Tag Archives: Huffington Post

October 18, 2014 · 09:43

As we grow expertise

An interesting story broke on the Guardian this morning, the title ‘Senior NSA official moonlighting for private cybersecurity firm‘ should catch our eyes in many ways, but for most of you it will seem wrong. The story is about an official named Patrick Dowd and how he, as an NSA official also worked in the late hours for IronNet Cybersecurity, yet never crossing the ethical boundaries.

You see, many will shout scream and all others of noises, but the plain and simple truth is that this happens ALL THE TIME. If you think that this is not true, then look at accountancy firms, look at Google and look at a host of other corporations. In this day and age, to get ahead you need to double dip your brain power.

Of course when doing this, knowledge, more precisely data cannot go from one to the other, yet the knowledge and the knowhow is there, which is the IP of the person holding the brain (aka the man with the thought out plan). Former General Alexander is heading a firm making well over 10 million a year (I will send him my resume shortly).

The article written by Spencer Ackerman in Washington (at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/17/senior-nsa-official-moonlighting-private-cybersecurity-firm) gives the right nuance and is a good read. More important, between the lines he seems to be implying the question that follows from ““I just felt that his leaving the government was the wrong thing for NSA and our nation,” Alexander told Reuters“, he is of course correct, can we allow in certain areas to suffer a brain drain. Keith Alexanders pragmatic approach, if properly used earlier could have saved the intelligence hundreds of millions in the timespan 2003-2007; no one seems to be looking at that part. We seem to allow ‘dodgy’ accountants to sign off on unchecked quarters of billions, but when a soldier find alternative usage of his skills in non-criminal ways, we tend to shine the limelight on them. For this I only need to show the Reuters quote “(Reuters) – The new boss of Tesco (TSCO.L) has told staff he expects to be able to give a “clear and accurate indication” of the impact of a 250 million pound accounting mistake when the grocer reports delayed first-half results next week“, whilst trying to Google Pricewaterhouse Coopers reveals not one, I say again not one link that the press has taken one look at that part of the Tesco equation. So we can conclude at present (from the evidence as seen published) that for now, the backbone of the press is nothing more than a shoddy paperback!

Back to the Age of Cyber Alexander the Great, as we see the Huffington post, we see the quote “The FSR itself is a veritable tilt-a-whirl of revolving doors, with a steadily increasing lobbying budget on behalf of its corporate bankers and insurers and a roster of high-placed former government officials. For example, the FSR employs the firm of Barnett, Sivon and Natter to advocate its causes“, The Financial Services Roundtable (FSR) seems to be dealing with its ‘own’ mess by getting the bigger boys on the block involved. Now, whether the use of mess is qualified is depending on the view of where the responsibility of pro-active protection and support should be at. (at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bea-edwards/the-nsas-keith-alexander_b_5515718.html), but there is no doubt in my mind, that those who would like to be (people like me), who have advanced data skills will have to clear the field to those with catered skills form the NSA, that is just a plain and at times, a little uncomfortable truth. If we look at the CCNA OSI layer as a comparison, then I would cover the layer two and higher, like most of us data boers (South African giggle), yet people like Patrick Dowd have layer one in addition. We all know layer one (physical layer), yet we do not actively interact with it other than a facilitation level. It is there that the difference of a million a month is easily spotted. We can all do it with time, but we were never able to work on that plain, that is where NSA bang for the buck resides. And let us be clear, this is a massive bang for all of the monthly bucks, because if you had not figured it out. RFID blockers are there for a reason, it is not a fab and it is not an overly worrying thing. The people (a very small group at the tip of the pyramid) would gain knowledge of a person beyond your imagination when they scan you as you pass by. The problem is not that you get scanned at times; it is where the flaws start on how thousands lose small amounts every day and no one is ever the wiser. Bloomberg reported in 2011 that hackers took a billion a year, that leak must be dealt with and this is just the small cash drains, when we consider other avenues, the loss of 1 billion might actually be the tip of another pyramid and as such the FSR will needed another game plan.

Keith Alexander saw this niche that was ignored for far too long and with the help of Patrick Dowd and others like him they are looking at changing the game and drastically reducing the losses. In a game of billions, 20 million would be a steal at twice the price. In the age of cutting down, a market hole was found and IronNet Cybersecurity is filling that niche nicely. Consider that the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), the Consumer Bankers Association and the Financial Services Roundtable (FSR) are only the beginning. It’s such a nice view where we see a former General turned data visionary could become the founder of a billion dollar company. This is not a boast, when we see that outside of the US the digital theft age is a lot more than just a simple 9 figure number, the exact amount is not known, we know of the fact that it is, but not how much, but when it is hushed up to this intent, we can safely assume it is to some extent worryingly high, so as such IronNet Cybersecurity is not the first, but it is likely to grow faster and larger then all others for simple reason of skills and access to knowledge, two elements the others do not tend to have to that degree on these fields.

What will be next? That is the question which is not answered with the final quote, but it shows a much larger field then many considered “Compounding the potential financial conflicts at the NSA, Buzzfeed reported that the home of chief of its Signals Intelligence Directorate, Teresa Shea, has a signals-intelligence consulting firm operating out of it. The firm is run by her husband James, who also works for a signals-intelligence firm that Buzzfeed said appears to do business with the NSA; and Teresa Shea runs an “office and electronics” business that lists a Beechcraft plane among its assets” If you think it has no bearing then think again. As the requirements for data retention grows as stated in more than one nation, the clear limits to skills and people, which have been noted by me and several others to some extend over several months, where do you think these telecom companies will get the consultants and knowledge from?

These places refused to grow expertise when they had the chance, pushing the need forward again and again, now these consultants are pretty much all that is left and training in house staff will get a lot more expensive soon enough, good business is where you find it, and it seems that Keith Alexander and Teresa Shea saw that companies were painting themselves into a corner, they only had to wait until the first one realised that they had no place left to go.

The consequence came to them as easy as eating pancakes, the cherry they got for free!

IKEA politicians hammer changes!

Yes, the issues have come bashing through the walls, or in the case as Julian Assange claims it, though his floor from the apartment below. I feel uncertain what will happen to Sweden. Let me start by adding two sources. One is the Huffington Post (at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/14/sweden-election-results_n_5819612.html); the other is the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/14/sweden-election-feminists-greens-stefan-lofvan-social-democrats).

This is all in response to the initial setting that led to my Blog ‘Memory lane is a freeway‘, from last Saturday (13^th September), which all started with some greed driven piece on something called ‘the sovereign investor‘, which did not make sense and let me indirectly to Natixis, who until then had stayed below my radar.

But why is there such an issue? You see I did not have any issue, just the text “But some political events have the power to destroy economies on a large scale. And Sweden’s vote is one of those moments“, this is at the core of the deception. It is not politicians who are failing, in the case of Sweden, some privatisations took the road of profit at the expense of quality; this had angered a lot of Swedes, which means no more easy profit and no exploitation of the elderly.

“A return to a Social Democratic government, allied with communists on the left, would see corporate profits plunge in Sweden as the state confiscates businesses’ earnings to pay for increased welfare payments“, reads like ‘American’ McCarthy like responses, yet Reuters gives us the clear reason why the Swedes are angry “Voters have been shocked by scandals over privately-run state welfare – including one case where carers at an elderly home were reportedly weighing diapers to safe money – and bankruptcies of privately run schools” (at http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/14/uk-sweden-election-idUKKBN0H90XN20140914). So the article by a ‘profit seeker’ called Jeff D. Opdyke, leaves more than just a little to be desired. This is a clear showing on how a small greedy fish is exposing a titanic sized behemoth, whilst leaving all the other people wondering why we are allowing for these absurd levels of exploitation. So, thank you Mr person from Delray Beach, Florida for showing us just how greed and exploitation needs to be halted on nearly every level.

Now, I allow him his viewpoint, I do not agree with it, but that is his right. You see, when you privatise something, which is always good when the government does not have to, we must allow for two things:

If it is profitable others would come quick, or to some extent taxation goes down.
If someone tells us that they can do a better job than the government, all people should demand EVIDENCE on how they expect to do that.

Any of these two parts are nearly always ‘avoided’ in any privatisation, which means that we see a decrease in services or an addition in cost. When someone expects to make a profit from a care centre, you can be certain that the people in the care centre end up being victims. We have privately run places here in Australia, yet they tend to cost in excess of $1,000 a week, the care is truly top notch, now consider that the government gives decent care to the elderly, cheaper and not as amazing as some private spaces, but that is the consequence of government health care. I have been in the arms of government health care in a hospital and I had ZERO complaints (apart from saving my life, these people showed true care and passion for their vocation), so when someone steps in stating ‘I can do it cheaper’ we will see casualties and it is not the people claiming to do it better. I think that the less we say the better. The Guardian had this quote “The decision, which follows four school closures announced by the company in February, came as the Danish private equity group Axcel, which bought the chain in 2008, decided it could no longer continue to cover the company’s losses“, which just shows you how some privatisation aims are not even close to being kept. (at http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/may/31/free-schools-education) I wonder if Mr Profit Seeker took a look at the data from these places. In that regard, from that same article we learn “Michael Gove is open to the idea of profit-making companies running free schools, an idea expected to be in the Tories’ 2015 election manifesto“, so I hope that Mr Gove (a conservative MP from Surrey Heath) takes a long cold shower to mull things over, because in this climate, the UK can ill afford an education blunder like that.

So, is the Swedish Social Democrat system so bad?

There is no clear answer there, it is a given that the outgoing PM was not a bad person. Fredrik Reinfeldt took what seemed to be the safest route in a dubious economy, largely created by the earlier mentioned capitalists and their financial advisors.

Sweden, one of the most social and caring nations in the history of this planet went from an undisputed first position, to somewhere below the top 10, this in itself might not have been the worst place, but local pride had been given a devastating blow and as such a large change happened last night. Yet, is this road the best? Not sure if I can say yes, as a Christian I state that the road of Buddha (one of balance) is at times not just the safest road, but it seems to me that at present it is the only road many nations should consider. Greed is globally at an all-time high and it can only be countered by illuminating those people under loads of sunshine, whilst holding people accountable for choices and actions. Consider the repose we saw earlier “it could no longer continue to cover the company’s losses“, this implies incompetence, but is that the case? Schools will never be a place of profit. Why do you think that a place like Ashbourne in Kensington (UK) costs well over $11,000 per term? Quality costs in the end and proper teaching is all about quality. So did the Danish private equity group Axcel not crunch the numbers correctly? Was there a profit reason? It seems that this issue is still not dealt with, because equity groups tend to be about profit, what happened to the real estate value of these schools? Who owns them now? All questions, no answers and it seem to me that these matters are not enjoying that much exposure in that regard either. I am not stating that any laws were broken, but when you start ‘funding’ schools, it comes at a cost. The Ashbourne website states “Ashbourne was founded in 1981 by its current Principal and Director Mr Mike Kirby“, I am willing to bet the house (or at least a decent 21 year old single malt) that this took all his energy, dedication and pretty much every moment of his life to get this one place to the point it got (as one of London highest desired schools to get enrolled in). When some investment group gets involved I tend to turn cynical and suspicious (yes, all at the same time).

So, we do not know how the new Swedish government will pan out to be, yet we should all consider that the Swedish way worked through loads of hard times. Personally I think that turning away greed driven players is the best course, so how about me?

Well, I considered teaching English in Italy next year, whether for just a year or two, I do not know. Possibly in a Catholic school, preferably state run. If I get free classes in Italian and Latin out of it and some pocket money, a place to sleep as well as storage fee, I will be happy. I won’t cost anyone anything, I do not take up space and I bring positivity to a place that is not there for a profit, which means that if I am not a pressing cost it is a win-win. So, you the reader, when did you last consider turning that master degree or PhD into a long term social benefit to a school or a worthy cause, even if it is just for a year or two.

We all seem to race towards a ‘Return On Investment’ position, whilst those exploiting us will dump any of us in a second if we do not match the spread sheet index factor of profit. Let us all make this world a little better and let the financial system collapse the way it is, when they collapse, our lives will return to the notion that life should be about a roof, a bed (preferably with a passionate woman in my case) and a decent meal. These are all changes that do not require a hammer, and IKEA has all but two of the other components (they do not build houses at present).

There is no real moral here at present, yet if Sweden does pull of a real reorganisation whilst not diving into the deepest depth then Sweden becomes the first nation to ward of Greed and survive in the process, I reckon we should all keep our eyes on Sweden and illuminate any greed driven change, because if they can make it, so can any Commonwealth nation and as such, hope might return to America at some point. Greed driven players and financial institutions might not be doing that well, but I feel an air of certainty that no one else will lose any serious sleep over that part of the equation.

ISIS is coming to town!

Many have seen the news. Iraq is facing another brawl between the Sunni and Shiite. I do not proclaim any side, or even to know and comprehend the difference between the two beyond a limited and basic level. Is it required? There is an interesting article on it all in the Huffington Post (at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-barbanel/the-current-incarnation-isis_b_5509461.html), whether this is something you can connect to is up to you. It is the last paragraph that gives me pause and even some worry.

“Unfortunately, what’s needed is for the West to man-up and send in a multi-national force (Americans, Brits, French, Germans, etc.) and squash ISIS (which has ambitions of spreading their Islamic revolution to London and New York). It won’t take many planes or drones. ISIS has no air force. It won’t even take many troops to confront the several thousand ISIS fighters. What it will take is will power and if there’s absence of that we will be left only with the words of the 18th Century Irish philosopher Edmund Burke: ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.‘”

First of all, the US has no intent of getting involved (at present), more important should they? Remember the old issue when between the 2nd and the 4th of August 1990, Iraq took over Kuwait? It was condemned and after a while the US instigated Desert Storm and it was in that time between 17th January and 28th February 1991 that Sadam Hussein was removed from Kuwait. It was after this when at some point Bill O’Reilly made mention that at this stage, the hold of Sadam Hussein was weak and the Iraqi people could have overthrown their government if they truly wanted freedom. He was correct in a sense, but was he correct overall? I did not consider that part until this week. You see, the issues around Operation Iraqi Freedom (a dubious choice of name to some extent), was that this situation was never completely and correctly resolved (I admit that my use of correct is debatable). So as the US established democratic elections and formation of new Shia led government, we should wonder, even though the Shiite is in a massive majority, how the Sunni’s would react. Last week we saw the escalation of that sentiment in all its brutality. Giving a lot more weight to the consideration Bill O’Reilly left me with when he made the initial statement.

I needed to get another view, so I looked and I found this statistic Shia Muslims constitute 10-20% of the world’s Muslim population and 38% of the Middle East’s entire population, So that is a sizeable chunk, another gave me: “Most Muslims are of two denominations: Sunni (75 – 90%) or Shia (10 – 20%)“, which makes me wonder at first, yet the view from Professor Sue Hullett gave me: “Let me review, while Shia Islam makes up only 10%-20% of the world’s Muslim population, Iraq has a Shia majority (between 60%-65%), but had a Sunni controlled government under Saddam Hussein“, As she is the Distinguished Professor and Chair of Political Science at Knox College, her numbers should be regarded as reliable and they are in line with other numbers I found.

This leaves me with a much clearer picture that we are facing a change where Iraq goes back into the shape it had under Sadam Hussein. More important, the Shiite majority seems to be unwilling to fight the Sunni’s in this matter. Linked to this is a second quote from the Huffington Post “Tens of thousands of Iraqi troops just ran away, abandoned their equipment and abdicated their duty. Had even a fraction of them stood and fought, ISIS probably could have been thwarted.”

This is exactly in the light Bill O’Reilly stated several years ago. So is this a case of ‘Barbarians’ attacking ‘Pacifists’? More important, is it the job of the USA to just intervene every time? The issue of ‘deserting’ Shiite’s, for whatever reason, gives clear indication that not only was the exit strategy poorly chosen, an exit strategy should not have been considered. In other light, if the Iraqi’s are not willing to fight for their country and resources, what rights are they enabling themselves with?

Is there a solution?

I am not sure if there is. I have my doubts whether 300 advisors will help when troops run away leaving plenty of resources behind for ISIS, the fact that ISIS was active in Syria and is now armed to the teeth and entering Iraq should also give way to additional questions. The strategic position of ISIS at the borders of Iraq, Syria AND Jordan should also be seen as a dangerous escalation. The destabilisation of Jordan (if made threats are accurate), will push millions of refugees in all kinds of direction; none of them could be seen as a positive one. This is at the heart of the strategy of ISIS, which with my apology for a lack of better phrasing is actually brilliant. They have area control to move large amounts of goods and the US is not clear on what to do and where to do it. If they openly start an opposition war, whether from Iraq or not, they will derail whatever achievements the US state department had made with Iran, this will open up more options for Syrian escalation and the one almost ‘stable’ part there (Jordan), will now be in direct threat as well as its Royal family. Unless King Abdullah II of Jordan finds an acceptable alliance and added support, it runs the risk of destabilising really fast. Now we have ourselves a true Clambake as ISIS ends up with resources at the bulk of the Israeli borders. There is then a direct threat to Eilat (via Jordan) as well as the option to enter the Sinai with from there a path to Hamas. Israel could find themselves in a direct war on two fronts whilst having only limited options to reflect the invader ISIS without direct consent of Jordan, which ties the hands of Israel, with likely direct threats to the cities of Eilat, Ashkelon and Beer Sheva, which puts Israel in clear and present danger of having to instigate a massive offensive. This changes the Sinai into a powder keg and whilst there is no outspoken hostility against ISIS by Egypt, even if it was, Egypt will not allow an increased presence of Israel in the Sinai, making this “no man’s land” a good haven for ISIS, would they proceed in this direction.

ISIS is there for a massive danger for overall stability. That part is called to order even stronger when we consider the headline of the Financial Times ‘Diverse funding and strong accounting give Isis unparalleled wealth‘, by Sam Jones, Defence and Security Editor yesterday afternoon. This gives way to several issues. Not only are they a threat, they are a well-funded threat, which means that they could support Hamas with materials allowing for even more attacks on Israel, giving us an easy escalating situation. I reckon my initial advice for Israel to take back the Sinai in 2012 would have been the best course of action. Not in any anti-Egyptian way, but considering the pressures President Sisi is dealing with at present, having to deal with ISIS in his back yard might have been the one part he preferred not to deal with.

It would also have limited several explorations by ISIS, yet that did not happen, which means that unless a direct solution for Iraq can be found, we will see escalations all over the Middle East. If ISIS does get a hold of Iraq, the US will be forced into a financial and military corner, requiring a solution in a multinational way and very likely in several nations. Will that ever be an acceptable option?

In my mind, the most direct meed would not be Iraq, but Jordan. It is dealing with millions of refugee’s and a dwindling amount of resources. You should by now realise that until Iraqi’s pick up arms (instead of fleeing), that theatre could be lost. If we accept the roman principle of war (the installation of defences against enemy retaliation), then adding strength to the Kingdom of Jordan, as well as a massive increase of Humanitarian aid will be a first priority. It makes Israel less of a target and it limits the movement of ISIS in regards to Syria and Iraq. Yet in the end, until an offensive is launched, ISIS cannot be dealt with and that is something that needs to be done, the question remains: ‘how to do it?’

1 Comment

Filed under Military, Politics

Tagged as Ashkelon, Beer Sheva, Bill O'Reilly, Eilat, Financial Times, Huffington Post, Iran, Iraq, ISIS, Israel, Jordan, King Abdullah II, Knox College, Middle East, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Sadam Hussein, Saddam Hussein, Sam Jones, Shia Muslims, Shiite, Sinai, Sue Hullett, Sunni, Sunni and Shiite, Syria, USA

January 6, 2014 · 22:24

The Governors act

In amongst the 82.4 things (roughly) I have to do on a daily basis, the fleeting moments I have to myself are fleeting indeed. Whether I keep myself busy, keep myself occupied or keep myself distracted does not matter. My mind does not stop working. It was during these activities that an article on Steven Seagal crossed my eyesight. The article was part of the ‘problem’. It was a minimal associated press message on how the Actor Steven Seagal is considering to be running for the position of Governor of Arizona (at http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/jan/05/steven-seagal-arizona-governor).

A mere 140 word article, surrounded by 8,000 characters of ‘notifications’! Is that all that the Guardian was capable of? The Independent made a much better job of it adding a few things (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/marked-for-governor-steven-seagal-hints-at-arizona-election-bid-9039937.html), my response to that is well done Tim Walker!

So what is the beef I have? Well, many of us, and to some degree me too when I was a lot younger did not take the idea of an actor going into politics very seriously. But is that not at the heart of our own folly? Let’s face it, especially in America; the elected official is a spokesperson for the people who elected him/her.

Even nowadays, many actors become so after getting a University Master’s degree that that tend to include Communication and Media.

Ronald Reagan as the former 40th President of the United Stated will likely remain the most famous of them all. Yet, the other names are not without distinction. Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California and one of the more interesting names would be Jesse “The Body” Ventura, who was a professional wrestler, actor and became Governor of Minnesota. The rumour that the bears were so afraid of this governor that they left for the Dakota’s is still unconfirmed. 😉

Finally there is John Lodge who after a decent actor (playing with stars like Shirley Temple and Marlene Dietrich), who would serve in WW2 in the US Navy and become Governor of Connecticut.

There are also several actors who decided on other governmental roles like Alan Autry, Clint Eastwood and Jack Kelly. They became Mayors and several actors went to the House of Representatives.

So many took up arms, did their bit and after making loads of money (in acting) decided to do something for their nation. Is there any worthier cause then to represent the people around you?

So, when that flimsy report of 140 words came on a Guardian page, I thought it was time to take another look at a few things.

First of all, some of the negative responses we see thrown at Steven Seagal are not without ‘reason’. The man has not played the upscale roles Al Pacino played. Is that his fault? When movies go well we all want a piece of the glory, when they are mediocre or bad it is always the fault of the actor, it seems unfair as the movie comes from a ‘vision’ of some director, limited by the funds of the producer. I know that there is more to all this. What is known is the fact that he was the centre part in half a dozen blockbusters that made loads of money. The interesting part is that although these movies were not successful, Seagal made several movies aimed to instil environmental consciousness into the viewers of the big screen.

With numerous acts of activism in protection of environment and animals, it seemed to me that this person deserved more than a mere 140 words. In addition, with what we have seen in the last 20 years, how the quality of all goes up as the spokesperson achieves better goals for them, is it so strange that Actors see this as an option when they leave the tinsel town stage? Let us not forget that the roles these wealthy stars occupy in choices from deputy sheriff to governor go from $48,000 to $125,000 a year (average incomes). For these actors, in many cases it is less than peanuts as they have millions stashed away from their previous careers. Before you think it is easy money, consider that a mid-level banker lacking accountability makes somewhere 200% and 24,000% of the average income of a US governor, depending on which bank that banker ends up with.

The biggest issue I have is that all these papers (LA Times, Washington Post, Guardian and so on) they all just used the Associated press part, with a mere 140 words to mention the name of a possible new governor, all of them ending with the line ‘he wants to increase border security‘.

It was only at www.bizpacreview.com where the following was quoted: “During the interview with ABC15, Seagal said he’s had discussions with Arpaio about a potential run, but does have other priorities to consider. When asked what the country’s number one problem was, Seagal’s response was ‘open borders.’ I think that our biggest problem is open borders,” he said. “I think that across these borders, any kind of terrorism can come, and does come. I think this is a tremendous oversight by the current administration.”

Actually, he only has a partial point in my humble opinion. This issue has played for a long time and the non-actions have been visible all the way back to former President Bush. With its 1950 miles it is the most open incursion area for the United States. The rumour on Al Qaeda getting ‘assistance for a fee’ from Mexican drug cartels has been just that, a rumour.

Linked to this is a statement from Louie Gohmert, R-Tyler, who said on C-SPAN’s ‘Washington Journal’ April 17, 2013: “We know al Qaeda has camps over with the drug cartels on the other side of the Mexican border. We know that people are now being trained to come in and act like Hispanic when they’re radical Islamists. We know these things are happening and… it’s just insane not to protect ourselves.”

Here is the kicker, actual evidence has not yet be shown, which is also no evidence that it is not true. The issue for the possible future Governor of Arizona is that his/her 370 mile stretch is almost 20% of that entire borderline. Even if that border was strengthened by a wall, it would not stop the other 80% of the border getting any safer. My issue is that Steven talks a good talk, but the US budgets, the way it is in now clearly indicates that there will never ever be enough money to get these borders secure enough. Whatever the solution it is he wants to implement, it will cost, and it will cost a lot. Until economic prosperity gets back into Arizona, his hands will be tied. Let’s not forget that on the number one spot employer in Arizona is Wal-Mart (the same one where they have mastered the art to pay below the poverty line).

So, whoever ends up in the governor’s chair, his or her goose is slightly cooked. There is of course a creative alternative. He/She could bestow most of Pima County (the southern part or Arizona) to the Navajo, with the only duty that they keep their southern border secure. It is not the worst idea to see these terrorists return to the eternal hunting grounds as a slightly more scalped edition? Is it?

So in the end, should this job go to an actor? Whatever he is labelled as, he has proven to be a fighter, a humanitarian and a philanthropist. Here is where the fight gets interesting. He will go up against Jan Brewer. As a Republican she had increased tax earlier stating that she was forced to ask for the increase due to the state’s $4 billion state budget deficit. In addition, she had been rated as one of the worst governors in America. As such Seagal has more than just a fighting chance. If he can do something about the income of the 30,000 at Wal-Mart in his future state, he could be getting a landslide victory.

This gets us to the actual people in power, meaning those behind a governor advising him/her. Here is where it gets interesting. Those people need funding and sponsors, which makes it interesting for big business to get the right person in power. This means that whatever Steven will try to improve, the places like Wal-Mart will have every intention to get the person elected who serve their purpose. You can read more about that part at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-norman/walmart-lobbyists_b_3632526.html. One of the quotes that come out strong is “the contributions of the Wal-Mart Stores political action committee to federal candidates and other political committees has grown rapidly during the past decade.”

So, when we consider the power Wal-Mart has, we should also wonder who they prefer, Jan Brewer or Steven Seagal. Because behind the power of Wal-Mart hides a fistful of billions, which makes for one mighty punch.