Monthly Archives: October 2015

Global Internet Access – The Race Is On

48405289  ‘Global internet access’ has become a paramount goal of     humanitarian effort. Companies like FaceBook, Microsoft and Google are chomping at the bit to provide broad internet access in the most remote corners of the earth. Google’s latest initiative, Project Loon, sends balloons into the stratosphere to boost 4G signal to countries like New Zealand and, most recently, Indonesia. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg finds himself particularly concerned with connecting India to the internet, and ultimately of course to FaceBook. India has a population just north of 1.2 billion with less than 20% having internet access. A market of this size stimulates internet developers to pioneer the cause. However, FaceBook and Google may be late to the party, as far as India is concerned.

An Indian company based in Bangalore may have the necessary technology to provide access to most, if not all 1.2 billion people in the country. Saankhya Labs has developed Meghdoot, a transmitter that utilizes TV white space to provide and boost internet signals. At the core of the transmitter lies a microchip no bigger than a postage stamp. The Pruthvi chip powers the transmitter and allows it to convert the unused TV bandwidth into amplified internet signal.


My Winning Presidential – Double – Ticket (Except They’re Both Dead)


Like many Americans, I’ve been immersed in the 2016 Presidential debates. Truthfully, I’m not the least bit impressed. They seem like nothing more than a series of clown shows. I’d rather curl up with a cup of fair-trade coffee and read Nietzsche. So last night, I decided to create my own Presidential ticket. I’m calling it Election Fantasy Football.

Back in the eighties when I was attending a Catholic Jesuit high school in my native Columbus, Ohio, one of the requirements for graduation was to recite all of the U.S. Presidents in order with their terms in office. My recall is good, so I jogged my memory in search of the one president most closely aligned with my libertarian bent.  

Drum roll please. My choice……………

Calvin Coolidge, the 30th U.S. President

And for his running mate, I chose Jack Kemp, former New York Congressman and Housing Secretary under George H.W. Bush.

Below, I’ll make the argument as to why Americans should support a Coolidge/Kemp Presidential ticket. But before you read this, I want to remind you not to get too far upstream with your excitement because they’re both dead.

The Case for Coolidge

I know, I know term limits – as well as Coolidge’s death – would prohibit this fantasy from occurring. But work with me here. As the 30th U.S. President, he was a modest and humble man (unlike Trump), and he is arguably the last true laissez-faire, libertarian-oriented political leader to see the Oval Office.

Crowdfunding – Free Market Solutions for Social Causes

crowdfundingpicIf you’re like me, you’ve probably contributed to a couple of crowdfunding campaigns before. I love the idea of crowdfunding. It feels great to direct your support to projects in which you are interested, and to be able to contribute an amount that works for you. It’s like a more visible and interactive way of fundraising and donating. Crowdfunding started out mainly as a platform used for deliverable content like films and music but recently, it has expanded to include personal and cause-oriented projects such as helping victims of natural disasters or supporting the adoption of a child. Essentially, crowdfunding has become a free market solution for social causes.

GoFundMe seems to be the premier platform for cause-oriented crowdfunding, but IndieGoGo can still claim it’s place as the first personal and non-profit funding platform. IndieGoGo recently decided to make a move for GoFundMe’s crown by building

The Koch Brothers: Friends or Foes of Black Americans?


Most black folks have no clue as to the identity of David and Charles Koch. The few that do are leery of this duo. Heirs to an oil business that they inherited from their father, the Koch brothers (as they are affectionately known), worked hard to transform it into a massive multi-business enterprise with gross profits in excess of $115 billion a year. Consistent with their strong Tea Partyish and quasi-libertarian leanings, the brothers have doled out millions of their own money in promoting conservative causes, leading to a spot on Time Magazine’s ‘Most Influential’ list.

The Kochs have been criticized in some circles as being racist, particularly for their role in championing laws that some critics believe have hindered the ability of black Americans to vote. Arguably, they’ve been a thorn in the side of President Obama; ankle biters who have challenged him every step of the way on issues ranging from health care reform to climate change. Liberals are generally repulsed by the brothers’ conservative ways and willingness to utilize their wealth by contributing millions to right-leaning causes. But because of their wealth and the pervasive impact their funding has on the everyday lives of all Americans, their influence must be accounted for.

Trick or Treat?

In 2014, these two billionaires sent shock waves through the world of higher education by donating $25 million to the United Negro College Fund in support of America’s struggling black colleges and universities. Many African-American leaders harshly criticized the move as nothing more than influence peddling. Yet the question still remained as to whether this offer of generosity would be accepted by the black higher education community in the context of the steady migration of black students to better funded and predominantly white institutions of higher education which decline federal government support, while some conservative lawmakers are trying to close under-performing and financially-strapped black colleges and universities.

My father worked at an HSBC, as they were known during the latter part of his career as a university administrator. For that reason, I paid attention to the Koch announcement, curious as to whether those United Negro College Fund leaders would view the financial offer as a trick or treat. As to be expected, many immediately questioned the intent of the contribution in light of their understanding of the Koch brothers. Others took a more thoughtful stance due to the perilous scenario facing many of these higher ed institutions. “

Confiscation of Money and Private Property: Are You Fed Up Yet?


It’s 3:00 a.m. in the morning, and I am up writing this after having my sleep disrupted by a disturbing dream. In my dream, I am headed somewhere on an Amtrak train when it suddenly comes to an abrupt stop. A federal agent approaches and asks for the work ID I have on a cord around my neck. I say “No,” stating that it is unconstitutional to ask me for this without reasonable cause. The agent responds with “Okay, thank you very much,” before proceeding to ask other passengers the same question.

Later in the dream, I notice a long line of people have been rounded up at the back of the train. The female conductor, who is stationed at the front of the line, just shakes her head. She mentions to the remaining passengers that this has become a frequent occurrence on many train routes and that those who agree to the confiscation are rounded up for additional search and seizure. “Those who say yes are presumed to be guilty,” she says, with a very concerned look on her face.

I am not surprised by the timing of this dream, because I have been preparing for several days to write an article on what is known as Civil Asset Forfeiture. This practice is coming under fire across the U.S. as growing numbers of innocent Americans are having their cash, computers and other items confiscated by the feds, without even being charged with a crime.

Civil Asset Forfeiture is a little-known legal tool used by law enforcement to confiscate your property, sell it and then use the proceeds to fund their crime-fighting efforts – or just buy themselves new stuff that they want. Because of the egregious manner in which it is used, states like Michigan and New Mexico have enacted reforms to prevent innocent citizens from having their money and property taken. And even law enforcement officers are now speaking out against this practice, which brings in millions in revenue to police departments who then use the money to further oppress the masses.

So how widespread is this issue? Well, you be the judge. The best case example is in Philadelphia – the so-called City of Brotherly Love – where from 2002 to 2012, over $64 million in forfeiture funds (almost $6 million a year) was exacted from its citizens. Just in 2011 alone, city prosecutors filed over 6,500 forfeiture cases to confiscate cash, cars, homes and other property. The worst offense of all is that the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office is reputed to have used $25 million of that $64 million to pay salaries, including those of the very prosecutors who led the forfeiture actions.

Are Freelancers Making Bank?


In May of 2002, a book entitled ‘Free Agent Nation: The Future of Working for Yourself’ was released to much acclaim. In it, author Daniel Pink coined the term ‘free agent’ to reflect  movement towards an economy dominated by freelancers and the self-employed. His message was revolutionary at the time, sparking debate as to whether this new band of independent workers would be able to earn a sustainable living via non-traditional work.

Let’s fast forward to 2015. According to a new report released by the contractor-matching site Upwork and the Freelancers Union, freelancers say that they are indeed making bank, bringing in more money than their counterparts in traditional office jobs. This year, an estimated 34% of the U.S. workforce categorized themselves as freelancers. When distilled down to raw numbers, 54 million Americans – up by over over 700,000 workers from the previous year – are functioning in either a full or part-time freelance capacity. Many talent economy experts expect this trend to continue.

My Own Personal Journey

After 7 years in leadership roles in the healthcare human resources field, I began my journey as a solo business owner in 1993, providing consulting services to a wide swath of corporate clients. This later morphed into a career on the speaking circuit, amassing an average of 60 engagements a year for conferences throughout the U.S.  

To handle the heavy demand of my growing business, I even hired a virtual assistant (me in Chicago, she in Minneapolis), before this idea had even become popular.

Needless to say, we – among the rare few back then who elected to unlock the corporate handcuffs to pursue our own gig – were considered to be nuts. “What about your retirement benefits?”,  a few would ask. “It seems so unstable,” said others.

Yes, it seemed risky at the time. But honestly, I’ve always felt more secure pursuing my own thing. Even to this day, the thought of being locked into a W-2 job evokes a nauseating sense of unease in the pit of my stomach. I know, I know… it’s a control thing.

In fact, talk to most freelancers these days and they will share a similar tune. We all love the flexibility of creating a career on our own terms. And in terms of money, it’s far better to capture all of the money due for the value you’ve delivered than to have to work for pay that has a ceiling. Unlimited income possibilities + flexibility: how can you beat that?

Those surveyed indicated that they are largely satisfied with how the freelance lifestyle is working out for them. 60% said they turned freelance by choice and as a result, they are earning more than they did previously in their traditional jobs. And somewhat surprisingly, 78% noted that they had exceeded their previous earnings within a year of going solo.