washington. Mr. Obama didn't need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he'd like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.
Mr. VanderSloot is the Obama target who in 2011 made a sizable donation to a group supporting Mitt Romney. In April 2012, an Obama campaign website named and slurred eight Romney donors. It tarred Mr. VanderSloot as a "wealthy individual" with a "less-than-reputable record." Other donors were described as having been "on the wrong side of the law."
This was the Obama version of the phone call—put out to every government investigator (and liberal activist) in the land.
Twelve days later, a man working for a political opposition-research firm called an Idaho courthouse for Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records. In June, the IRS informed Mr. VanderSloot and his wife of an audit of two years of their taxes. In July, the Department of Labor informed him of an audit of the guest workers on his Idaho cattle ranch. In September, the IRS informed him of a second audit, of one of his businesses. Mr. VanderSloot, who had never been audited before, was subject to three in the four months after Mr. Obama teed him up for such scrutiny.
The last of these audits was only concluded in recent weeks. Not one resulted in a fine or penalty. But Mr. VanderSloot has been waiting more than 20 months for a sizable refund and estimates his legal bills are $80,000. That figure doesn't account for what the president's vilification has done to his business and reputation.
The Obama call for scrutiny wasn't a mistake; it was the president's strategy—one pursued throughout 2012. The way to limit Romney money was to intimidate donors from giving. Donate, and the president would at best tie you to Big Oil or Wall Street, at worst put your name in bold, and flag you as "less than reputable" to everyone who worked for him: the IRS, the SEC, the Justice Department. The president didn't need a telephone; he had a megaphone.
The same threat was made to conservative groups that might dare play in the election. As early as January 2010, Mr. Obama would, in his state of the union address, cast aspersions on the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, claiming that it "reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests" (read conservative groups).
The president derided "tea baggers." Vice President Joe Biden compared them to "terrorists." In more than a dozen speeches Mr. Obama raised the specter that these groups represented nefarious interests that were perverting elections. "Nobody knows who's paying for these ads," he warned. "We don't know where this money is coming from," he intoned.
In case the IRS missed his point, he raised the threat of illegality: "All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates . . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."
Short of directly asking federal agencies to investigate these groups, this is as close as it gets. Especially as top congressional Democrats were putting in their own versions of phone calls, sending letters to the IRS that accused it of having "failed to address" the "problem" of groups that were "improperly engaged" in campaigns. Because guess who controls that "independent" agency's budget?
The IRS is easy to demonize, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It got its heading from a president, and his party, who did in fact send it orders—openly, for the world to see. In his Tuesday press grilling, no question agitated White House Press Secretary Jay Carney more than the one that got to the heart of the matter: Given the president's "animosity" toward Citizens United, might he have "appreciated or wanted the IRS to be looking and scrutinizing those . . ." Mr. Carney cut off the reporter with "That's a preposterous assertion."
Preposterous because, according to Mr. Obama, he is "outraged" and "angry" that the IRS looked into the very groups and individuals that he spent years claiming were shady, undemocratic, even lawbreaking. After all, he expects the IRS to "operate with absolute integrity." Even when he does not.
A version of this article appeared May 17, 2013, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The IRS Scandal Started at the Top.
--------------------------------
THIS IS ALL YOU CAN STAND OF ONE EDITION.
MORE COMING IN THE FUTURE.
BEST, JOHN
New Book: ROADMAP TO PROFITABLE GROWTH… GET IT NOW!
Author of the Award Winner: THE COMPLEXITY CRISIS, the exciting novel: THE CHINESE CONSPIRACY, and co-author of HOPE IS NOT A STRATEGY: Leadership Lessons from the Obama Presidency
MY CO-AUTHOR OF Hope is NOT a Strategy, D. M. LUKAS HAS A BRAND NEW BOOK OUT: The Ten Year Career: The Fast Track Guide to Retiring Young, Wealthy, and Fulfilled,
I AM STRONGLY ENCOURAGING READERS TO BUY COPIES OF THIS BOOK--ESPECIALLY FOR ANYONE WHO IS A NEW GRADUATE, A YOUNG PERSON STRUGGLING TO FIND THEIR CAREER PATH, OR AN OLDER PERSON WHOSE CAREER AND LIFE HAS BEEN DERAILED AND NEEDS A NEW START.
To Learn more, here is the link to read my review of it on amazon.com, which is where you can go to buy the book.
(It is off to a great start and only needs a few more purchases to climb onto amazon's best-seller list!)
(Recall, Dave Lukas and I wrote HOPE IS NOT A STRATEGY: Leadership Lessons from the Obama Presidency LAST YEAR--AND it predicts his continued misbehaviors, deceptions and revisionist distortion of what he said and did.
LEADERSHIP IS ESSENTIAL AND OUR COUNTRY IS REELING FROM THE LACK OF IT AT THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND!
DO YOU RECALL THE CHILDREN'S TALE, "THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES?"
"The Emperor's New Clothes" is a short tale by Hans Christian Andersen about two weavers who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes that is invisible to those unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!" (from Wikipedia)
For the past 4-1/2 years, Barack Obama has deceived Americans and been aided and abetted by the mainstream media, who consistently admire his "new clothes"--the positions he takes and retakes until they fit the desired outcome--regardless of their goodness or veracity. This week, a series of events exposed Obama not once, but three times, and finally, convinced many of his left-leaning mainstream media acolytes that he truly could not be trusted, and was in fact, "naked!" (Or perhaps, rather his "pride and ambition" was what is "naked.")
The story below first appeared on TheBrennerBrief.com, the fine new blog where I and about 30 others contributed numerous posts. Whether it is 1) the exposure of the lies and deception about the tragic Benghazi incident, 2) the frightening revelation about about the IRS abusing its power to persecute conservative/right leaning organizations, or 3) the alarming incident about a mixture of leaks involving national security--to the Associated Press--and the violation of the rights of this organization and its staff caused by government eavesdropping and spying on them, Obama's new clothes are non-existent now. His "cloak of invisibility and invincibility" are gone.
Consider the other instances of media bullying, such as Bob Woodward disclosed earlier this year, or the ad hoc censorship in major media sites--using "pressure tactics" to get notables such as Jack Welch thrown off the Fortune contributor list. (Disclosure: I met the same fate due an editorial position at Forbes.com. I was too critical of Barack Obama, his hidden history and his misguided policies.
Yet, for his entire time as president, both he and his followers act as if anyone who questions him or doubts his capability, his policies or his honesty are "heretics" (in the old religious sense) and like the case if the Emperor's New Clothes, they are either "unfit, incompetent or stupid." But that's not true, and as time goes on, more and more of Barack Obama's lies are exposed. Recently he forced members of his administration to back up his lies about the sequester by administering it in the most painful, ill-advised way. The Congress called him off the Air Traffic Controller cutbacks, Public outcry challenged his Transportation Security Agency mandates. Any rational person questioned how a 4-5% cut in funding could or should result is 20-25% cuts in staffing or support.
Well, now the Emperor's New Clothes meets Pinocchio!
I’m not a constitutional lawyer, like the occupant of the White House. I am an American citizen, and I take offense when our elected officials and their key staff deceive us and outright lie to us. Whether it’s President Obama, Hillary Clinton, senior State Department staff, or officials inside the Internal Revenue Service, big lies deserve big consequences.
When Bill Clinton was caught in outright lies about his Monica Lewinsky involvement he was impeached, but allowed to remain in office. Now that his wife and her former boss, Barack Obama have topped “Slick Willy’s” prevarications, it is time to take very serious action against all of the perpetrators of a litany of lies and misrepresentations.
Benghazi is just one of this long litany of lies originating in the White House and delivered glibly by a president who parses, dissembles, and on occasion, lies with a calm, convincing demeanor. (Simply Google Obama Lies and choose which list you prefer). Much of the mainstream media have been willing accomplices in this reprehensible behavior. Only a few fact checkers have called out the president and his “misstatements” and untruths.
Press Secretary Jay Carney is similarly fortunate that Pinocchio is a fictional tale. Otherwise, those in the front row of press briefings would be skewered literally by his growing nose. Barack Obama’s omnipresent TelePrompters would be endangered by the presidential proboscis.
Someone – preferable those in Congress who were elected to provide checks and balances in our tripartite form of government need to say, “no mas!” They must pull back the false veil of half-truths, distortions and outright lies, and hold the liars responsible, regardless of their last name or lofty position.
Nothing less is acceptable. If we, and our elected representatives let this immoral, unethical and illegal behavior continue, there is no telling how much more illicit our leadership behavior will become.
I FIRST WROTE THIS FOR FORBES.COM A YEAR AGO…AND I JUST "UPDATED IT" BARELY AT ALL.
Leaders depend on the trust and loyalty of their followers. When a leader lies, that trust is breached, sometime irreparably. Worse yet, when the president of a company (or the president of the country lies) their credibility is damaged or destroyed and their prominence makes the lie all the more crippling.
Why would a leader lie, when they understand the negative consequences of being caught in that lie? Usually it is to advance an agenda, or support a decision that cannot stand up to scrutiny based on the truth. A typical corporate leader’s lie is the one that follows an acquisition or a merger: “Nothing will change.” What utter nonsense that statement is. Of course things will change—maybe everything. That’s why the acquisition or merger happened. Either there were problems that need to be remedied, and/or synergies or opportunities that were not being fully exploited.
Another typical lie is in the form of a declarative statement: “Trust me; you will be rewarded for your efforts in due time.” Really? When? Why not now, and under what circumstances? Whenever a statement opens with the words “trust me” or “honestly” alarm bells should go off in your head. If the person saying these things were trustworthy or honest, they wouldn’t need to preface their statement by saying so. Their actions would portray that honesty and trustworthiness.
Presidents of companies are surely not scrutinized as closely as the president of the country. The always on, 24/7 news media and cell phone video capability record his words constantly. The result is a lot of video snippets of “misstatements” as the “spin doctors” call them, followed by explanations by staff parsing the words into a more defensible form. This is the challenge of every elected official, and of many high-ranking corporate executives. The larger the constituency and the more recognizable the person, the more likely they will be seen, heard and/or recorded doing or saying things they might later regret. Among those regrets, lies and transgressions are at the top of the list.
Highly regarded Ohio State football coach Jim Tressel told a lie in hopes of “protecting” the program and a handful of star athletes. Once the first lie has been told, it is (and was for him) downhill from there. Ultimately, he lost his job, his credibility and those very athletes he lied to protect suffered anyway. The first lie sets the stage. Bad things happen after that. Lying is contagious and spreads like a virus.
Former NJ Governor Jon Corzine has become infamous for his role in the disappearance of billions of dollars of investor funds from MF Global. Whether he knows where the money went, and is convicted of crimes in the courts is almost beside the point. He has been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. A secondary problem is when someone associates with a known liar, there is a contagion by which they too become suspect—even extending to Corzine’s role in helping fund president Obama’s reelection campaign. Was some of that money “dirty?” Nobody can or will ever know with certainty.
Yet another frequent business lie has to do with the location and longevity of facilities. When an executive comes to town, and tells the townspeople (and employees) how important they are to the company—and then closes the facility, idling the workforce shortly thereafter—the stain from that apparent lie stays with the executive. The executive might not even be overtly lying; the decision about which facilities to close may not have been made yet. Even so, this situation is a “minefield” of credibility killers.
Ironically, there are times that lies can be indirect, or unintentional, or even simple exaggerations. The children’s story about Chicken Little’s claims that “the sky is falling” proved that after repeated exaggerations, few would believe Chicken Little even when “the sky actually was falling.” Many closely watched government reports (like employment data) “sort of lie” when they are released “initially” and then “adjusted” in the following month.
Bosses, political officials, including the President, all suffer from lower regard because of “broken promises,” which are another form of lying. I can’t cite recent data, but every study I have seen for a decade or more shows about 60% of employees do not trust their employers to “level with them.” Certainly the trust of Americans in their Congress is currently even lower than that.
However, since this is an election year, some data on politics is more readily available:
Whether you think a broken campaign promise qualifies as a lie, many people feel that way. In corporate life, when leaders lie, they often are trapped by that lie, and lose the respect and support of their organization. This is a frequent precursor to their failure and losing their jobs—sooner or later.
When elected officials lie, the outcome may be that they too lose their jobs—or at least they should. The question is whether the perception of broken political campaign promises as “lies” puts many incumbents and candidates in jeopardy. There are often extenuating circumstances surrounding corporate statements (the market changed, etc.) and the same goes for broken campaign promises. As an old friend once told me, “There is always a reason but never an excuse for outright lying!”
Sometimes the promises simply cannot be kept (and never should have been made—e.g., closing Guantanamo) but “the path to hell is paved with good intentions,” and noble intentions (alone) do not equate to job security for corporate executives and for elected officials—the most prominent of which is the president, Barack Obama. Simply Google Obama’s Lies and you will see an astounding array of lists and lies. That is frightening—for all Americans and our country.
There you have it. When leaders lie, whatever the circumstances, the justification, rationalization or excuses, bad things invariably follow. It’s hard to tell the truth all the time. An old Jim Carrey movie, Liar, Liar, portrays this dilemma humorously, but is also scary how hard it is to always tell the truth. Which of us do not tell a lie from time to time? Leaders must constantly strive to tell the truth to the greatest extent they can. That doesn’t mean they need to reveal everything. Just try to stick with the truth. That’s the best us mere mortals can hope to do.
THAT'S PLENTY ON THE TOPIC FOR NOW. WATCH FOR MORE IN COMING WEEKS. THESE ISSUES WILL NOT FADE AWAY. TIME WILL ONLY REVEAL MORE SUCH INSTANCES OF DECEPTION AND MISDIRECTION. A FAVORITE OBAMA TACTIC IS TO "CHANGE THE SUBJECT VIA MISDIRECTION." HE WILL DO EVERYTHING HE CAN TO HAMMER THE IRS AND THE AP INTRUSIONS SO HE CAN DRAG ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE BENGHAZI COVERUP AND IT'S LITANY OF LIES AND FAILURES OR LEADERSHIP.
BOTH HILLARY CLINTON AND BARACK OBAMA HAVE THEIR HANDS DIRTY ON BENGHAZI--AND FOUR AMERICANS DIED BECAUSE OF THIS FAILED LEADERSHIP.
Author of the Award Winner: THE COMPLEXITY CRISIS, the exciting novel: THE CHINESE CONSPIRACY, and co-author of HOPE IS NOT A STRATEGY: Leadership Lessons from the Obama Presidency
HERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT POPPED INTO MY HEAD (OR EMAIL BOX) RECENTLY:
Obama’s OSU commencement speech--Notable Snippets and some Appropriate Rebuttals
President Barack Obama came to Columbus, OH on Sunday. It was a familiar venue for him, since he visited Columbus five times in the past year, as part of his campaign to win OH, the ultimate “swing state.”This time he spoke to a packed audience in the OSU “Horsehoe” where the Ohio State Buckeyes play football in front of a larger, and certainly noisier crowd than Obama drew.
In many respects, Obama’s was a relatively typical commencement speech, exhorting the graduates to use their education to become better citizens, and to contribute to society.
In other respects, it was conspicuously missing some of the words, exhortations, admonitions and calls to action that might be expected for graduates leaving one of the nation’s largest and leading universities, into a deeply troubled job market.
There were more than a few cases where what President Obama said would have graded an Incomplete at OSU for what he didn’t say. Here are just the most glaring examples:
He said.
“….yours has become a generation possessed with that most American of ideas - that people who love their country can change it.”
What he didn’t say was that you can also do it great harm—as many of his failed initiatives to “fundamentally change America” have proven.
He went on to explain.
“For all the turmoil; for all the times you have been let down, or frustrated at the hand you've been dealt; what I have seen from your generation are perennial and quintessentially American values. Altruism. Empathy. Tolerance. Community. And a deep sense of service that makes me optimistic for our future.”
Nowhere in this statement does he even mention ambition, work ethic, achievement or a sense of responsibility. How could those vital attributes be omitted from such a phrase in a speech like this?
As we know, President Obama can “turn a phrase with the best of them,” and he did, one time in this speech when he said.
”That's what citizenship is. It's the idea at the heart of our founding - --"that as Americans, we are blessed with God-given and inalienable rights, but with those rights come responsibilities --"- to ourselves, to one another, and to future generations.”
The heart of this paragraph is his BEST LINE: --"that as Americans, we are blessed with God-given and inalienable rights, but with those rights come responsibilities…” If only that idea could have been pounded into the hearts and minds of the audience, the speech would have been a success.
As it was, the very next sentence was vintage Obama playing the “blame game.”
“But if we're being honest, as you've studied and worked and served to become good citizens, the institutions that give structure to our society have, at times, betrayed your trust.”
Of course no one can hold you responsible for anything then these big, nasty institutions have betrayed you! What utter nonsense.
Then here’s the big preemptive excuse.
And in Washington - well, this is a joyous occasion, so let me put this charitably: I think it's fair to say our democracy isn't working as well as we know it can, It could do better. And those of us fortunate enough to serve in these institutions owe it to you to do better, every single day.”
Yes, Mr. President, and these problems are in large part due to a lack of presidential leadership! Notice how Obama moves into the passive voice, third person to avoid any personal ownership of the problems,”…
I think it's fair to say our democracy isn't working as well as we know it can…”
If the first omission of important traits was not enough, here it comes again, “But I think of what your generation's traits - compassion and energy, a sense of selflessness and a boundless digital fluency - might mean for a democracy that must adapt more quickly to keep up with the speed of technological, demographic, and wrenching economic change.”
Notice again the traits not singled out as important or noteworthy: accomplishment, character, integrity, and personal values. The mere omission of these tells us a great deal about what the president (or his speech writers) believes is of paramount importance—and what is not.
Next comes a litany of how the founders made government the solution to all of our needs and aspirations, with only one small part omitted.
“And that's precisely what the founders left us: the power to adapt to changing times. They left us the keys to a system of self-government - the tool to do big and important things together that we could not possibly do alone. To stretch railroads and electricity and a highway system across a sprawling continent. To educate our people with a system of public schools and land grant colleges, including Ohio State. To care for the sick and the vulnerable, and provide a basic level of protection from falling into abject poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth. To conquer fascism and disease; to visit the Moon and Mars; to gradually secure our God-given rights for all our citizens, regardless of who they are, what they look like, or who they love.
Thus we see how Barack Obama arrives at lines like “You didn’t build that!” He never even considers or mentions the free enterprise economic system that generated the wealth, which made most of the preceding benefits possible . Then he continues in defense of his idea of government as the ultimate virtuous solution.
“Still, you'll hear voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's the root of all our problems, even as they do their best to gum up the works; or that tyranny always lurks just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, creative, unique experiment in self-rule is just a sham with which we can't be trusted.”
News bulletin to the graduates: government is often sinister, it is frequently dysfunctional (in so many ways), and under Barack Obama it has been tending toward tyranny, and often can't be trusted.
Finally, in his most glaring deception, he talks about opportunities, jobs and their future. He never once acknowledges that their generation faces the most difficult struggle to find jobs that anyone has ever imagined in this country’s recent history. This is his WORST SERIES OF LINES.
“And where we're going should give you hope. Because while things are still hard for a lot of people, you have every reason to believe that your future is bright.”
Of course you wont be able to find the kind of jobs you imagined, to pay off the huge debts, which we have made it easy or you to incur via Federal government student loans.
“You are graduating into an economy and a job market that are steadily healing.”
Steadily and slowly healing, Mr. President. It will be nearly impossible to find the good paying jobs for so many of those who studied the fun, easy, and low-value curricula instead of the hard, high value ones.
Next comes the “disclaimer,” behind which he can hide—uncertainty.
”Still, if there is one certainty about the decade ahead, it's that things will be uncertain. Change will be a constant, just as it has been throughout our history. …. But more than anything, what we will need is political will…”
Right. In his view “political will” is an imperative; one which is required to harness the efforts of those who will work hard and accomplish important things and use their accomplishments and wealth for your benefit. After all, it’s only fair!
This was another rollicking Obama oratory, punctuated with rhetorical gems, and filled with equal parts of false hopes, half-truths and serious omissions.
The good news is that relatively few of the graduates listened closely enough to recognize the points I gleaned from the text of the speech. They just wanted to get out of there and party.
--------------
I AM ALL FOR HELPING THE POOR--UP TO A POINT--BUT WE ARE NOW WAY PAST THAT POINT!
If you have heard or read about the enormous amount of government paid benefits and income that was provided to the "Boston Bombers" you might be appalled. But that is not unusual. The entire American welfare system has been so distorted, abused and misused that hundreds of billions of dollars (each year) now go to fund all kinds of welfare: food stamps, housing assistance, income replacement, free cell phones, and oh, yes, aid to dependent children.
Note: I have not fact checked this piece…but it seems likely to be accurate based on past reports I have seen and heard. Take a look:
When you have the rich timeliness of TheBrennerBrief writers to feast on, I am sitting wondering what I can add to this. Then I realized it: a lot of people like to go through buffets or “smorgasbords” (not so many of them are called that any more) because they want a taste of a variety of things.
Then they can decide what they want more of, and usually find it without difficulty. Thus, I plan to bring you that “buffet sampler” of things that will affect you, most Americans—and me—in the coming months and years.
Drug Companies in Distress—Consumers Benefit—For Now?
Two of the giants of the US pharmaceutical industry are reeling from patent expirations on blockbuster drugs, which contributed billions in profits for many years. The good news for consumers is that lower cost generic replacement drugs will reduce prescription outlays. Last year, Pfizer’s huge selling cholesterol-lowering drug, Lipitor, saw its patent protection expire. Now generic atorvastatin (the drug’s technical name) sells for a fraction of the cost.
This year Merck will lose is protection for Zocor, another cholesterol-lowering statin drug, costing it billions in profits. In a second blow to Pfizer, its anti-depressant drug, Zoloft will lose patent coverage mid-year 2013.
While this seems like good news for consumers, and helps hold down spiraling medical costs, there’s a dark side to expirations. The drug companies must find new, highly profitable drugs to pay for expensive research on still newer remedies. Make no mistake, these companies make handsome profits on patented drugs, but a sizable part of the revenue goes to fund research on breakthrough drugs.
Without that revenue, if the research is slowed, so are the breakthroughs that have extended life expectancy and improved the quality of life for millions of people. Finding successful new drugs is a little bit like drilling for oil. You have an idea where to look, but once you start exploring, there is a high likelihood that you will have many failures before finding the one success.
Generics are supposed to work the same as the brand names, but when low price/cost become the criteria, there are risks of formulations that don’t deliver the same amount of medication at the same rate. Be careful. Plus, pharmaceutical companies may be a great target for criticism, but life without their breakthrough drugs would be grim for many people and shorter for others.
Pros: Cheaper generic drugs for millions, lower health care costs
Cons: Less to revenue to fund research and find the next generation of life-saving drugs
Don’t Make Customers Wait to Give You Their Money
So said Sam Walton, whose mantra was embodied by stores opening more checkout lanes any time the lines stretched back to the main cross aisle. He was right, and now other retailers are finally discovering it. Grocer Kroger has developed a sophisticated measurement system using military type infrared cameras to track how long it takes to check out.
Kroger has even advertised its speedy checkouts and they seem to be a hit with consumers. That’s now surprise to McDonald’s executives who have known for years that the time to serve customers matters a lot to time-stressed people. Giving fast (and courteous) service may cost a little more, but it pays big dividends for such companies.
Walmart is poised to take the next big leap: begin your checkout while you shop, using your smartphone. Scan & Go is the new system being tested, in which the bar codes on items can be scanned with your smartphone as you put them in your basket. That reduces checkout to scanning your smart phone and paying the bill. Of course there’s a lot of detail work between now and a wider roll out. Errors, fraud, mistake correction, and many more details remain to be addressed.
But one of these days, the time to check out will be embedded into your shopping time…assuming you use the system right, and you trust it, and it trusts you; but those are big assumptions.
Pros: Improving worker productivity but shifting the work to customers.
Cons: Mistakes will be made, and fixing them will be a big job.
Privacy—What’s That?
When George Orwell wrote his memorable novel 1984 decades ago, the term “Big Brother is Watching You” became part of the vernacular. Now it is true. Unfortunately, it is not just “Big Brother.” It might be any of a large group of marketers, scammers, thieves and market researchers. Some have legitimate reasons to “watch you.” Others have far more evil intentions.
The growth of smartphones and tablets, of free WiFi and fast cellular networks have brought “always on, anywhere” connectivity into a reality. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the “bad guys” have access to you, your data and your private information too—unless you hare hyper vigilant and very technologically savvy and watchful.
The same technology that lets you know where you are and where you are going can do the same thing for others—shadowing you. Is that good? Not quite. Is it preventable? Barely. The more Apps, Cookies and Contacts you load onto your devices, the easier it is to “bug you” with code that tells the “bad guys”—and “Big Brother”—where you are and what you are doing.
The era of personal privacy is about over, and we are giving it up for the sale of convenience, communications, and entertainment. The problem is, once gone, no one knows how to regain it. If everything about you is “out there,” it stays there “forever.” Youth and teens are just beginning to get this—but probably too late. Facebook, Twitter, and a host of other social networks already contain too much private, personal data. As these grow, it only gets worse.
A whole new field will soon emerge—how to protect your remaining privacy, and how to “reboot” your on-line identity to regain some semblance of privacy again. It won’t be easy, but as demand grows, it will come. Watch for it. You read it here.
Pros: You can be always in touch, anywhere, any times, with anyone
Cons: You will no longer have any secrets or privacy, as you will be available to find, track, interrupt, (and attack!)—Any time, any where, by almost any one
-------------------------
The Right Metrics & The Wrong Conclusions
If you read the recent news, it talks of unemployment at 7.4%. Using one measure (the Bureau of Labor Statistics U-3) that is correct. But that measure excludes millions who have given up looking for a job or who are grossly “under-employed.” That number is closer to 14% (BLS U-6). The government statistics are also “adjusted” or “revised” a month after being issued, because the initial measure was wrong. What can you believe?
There are many such issues that surround reporting of employment. Initial claims for unemployment of over 300,000 sound so large, but no one points out that during the same time frame probably 3 million Americans changed jobs. The 300,000 kind of figure is a “net” figure, of those folks who lost jobs but didn’t find new ones.
Unfortunately we are in a 24/7 news cycle, where fact checking is done less often and with more bias, and the “old” news media (the TV networks) and many of the more liberal networks (CNN, MSNBC, et. al.) no longer simply report the news. The “spin it,” biasing it to fit the ideology they support. Is this wrong? Perhaps—unless the person seeing or hearing that distorted reporting agrees with the conclusion or is totally clueless about the distortion (more often the case).
We live in a world of non-stop government reporting, but many of the most important ones are then “revised” about a month later. The problem is that too many people reacted to the initial “estimate” and barely notice the revision, which can swing the conclusions to a whole different direction.
Clearly this whole measurement concept is not simple or easy, but measurements are still very, very important. They help us assess progress, know how we are doing, and even let us know what is, or isn’t “success.” When a measurement is done wrong, or measures the wrong thing, or somehow, because of error, provides leads to the wrong conclusion, it is seldom recognized until later (like the government’s revisions). In the meantime, we make decisions based on that measurement—wrong decisions usually.
Investors react and often over-react, to government reports on employment, on GDP growth, on the balance of trade, and so forth. Markets soar or plummet from these reactions. And then, 30-45 days later, a revision comes along that says, in effect, “Whoops, we got it wrong.”
Some mistakes in “metrics” sometimes go uncorrected—or unnoticed—for a long, long time. Have you been ill and had a temperature lately? You probably compared your temperature to “normal” which you were taught for years was 98.6 F. Wrong! The correct human body temperature is closer to 98.25 F (and that’s an average, because there are variations from person to person). The 98.6 F reading was developed in 1868, when Carl Wunderlich published a seminal paper on body temperature in 25,000 adults. But his study was done using imprecise measuring devices and techniques of that era, yet it has been widely accepted over 100 years. Considering how many medical decisions are made based on this metric, it is downright amazing that this error has not caused huge problems. Or maybe it has, and we just don’t know it.
Have you even used a map that was not to scale and been confused by the distorted perspective it gave you? Have you owned a car with a speedometer was wrong—and you got a ticket for speeding without realizing you were speeding?
It has been proven time and again that simply observing something causes it to change. So does measuring it. Heisenberg’s Uncertainly Principle in physics warns us that two related things cannot both be measured accurately, simultaneously.
“Forewarned is forearmed,” or so the old saying goes. The most important message of this brief article is to make sure the metrics you choose are measuring what you want to measure—and doing it accurately (to the best level possible.)
The first way to check metrics is to apply “common sense.” Is that result reasonable? Another is to find historical comparisons. A third is by a “check point” or a reference standard. For many years, factories and industries kept “standards” in the form of physical objects that had been carefully verified to be correct. The U. S. government even established a “Bureau of Standards.” They did this because gauges and measuring devices can be damaged or simply get out of adjustment. If you weigh yourself, and don’t believe the reading, you usually look for another scale—but make sure it’s an accurate one.
Time for the world is kept on very precise atomic clocks and is called “coordinated universal time” (UTC) and often referred to as Greenwich Mean Time or “Zulu” time. Since communications signals cross many time zones, an accurate, standardized measure of time is critical.
Somewhere, somehow, all metrics—and those reporting them--need to be understood more deeply and then checked and rechecked regularly. Whatever you are doing to meet or to use, some predetermined metric, stop every now and then and check to see that the metric is accurate—and the right one—and that it is measuring what is really important. If you base conclusions on the right measurements and use them correctly, you will be surprised how much better your decision-making becomes.
In conclusion, if you believe the data that the jobless situation in the US is improving, then your conclusion is probably OK. If you believe that the problem is getting a lot better, then go back to that bls.gov table and notice that about 14% of Americans are either unemployed or underemployed, and I’ll bet you they don’t think things are much better!
--------------
Cyber-attacks Hit American companies again
Charles Schwab & Co. has been suffering from denial-of-service attacks, blocking access to the site for two hours on Tuesday and slowing the online operations of the financial services firm intermittently on Wednesday.
In a message posted to Schwab's website, Walt Bettinger, president and CEO of Charles Schwab, explained the site's slow performance was a result of a "'denial of service' attack penetrated by a third party." Bettinger said that no client accounts or data was compromised.
"Based on the history of denial of service attacks on other companies, we anticipate these attacks may continue against our industry — and us — for some time," Bettinger acknowledged. "We will continue to work with the industry and law enforcement to ensure our web sites are available without interruption."
One in five data breaches are the result of cyberespionage, Verizon says
Verizon's data breach investigations report covering 2012 includes information on cyberespionage-related breaches for the first time
While the majority of data breaches are the result of financially motivated cybercriminal attacks, cyberespionage activities are also responsible for a significant number of data theft incidents, according to a report that will be released Tuesday by Verizon.
Verizon's 2013 Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR) covers data breaches investigated during 2012 by the company's RISK Team and 18 other organizations from around the globe, including national computer emergency response teams (CERTs) and law enforcement agencies. The report compiles information from more than 47,000 security incidents and 621 confirmed data breaches that resulted in at least 44 million compromised records.
In addition to including the largest number of sources to date, the report is also Verizon's first to contain information on breaches resulting from state-affiliated cyberespionage attacks. This kind of attack targets intellectual property and accounted for 20% of the data breaches covered by the report.
In more than 95% of cases the cyberespionage attacks originated from China, said Jay Jacobs, a senior analyst with the Verizon RISK team. The team tried to be very thorough regarding attribution and used different known indicators that linked the techniques and malware used in those breaches back to known Chinese hacker groups, he said.
However, it would be naive to assume that cyberespionage attacks only come from China, Jacobs said. "It just so happens that the data we were able to collect for 2012 reflected more Chinese actors than from anywhere else."
The more interesting aspects of these attacks were the types of tactics used, as well as the size and industry of the targeted organizations, the analyst said.
"Typically what we see in our data set are financially motivated breaches, so the targets usually include retail organizations, restaurants, food-service-type firms, banks and financial institutions," Jacobs said. "When we looked at the espionage cases, those industries suddenly dropped down to the bottom of the list and we saw mostly targets with a large amount of intellectual property like organizations from the manufacturing and professional services industries, computer and engineering consultancies, and so on."
A surprising finding was the almost fifty-fifty split between the number of large organizations and small organizations that experienced breaches related to cyberespionage, the analyst said.
"When we thought of espionage, we thought of big companies and the large amount of intellectual property they have, but there were many small organizations targeted with the exact same tactics," Jacobs said.
There is a lot of intelligence-gathering involved in the selection of targets by these espionage groups, Jacobs said. "We think that they pick the small organizations because of their affiliation or work with larger organizations."
In comparison to cyberespionage, financially motivated cybercrime was responsible for 75% of data breach incidents covered in the report and hacktivists were behind the remaining 5%.
One noteworthy finding of this report is that all threat actors are targeting valid credentials, Jacobs said. In four out of five breaches, the attackers stole valid credentials to maintain a presence on the victim's network, he said.
This will hopefully start to raise some questions about the widespread reliance on single-factor password-based authentication, Jacobs said. "I think if we switch to two-factor authentication and stop being so reliant on passwords, we might see a decrease in the number of these attacks or at least force the attackers to change" some of their techniques.
Fifty-two percent of data breach incidents involved hacking techniques, 40% involved the use of malware, 35% the use of physical attacks -- for example ATM skimming -- and 29% the use of social tactics like phishing.
The number of breaches that involved phishing was four times higher in 2012 compared to the previous year, which is probably the result of this technique being commonly used in targeted espionage campaigns.
Despite all the attention given to mobile threats during the past year, only a very small number of breaches covered by the Verizon report involved the use of mobile devices.
"For the most part, we are not seeing breaches leverage mobile devices as of yet," Jacobs said. "That's a pretty interesting finding that's kind of counter-intuitive in light of all the headlines saying how insecure mobile devices are. That's not to say they're not vulnerable, but the attackers currently have other easier methods to get the data."
The same holds true for cloud technologies, Jacobs said. While there have been some breaches involving systems that are hosted in the cloud, they were not the result of attacks exploiting cloud technologies, he said. "If your site is vulnerable to SQL injection, it doesn't matter where it's hosted -- in the cloud or locally. The kind of breaches we're seeing would occur regardless of whether the system would be in the cloud or not."
The Verizon report includes a list of 20 critical security controls that should be implemented by companies and which are mapped to the most prevalent threat actions identified in the analyzed dataset. However, the level to which every company should implement each control depends on the industry they're part of and the type of attacks they're likely to be more exposed to.
THAT'S A LOT OF THINK ABOUT…SO YOU CAN SEE WHY IT WAS "ON MY MIND." NOW IT'S ON YOUR MINDS TOO…
Author of the Award Winner: THE COMPLEXITY CRISIS, the exciting novel: THE CHINESE CONSPIRACY, and co-author of HOPE IS NOT A STRATEGY: Leadership Lessons from the Obama Presidency
****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. --The comments in this message are the sole opinion of the author, or of the attributed sources, and of no other persons or organization.
Recent Comments