Dan Wos's Blog

Help a Hipster - Guiding the misguided

 I was at the gun range the other day with my friend Blake. We were talking about World news, what's going on with our Country, the economy and where we are headed. You know, the things concerned Americans talk about. Blake's son Trevor was with us. Trevor is a young millennial of let's say the "Hipster" persuasion. Trevor is a bit socially awkward. He's wearing sandals at the range, kinda' feminine, has no interest in shooting and generally doesn't fit in but Blake wants nothing more than to do father-son things with his boy. So in the hopes of connecting with his son, Blake attempts to create these bonding moments.
 The problem is Trevor has a very difficult time building rapport with people and always has his face in his phone. So, as the conversation evolved into the topic of our Constitution Trevor chimed in and started to tell us how right-wing religious tyrants created the Constitution. I was shocked to hear him speak at all, but even more surprised by what he was saying. His dad asked him where he heard such a thing and Trevor told him that is was common knowledge and that his Dad should really bone up on a little history once in awhile. Talk about losing connection with your own son.
 Trevor didn't know a thing about the Constitution but had a lot of opinions and this started to make Blake a bit concerned. I could see fear and embarrassment in my friend's eyes as he attempted to talk some sense into his son. The mood quickly went down hill and we wrapped things up and went home.
 I couldn't help but think about what happened for the rest of the day and I wondered how it is that our young people have fallen so easily for the left-wing propaganda. My thought is that it is easier for them to latch on to that group and ideology because it promises many things that they would otherwise have to work for. Things like an entitlement mind-set, which is needed to convince oneself that it's ok to live with your parent and not work for a living and a feeling of being smarter and superior to others. Being liberal also allows you the ability to feel like a victim and constantly complain of being offended while demanding everyone else accommodate you on social issues and pander to your whining. It has it all, you would think. But what the liberal movement really does is rob some people of their own self-respect. It takes away their power to recognize their own self-worth, their ability to be proud of a job well done and the empowering feeling of standing up for true American values - values that made this Country great. So while these young liberal men are pouring lattes, working to perfect their feminine demeanor and demanding that people stop recognizing gender, there are other young men out there who aspire to be men - strong, confident, proud men. Those are the guys who will grow up to understand accomplishment and pride. They are the ones who will take over management of this great country. They are the ones who will run the major corporations and actually do the hard work that will need to be done to succeed.
 I am scared for these "liberal boy-girl-whatevers" because I think they are being badly misled by a movement that does not have their best interest in mind and will ultimately leave them facing a cruel world without the tools necessary to make it. Its time we get back to recognizing the fact that men are men and women are women. It does nobody any good to blur the two. So while the "liberal boy-girl-whatevers" are rallying against big business and not having sex because they think it objectifies their female counterparts, the real men are running away with the prize. It's kind of sad that they think they are doing the right thing based on what their ideology dictates but the rest of us just view them as strange little characters that seem to be missing the point.
 As Americans it is our responsibility to guide this lost group. We need them to be productive. We need them to be proud. We need them to be men.
To your Success,Dan Wos
 

I'm right, You're wrong

The clash of ideologies we see in America is astounding. How is it that we as human beings can be so divided on issues? Take a look at guns, abortions, capitalism, welfare, war, immigration or any other hot topic. You will find American’s opinions split down the middle. People are not only split but take a very strong stance in support of their view and seem to have no tolerance for the other.
It also seems that in most cases if you side with a group (Conservative or Liberal) on one topic, you tend to agree on all. If there is one or two topics you stray from your group on, it is usually a topic you don’t talk about. Could it be that our brains are designed to think one way or the other, or could it be something else that is causing us to take sides? I do believe the split is politically driven, but in a way that utilizes the internal weaknesses we have as humans. I believe we are driven by our need to be "Right".
This topic became very interesting after I witnessed a conversation about abortion. The woman who was “for abortion” got so irate that she was belittling the woman who was against it. The woman who was against abortion  believed that it was “wrong” to do. Their definition of wrongwas obviously different, and that distinction could have been part of the problem. But the real interesting (and scary) part was the fact that the woman supporting abortion could be so destructive and demeaning in supporting her view. It literally came down to name calling and personal insults. <Disclaimer: This article is not about abortion. You can insert any topic you'd like.>
This got me thinking, “What would it mean to some people if they were to admit their views or beliefs were inconsistent or without merit or if they were able to see the other's point of view?” What would it mean about them as a person? What would it mean about someone if they were “wrong”?

We are generally insecure in many ways. We need reassurance often. For example, let's say you just bought a boat-load of stock in a company called Wizbang and the day after you bought it the news announced that they made a merger with another company causing the stock to almost double. You'd feel pretty secure about your position. But let's say as soon as you bought your Wizbang stock everyone you know told you that the company will tank and you made a horrible decision. You'd probably feel insecure or at least question your choice. The feeling of insecurity can apply to a wide range of things--from not knowing why your car is making a grinding noise, to going into public with a bad haircut. The truth is, we feel better about ourselves when more people agree with us.

What does it mean about me (as a person) if others disagree with me?

Why does it matter what other people think?

Why do we care if people agree with our views?

I'll tell you. Validation. "The more people that agree with me, the more valid my argument is." At least that's what we think. This is so important to some people that they will argue their point to the extent that it turns into personal bashing, name calling, ridiculing and sometimes even physical confrontation. That's how important it is to some people to be "right" about something.

So what causes this need to be right and why is it that some people don't care who agrees with them? It comes down to confidence and self-esteem. Those who are confident, don't need validation from anyone and have no need to rally people to their side of the argument. Those who are unsure of themselves will argue to the death because one more person on their side validates their claim a little bit more and helps them feel more secure in their own beliefs.

When someone is all alone on a topic, it's inevitable that they stop and wonder why. Some will fear the thought because they think the rest of the world might know something they don't and some might wonder why everyone else hasn't seen reality yet. Again, this comes from the level of confidence that person has with respect to the topic. Standing alone with your beliefs amidst contradiction and even confrontation is a great measure of confidence and strength in your personal ethics and beliefs.....or is it ignorance and delusion?

To your Success,
Dan Wos

The fight for 15

Someone actually said "It's sad that Companies profit off their employees".

That was probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever read and think we need to get a grip on the minimum wage issues we are having. But this is how some people think when it comes to employment.

It's not sad for a company to be focused on profit. A company like Walmart has two major functions. 1. create a product or service 2. generate a profit for shareholders. What's sad is that people somehow came to believe that a company has a responsibility to create jobs. Jobs are a bi-product of doing business. Employees are a necessary expense to a business. Like it or not. Our society has turned employees into victims and then rallied to their need. No one is "preying" on anyone. Just businesses doing what they should - creating a product or service and generating profit. Profit is good. If businesses don't offer equal compensation for equal skill level work, then people won't do the job. There are obviously people in this Country that will work cheap because you see them doing it everyday. 

Businesses will always try to find the best workers at the lowest rate. That's good business. Just like when you shop for the best quality product at the lowest rate. You wouldn't pay more for the same quality TV when you could get it for cheaper, would you? So, you may want to ask yourself, how are you contributing to the problem when you as a consumer shop for the lowest price products? Almost seems hypocritical to buy the lowest cost product (of same quality) yet fight to support higher pay for low skill level workers. We might want to ask ourselves why people are so willing to work for low pay. You see that would go to the cause of the problem which is immigration and lack of American manufacturing. We wouldn't want to actually look at the cause of the problem because that would be insensitive. We would much rather blame businesses. This Country is trying to survive on retail and it won't work.

Adding the burden of increased wages upon businesses without the opportunity to make up the loss will only result in lay-offs, price increases and a rise in inflation.

This does not get into the topics of how raising the minimum wage affects the economy, retail prices and lay-offs. For more on that, read my blog:
To your Success!
Dan Wos

Have we lost our morals?

Wouldn't it be great if everyone were held accountable to their actions? You know, if you can support a moral ethic when it supports your cause, you should support the same standard if it goes against your cause. If you don't you would be called out as a hypocrite.  It baffles me that people can be outraged over the killing of a lion and silent on the topic of Planned Parenthood killing babies and selling their body parts.

Let me be clear, I do not support what happened with Cecil the Lion. I personally don't hunt, although I am a gun owner. I do not condemn people that do hunt either. But the outrage I am seeing from a certain group of people is staggering when there is a very serious human ethics issue on the table that needs support. Planned Parenthood has been doing the unthinkable and people (including our President and former Secretary of State) have actually continued to support the organization.

Something is wrong. I think the double standard is possible when people can ignore their internal sense of morals. I'm sure we've all done it, but I thought it would be interesting to look at what underlying causes would justify the abandonment of personal morals.

I asked myself what it would take to really ignore a moral ethic of mine and the only thing I could come up with was a higher value ethic. In other words, If I give up on something, it would only mean that there is something else of higher value that I am going for.

In the case of this certain portion of our society abandoning human rights but fighting relentlessly for animal rights, it would make sense that they are going for something that would be of higher value to them. But what? What could be of higher value than human rights?

The most important thing to some people is to avoid the feeling of guilt.

As I watch the world go into turmoil I can't help recognize a small group of activists that constantly blame themselves (and the rest of us) for all the ills of the world. This is very clear when it comes to environmental issues. They are convinced that we are destroying the Earth and everything humans do is bad. Therefore as retribution, we as humans should suffer. They believe we should also put the environment at a much higher standard than anything else, even us. I don't think it's as much about saving the environment as it is for self-punishment and guilt.

Why do we propagate this type of thought process. Why do we convince people that they are destructive and should suffer. Why do we encourage our fellow man to feel shameful and guilty? These are questions that I have yet to find the answers to but it would sure seem that there is an underlying agenda.

So when I look at the condemnation of men for killing an animal and the simultaneous support of an organization for killing humans, it helps me evaluate my own moral compass. I can only hope people take the time to evaluate theirs.


To your Success!
Dan Wos

Are CEO's the Bad Guys?

Ever here the term "Biting the hand that feeds you"...? It's happening a lot lately with the new push  to raise the minimum wage. It comes in the form of bashing CEO's and business owners for making more money than their lowest skill level employees.

Some people completely miss the fact that business owners put themselves through excruciating pain and high levels of risk when starting companies. They work tirelessly in the beginning with often times no income at all. It is an ability to "weather the storm" that most people just do not have. Let me be clear and state that most employees recognize this and understand that running a company has huge risks. Most people choose to work for an established company because they are not willing to take on the responsibilities of a business owner. 

There are two basic mentalities when it comes to jobs - Those who create them and those who need them. The entrepreneur will always focus on creating a product or service and generating a profit. As a result he or she creates the need for employees. Yes employees are often needed. There is a misconception that businesses have a responsibility to create jobs. That's just not true and I talk more about this in my
We have done a great job in America of creating a "Victim" mentality. It's done through the constant rhetoric and propaganda that perpetrates the feeling of disrespect among workers, especially low skill level workers. The combination of this, an increased push to convince people they are "entitled" to something they haven't earned (high pay for low skill level) and the ease in which it has become to give up working to join the ranks of fellow Americans living on government money has created an entire society that condemns the job creators. Partly because (and this is the scary part) that they no longer need to work. Think about that.

Why do we do this? There are two common theories. Number one - It creates voters for the political party that promises hand outs. Number two - It adds more people to the growing society of dependents. Also, playing into the hand of a political movement and ideology.

There is a much greater abundance of low skill level workers in America than CEO's,  and with respect to job creation, the CEO's are much more valuable to our economy. But some people try and appeal to those who feel victimized. It just makes the problem worse.  I think they actually want to make it worse. They like to enrage people and further that feeling of victimization.  I have always believed that if it were not for people who create and run these companies, the others would not have jobs. 



Do you think it is productive to encourage the feeling of victimization?

Do you think it is productive to vilify the job creators?

Thanks for reading.

To your Success!
Dan Wos
 

Controlling the Free Market

I find it interesting to talk to Liberals about their views and opinions of what would be the best way to create a booming economy and increase employment.
The common idea from most Liberal Democrats is that a strong control over corporations and tax increases is the way to do it. They call it “Taxing the Rich”, and although most may envision a big “Fat Cat” type lighting his cigar with a hundred dollar bill and laughing while his minions perform degrading tasks for him for little to no pay, what they are really referring to are corporations. This is because most wealth is made and held in some form of a corporation. While corporations often employ many thousands of people, the “Fat Cat” image is kept alive to further the agenda and belief that all rich people take advantage of others and become wealthy by using unethical strategies.
Socialism is attractive to Liberals because it’s primary goal and function is to control business – how it produces, how it distributes, how it profits and how it functions in society. The ironic thing about the people who support this form of government intervention is that they often work for the same corporations that they try to restrict. They lash out at the “Big Bad Corporate Machine” with a picket sign in one hand and a Starbucks coffee in the other. They spread their anger and hatred of “Big Business” via Facebook or Twitter (another form of big business). This seems hypocritical and counter productive to the average onlooker. In other words, why would they try to destroy something that gives them a paycheck or provides value to them in other ways?
The thought is that they just don’t understand that they are supporting big business while simultaneously trying to destroy it. Many just participate to be part of a movement but some do understand and want businesses to be controlled because they believe that businesses should “Be fair” or “Pay a higher wage”, or any number of things that will benefit them. They believe that through government control they will get what they are “entitled” to. A perfect example is the countless rally cries for the latest $15 per hour minimum wage increase with no regard to the negative effects an 80% payroll hike will have on businesses.
Some might think that a business has a responsibility to the public to create jobs. This is the big lie that has been propagated on the gullible.
The truth is, a "for profit" business has two primary functions regardless of size. Number one – provide a product or service. Number two – create a profit. That’s it.
In the process of doing business, jobs are created. But this is due to necessity. In other words, employees are a necessary expense for a business (jobs are a bi-product). I can hear all the bleeding hearts screaming as I type this. Think about this. If a business could provide a product or service without any employees, would it? The answer is obviously yes, and many do. In order to cut down on expenses, businesses often automate production. The automotive industry is a perfect example of this. Cars on the assembly line used to be built by people. Now they are built by robots. Why do you think that is?
To an entrepreneur automation is beautiful. To someone who relies on a job for income, it is a nightmare. They often ask themselves, “How long will I be relevant?” In the industrial age some people only had one job their entire life. That’s why parents used to say, “Get good grades and go to college, so you can get a safe and secure job.” But as we made it more difficult for companies to do business in the United States, we lost our manufacturing to foreign Countries. This of course results in less jobs for Americans. Technology and automation continue to contribute to the loss of jobs as well. But rather than look at the cause of the problem (loss of manufacturing, automation and regulated wages), many people push for even more government control of corporations and increased taxes. They think, “If we tax the corporations more and raise the minimum wage, our problems will be solved and the job market will soar.” It doesn’t work like that.


These are not abstract concepts and it only takes a bit of logic to understand that looseningthe reigns on businesses will allow them to flourish and as a by-product, more jobs will be created in America. I talk more about this and interview financial expert Brendan Murray in my book "Defining Success in America".
The Free Market System fails when people think they are smarter than it and try to control it.
Think about what would happen if there was no minimum wage. The market would dictate wages based on value and demand. That would mean that a medical assistant with years of schooling would not have to make less than a person flipping burgers. Manipulate the minimum wage to accommodate the people who make the most noise and you get a pricing structure that is out of balance and not tied to any real form of equal value exchange (or dollar for value).
Critics of free market capitalism will argue that the minimum wage is not enough to raise a family. The answer to that argument is simple. Minimum wage jobs were never intended to raise a family on. It’s not ok for grown adults to steal our high school and college kid’s jobs and then demand more money just because they need it? These entry-level jobs are for our kids to gain experience as they enter the workforce. These jobs are for kids who live home and don’t have large expenses.
In a free market, pay is based on the value you bring to the marketplace. Some believe that if they are unable to bring value or increase their skill level, the way to change their rate of pay is through government regulation. That’s why socialism is so attractive to some.
To your Success,Dan Wos

Capitalism vs Socialism

I believe in free market capitalism. Why? Because anytime you regulate business with government policies, it slows them down and impedes their growth. This is not hypothesis. This is fact. Look around the World. Being a business owner my entire adult life, I understand the effort and sacrifice that must be put into a business. In other words, when times are tough and your business needs funding to survive - you don't eat. The upside is, you are creating something larger than you - a service or product that will be around long after you are gone and you have the potential for unlimited growth and prosperity. You can also go broke. The downside is, (like I said) sometimes you don't eat.

Business owners get creative when there is not enough money and the business is not turning a profit. They make cuts. Often these cuts are a direct result of government implemented regulations such as increased minimum wage with no regard to the amount of profit needed for the company to survive. But businesses are very resilient and they will cut down on expenses whether people like it or not. Like labor for instance. That's right, labor (employees). Employees are an expense. Whether some people want to see it or not, employees are a necessary expense in many cases. If a business could operate without them it would (and many do). Businesses also automate wherever necessary to eliminate as much excessive costs as possible. Look at the auto industry. What used to be done by people is now done by robots.

What if there was an entity that could grow exponentially with multiple different branches and divisions, create jobs by the thousands and never have to experience a lack of funding? Sounds great, huh?

Well, what if this entity didn't create a product or service that was of value to people?

What if this entity never turned a profit, but amassed massive debt in the process?

What if this entity was funded by people against their will and better judgement?

Does this sound like a productive use of resources?

Of course not. I am referring to government. Government surely has it's place but getting involved in private business is not one of them. Typically when government get's involved, it brings with it exorbitant costs and sluggish, heavy baggage. Free market capitalism has always worked when left alone to do it's thing. You see, in a free market system the value, costs and expenses regulate themselves. Competition provides options when products or services start to lack in quality or exceed their value in price and purchase power is put in the hands of the people. In other words, we have choice. We can buy or not and if we feel a product or service is not worth it's retail price, we don't have to buy.

The alternative to a "free market" is "socialism". Socialism is described in some circles to be a system in which everyone has a say in the production and distribution of products and services, but in actuality these decisions would go through legislative channels ultimately resulting in government getting their hands in everything related to private business. Although touted as a system that looks out for the consumer and protects them from the "Big Bad" corporations, socialism never works and has been proven destructive time and time again in a number of Countries. Socialism not only hurts the businesses, but also the people themselves by destroying the very economy they live in.

A business has two primary purposes - To create a product or service and to generate a profit. When the landscape won't allow either of those things, the business relocates to a place where it is welcomed. And guess what it takes with it.......Jobs.

For companies to stay in business, they need to stay within acceptable market value pricing or the people will purchase somewhere else. That's understood by everyone. Free market is a perfect system because it keeps everyone accountable. But when outside entities get involved in making rules and regulations for businesses, it causes those businesses to make changes which restrict the flow of product, service, value and business / customer relationships.

For more on this, please read the chapter in my book "Defining Success in America" called "Capitalism". It is an interview with Brendon Murray from Murray Wealth. We talk about Capitalism and he explains how it works in a way that is very informative and easy to understand. Read for FREE below.

To your Success,
Dan Wos




_________________________________________________
CAPITALISM
“ Capitalism’s essence and greatest virtue is that it is a system based on the recognition of individual rights–One mans right to exist and work for his own sake.”– Ayn Rand
 Capitalism is the right of a person to work and/or do business with the ability to gain monetarily from the process. This is what America is based on. Once that ability is gone, I believe we are in a socialistic system. Ayn Rand spoke of the destruction of capitalism in her book “Atlas Shrugged” (1957) and again later in “Capitalism–the Unknown Ideal” (1966). Both these books are a must for anyone who plans on doing business in the U.S.A. My interview with Mike Lurie went so well, I thought I would bring another pro into the mix. This time, I sought the knowledge of Brendan Murray from Murray Wealth Management. When it comes to money and how it moves in America, Brendan knows what he’s talking about. Enjoy!DW: Brendan, thanks so much for doing this interview. Would you care to talk a little on capitalism?
Brendan: Absolutely, I’m happy to.
DW: For starters, what is it in your opinion?Brendan: Well, capitalism is an economic system that’s based on private business with the goal of making a profit. In other words, it’s a system where the ability to produce is driven by individuals, not the government. Another way to look at it is–you eat what you kill, nothing is given to you.
DW: What about pricing points, who determines that?
Brendan: The individuals involved determine the exchange of wealth.
DW: So it sounds to me like the market determines the value or cost of goods and services.
Brendan: Exactly. Competition and quality of goods and services play a big role in that.
DW: How is it that some countries thrive monetarily and others don’t?
Brendan: The reason some countries remain underdeveloped and others flourish is typically a result of natural resources and that country’s ability to harvest those resources. Countries also need to create a political constitution that allows the people the ability to work and prosper from their own efforts. Some countries may have strong natural resources but weak governments–or vice versa.
DW: Can you explain our stock market and how it relates to the overall economy in America?
Brendan: Sure. The stock market and the economy are closely linked in many investors’ minds primarily because the media often blends the two as if they were the same thing.
DW: So, they’re not?
Brendan: No, not really. While the stock market may respond to economic indicators or news, it doesn’t always respond in a way that makes sense. The economy and the stock market may have a lot in common, but the stock market is not the economy and the economy is not the stock market. Historically, the stock market would be a reflection of how well the economy is doing.
DW: What purpose does the Federal Reserve play, and do we really need it?
Brendan: The Federal Reserve System (otherwise known as the “Fed”) is the central bank of the United States. It was created by congress for the purpose of providing the nation with a safer more stable monetary system. It was created in 1913 when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law.
DW: Can you explain what quantitative easing is?
Brendan: Sure. The U.S. is now experimenting with quantitative easing. What it is, (and they have explicitly stated) is their attempt to create a “wealth effect”. Simply by printing money and buying assets, they are hoping this will make people “more wealthy” and stimulate the economy. So, even though the economy has been relatively weak for the past few years, the stock market has increased over 100% from it’s 2008 lows.
DW: Doesn’t this “printing money” have a downside?
Brendan: Yes and no. Although the money printing is directly responsible for the increase in the stock market and has helped increase 401k values–the true success of the program has yet to be determined.
DW: Why? What do you mean?
Brendan: Many people fear a rapid inflation in the future. Also, much of the QE has been used to purchase government bonds–to keep rates lower–and this has punished “savers” of CD’s and bonds (who don’t want to speculate in stocks and equities).
DW: When we print money, how does that affect the average person?
Brendan: The money printed by the Federal Reserve does not end up in the hands of the people. It goes directly to the bank. Currently, much of this money ends up in the stock market for the purpose of inflating asset values. This pushes the Dow Jones Industrial average and S&P higher but does not necessarily increase hiring or consumer spending. Which (in my opinion) is one of the main drivers of the U.S. economy.
DW: I agree. How does QE affect the large corporations in this country?
Brendan: Well, it definitely affects their stock price. As the Fed uses QE to purchase assets, the stock prices of many companies have seen a strong price appreciation. Even though it could be argued that the company’s fundamentals are not very strong. It has also allowed large corporations to refinance debt at record low rates and buyback stock at rates of nearly zero percent.
DW: Sounds good for the companies. No?
Brendan: Yes, it has resulted in better earnings per share. This has been a huge profit center for those who own equity in these companies, but for those who purchase the debt (or bonds) of these companies, they are forced to accept lower rates of return.
DW: How does it affect the financial health of our Country?
Brendan: The Fed’s decision has affected the health of the Country for both the better and the worse. For speculators who invest in equities, the enormous amount of money that goes into the capital markets to buy assets has had a very positive effect on the price of capital assets and has resulted in very large gains over the past five years. However, for savers–who refuse to participate in the equity markets– they have received very low rates of return.
DW: You mean, relative to inflation?
Brendan: Yes. The returns are much lower than the pace of inflation. With a five-year government bond yielding a little over 1%, fixed income investors have had a very difficult time during the Fed’s QE policies. For example, if rates were normalized over the past five years, an investor would have earned 5-6% in a relatively safe investment and the compound return would have been nearly 40%–as opposed to 7% with current interest rate policies.
DW: So, I see the good and the bad.
Brendan: Right. One could argue that the policies of the Fed have been good because of the gains in the stock market. However, if the stock market was to sell off substantially and those gains are not realized, not only will the policies of the Fed prove ineffective, but fixed income investors would also have missed out on normalized rates of return, due to the Fed’s enormous QE experiment to create a “wealth effect”.
DW: Wow. That’s some great info. Thanks so much. It’s great to be able to call on guys like you for info like this.
Brendan: No problem. I’m glad to help. Anytime.
To read the entire book CLICK HERE 
To your Success,Dan Wos 

Exposing the hypocrisy of Political Correctness

The view of PC that is becoming clear to many people across America is that it has become a tool for small radical portions of otherwise legitimate groups to silence the majority. Guess what? The PC movement is starting to lose its effectiveness as Americans begin to realize it's effects are destructive and it is being used for non-productive purposes.
 The intent (in public view) is to show that PC is used to protect the feelings of others but in actuality the people who are supposed to be protected are getting even more angry because it seems to generate a sense of righteous indignation. In other words, it encourages the feeling of being mistreated. The vast majority of people that are targeted as “Politically Incorrect” are getting alienated and afraid to talk about many things for the fear of persecution. Many people are saying that this is backwards, counter-productive, morally wrong and unconstitutional. 
 It's backwards because some are using an otherwise conscientious concept (respect for the feelings of people) as a tool to degrade others.
 It's counterproductive because it divides people. 
 It's morally wrong because good people who want to discuss issues with the intent of repairing them are being accused of unethical behavior.
 It's unconstitutional because it is being used to stifle the free speech of some while it embolds the free speech of others.

Is someone homophobic if they shine a light on the small minority of gay radicals that are destroying the credibility of the vast majority of the gay community with acts of hate?
 Is someone racist if they point out the large number of black on black murders amidst the current cop bashing trend?
 Is a legal immigrant intolerant if he or she prefers other immigrants follow legal procedures when entering America?
 Is it sexist to like when your wife makes you dinner?
 PC critics say, that the hypocrisy is built-in although cloaked in wholesome goodness. 
 There is a difference between “Political Correctness” and respect for others. It would seem that people who aim to be respectful, approach a situation without insulting others while still being able to make their point and engage in a thoughtful discussion. Political Correctness takes the ability to speak one’s mind away because of its inherent negative or shameful representation of the person if their opinion does not agree with the group in question. The effects of PC will eventually affect everyone. Even those who now find it a useful tool. Once it is embraced by all, it will be used by all. Consider the effects. Be careful what you wish for because if we implement such a societal rule it will metastasize into a monster that will be impossible to get out from underneath.
 So although-on its face-PC would appear to be a noble gesture, its effects only make avoiding real situations much easier and alienating good people more common. If we truly want to repair some of the rifts we have in our society, I ask you “How is not being able to talk about them bringing us to any resolve?”

 Now watch hypocrisy rear its ugly head as the PC police react to this unfavorable view of a fabricated tool that is being used for all the wrong reasons. 

To your Success,Dan Wos 

The Fear of Guns

When I was a kid, my Dad took me out hunting and target shooting. He loved it. Me, not so much. It just wasn't my thing. I tried, but just wasn't interested. I mean, I didn't dislike guns and I wasn't scared of them. I just wasn't all that interested. When he would buy a new pistol, he would show it to me and I could tell he loved these things. Of course I showed interest and they where actually kinda' cool but I was more interested in my guitar so I never really jumped on board with the whole "gun thing". My Dad would even build his own rifles. I remember going down to the basement where he he would be assembling old muzzle loader replicas, oiling the wood, staining and just working on these things with such passion. I would later recognize and understand that passion.

 I was always aware of sort of an "anti-gun" niche of people and they never really mattered to me because I never had a vested interest in guns throughout most of my life. I just thought, "Some people like guns and some don't. So what?" It wasn't until later in life that I started to see the importance and value in firearms.

 One night my wife and I were coming out of a late movie at the mall theater in Albany, NY and as we were walking down the dark sidewalk to the back parking lot we ran into a situation. Sue was walking down the center of the sidewalk and I was to her right (closest to the curb). Walking directly toward her, also in the center of the sidewalk was this guy. This angry looking guy, about six foot five, Maybe two hundred and fifty pounds, wearing a hoodie so I could barely see his face. But I could tell he was not happy and he was not moving to the side. Keep in mind this sidewalk was plenty wide enough to accommodate three people from side to side. When you recognize a situation like this, it is hard to rationalize it away because there is an instant "Fight or Flight" mechanism that kicks in when we sense some sort of danger. As much as some people will tell you not to judge people or assume they are bad and looking for trouble, I challenge you to keep your internal reactions calm in a time when you sense danger. I don't care who you are, you get scared. As much as we think we can control our emotions, the fact is that fear is an emotion that will create a visceral response whether we like it or not. So, as this creep get's closer to Sue, walking straight toward her, I'm boiling over with adrenaline and trying to keep calm. "He is not moving to the side", I thought. "He's gonna run right into her". When he got about three feet away from her, she quickly moved to her right and he bumped her so hard in the shoulder that she bumped into me and knocked me off the curb. We both almost fell over and he kept walking down the center of the sidewalk like he owned it. This was no accident. He was clearly looking for trouble and trying to get a reaction out of me.

 I turned around still holding her hand and was just about ready to lay into this A$$hole, but before the words came out, visions of my wife, my son, my great life and everything I've worked so hard to build flashed before my eyes. I had a moment of reality and realized that it's not worth it to put everything at risk. To be honest, I didn't want to get hurt. Most importantly, I didn't want my wife to get hurt. And if something tragic were to happen, I didn't want my son to be alone. How did I know what this guy was capable of? Somehow I had this moment of clarity and we slowly walked to the car as I bit my lip. To be clear, had I been carrying I would have had even more reason to keep my mouth shut and keep walking but if this guy decided he wanted a bigger piece of me I would have at least been able to protect myself and my wife.

 Sue and I got into the car and were silent for a few minutes. I slowly put the key in the ignition, turned to look at her-feeling the most shameful, irresponsible and incapable I have ever felt. I told her I was sorry. I was sorry I put her in a situation like that. I was sorry that I may not have been able to defended her against this monster if a situation had arisen. I was sorry I was unable to protect and defend one of the two most important people in my life. I realized in that moment that life is vulnerable and as a man it is my responsibility to take care of and protect my family. That night I did not and I was ashamed.

 Throughout my life, I've seen some wild things, done some wild things and been in some situations that......well, let's just say it's a miracle I'm here. But I'm a bit older now. I'd like to think I'm wiser and beyond the point in my life that I want to be rolling around on the ground exchanging punches with anyone. I told Sue in the car that night, that as long as she was with me I would never let her be put in a situation where she was defenseless again. I told her I was getting a gun.



 Now, keep in mind when it comes to guns, Sue was clueless. She had never been around them, didn't know the first thing about them and held the belief that most media outlets love to propagate-the misconception that guns are bad and only kill people. So it took some persuading and reassuring to help her feel comfortable-first with the idea, then with the physicality of actual guns in the the house and one in my belt.

 Through the process of getting re-trained, licensing, educating myself on all the models and features new handguns have, ammo options, safes, holsters and all the safety procedures I started to gain a passion for these interesting devices. Frankly, they're pretty cool. Mechanically they are amazing and I literally can't wait to get to the range. Lucky for me, I have some really informative, articulate and skillful friends who walked me through th entire process and took great care in training me and holding me accountable to every aspect of the process. The friends I have met that shoot are some of the most respectful and responsible people I know. The interesting thing that non-gun owners may not be aware of is that there is a mental piece that goes along with gun ownership and a responsibility that many people will never understand. I now understand what Dad was talking about. The entire process of embracing the gun culture and working through my wife's emotions and beliefs (as well as my own) has been an enlightening experience. When we are now in a potentially dangerous location, she asks if I'm carrying.

 The whole reason I am writing this is to get to the psychological piece. I know there are some people reading this that will never allow themselves to accept gun ownership and that's ok but by recognizing the fear of guns and addressing the fact that most of what we see in the media depicts guns as killing devices, we may start to be able to see through that propaganda and understand the value in preserving the precious gift of life.

 When some people think of guns they instantly think of death and the killing of people. I think it is so sad that these folks have to walk around all day with these destructive, murderous thoughts in their minds, while others are able to recognize the beauty of being able to defend themselves and feel comfortable and safe. I prefer the feeling of safety over fear and would assume you agree. Now getting back to the fear thing. What is fear? I talk about fear in my book
 Now, with that in mind let's look at how the media portrays guns. We all know that we can turn on any news channel and if they are talking about guns it is never positive and always a story about how guns can kill people. The truth about guns is that they save lives. Ask yourself who you would rather have defend you in the parking lot of a convenience store at two in the morning when a knife wielding maniac is demanding your money. Would you like a soft spoken person with a kind heart and compassion for the criminal or would you prefer an armed police officer. Any logical thinking person would pick the police officer in a time of desperate need. But the problem is, the police officer is never there. Oh, he will be but you may have to give him 5-10 minutes. So you'll have to ask the parking lot maniac to hold on while you call 911, navigate through the operator's questions and then ask your new friend to put his knife down and sit on the curb with you while the two of you wait for the cops to arrive and straighten this misunderstanding out.

 Of course I'm being sarcastic! Who in their right mind cannot see the logic here? The fact is, there are a few possible ways this situation can play out.

1. The knife wielding lunatic can come to his senses and walk away, leaving you unharmed.
2. You can time-travel to another location.
3. The maniac kills you and takes your money.
4. You shoot the Criminal and save your own life.

 Look, the reality is (whether you want to see it or not) it is possible that you too may find yourself in a situation like this. Heck, it happens to people every single day. The question you may want to ask yourself is, "Do you want to be able to defend yourself?" Maybe you don't. I guess that's ok too. I do want to defend myself, my loved ones and even good people around me. Some that I may have never even met.

 I was talking to a guy who was anti-gun (I say "was" because he was finally able to see the benefit of self-defense) and I gave him a scenario. I said:

 "Let's say hypothetically that you and I are walking through the mall. We don't know each other  but it's Christmas time and the place is hopping'. People are walking around with their shopping bags full of gifts that they can't wait for their families to open, Jingle Bell Rock is playing on the sound system, you have your Starbucks Latte in your hand and we happen to be near each other. All of a sudden a masked gunman announces that everyone needs to lay down on the floor as he starts shooting people. I know this could never happen <sarcasm>. But if it could and knowing your strict anti-gun rules, you knew that I had a licensed firearm on me. You knew this because you saw me duck behind a wall as I pulled it out of my belt. My question to you is, in that moment what thoughts and feelings are rushing through you and.........who just became your new best friend?"

 Sometimes logic does prevail and sometimes people can put their political beliefs aside so they can allow themselves the right to protect their own life. I understand that to some the political narrative is much stronger than the ability to believe that harm can come their way even amidst the countless number of times these horrible situations occur. The general argument among the "Anti-gunners" is that the world would be a better place if all guns were removed from society. Although that may be a nice thought with respect to safety, it is fear that drives that thought process. Fear of not understanding guns and not knowing how to use them. Some people think guns "go off" all by them self and they are dangerous just sitting there. We all know thats not true. Some people believe that it is actually possible to take guns out of existence. That is just not true. Gun restrictions only restrict the people who obey the laws. In other words, "the good guys". Here's the logic that has been falling on deaf ears for decades. Bad guys don't pay attention to gun laws. They will still have guns while good people are left unarmed and helpless.

 So why in the world would anyone support this kind of regulation against something so vital to our existence?

Utopia.

There is an element of our society that wants Utopia and they believe it can be achieved. You know, a world where everyone is kind to one and other, there is no poverty, everyone has the same amount of money, all are considered equal, everyone is singing Kumbaya in unison and there are no bad guys. There is a delusional mindset among us that believes this could actually be possible. A fringe element of our society that is becoming more mainstream as the years go by. In the process of creating this Utopian society many actions would need to be taken. The disarming of citizens is only one of them. You see, if this government controlled society were to exist, it could not have any opposition. It sounds great in theory, but in the inevitably impossible attempt to create this dreamland we will simultaneously be putting ourselves in grave danger.

 You decide how important government is to you. You decide what values you hold as an American...And you decide what you are willing to do to preserve the way of life that you want your kids and grandkids to live.

To your Success,
Dan Wos

Makers, Takers and Robin Hood.

MAKERS, TAKERS AND ROBIN HOOD

 In society, when the victim mind permeates and begins to gain a voice, government leaders will accommodate the people who make the most noise. As I write this book, the “Makers” in America are trying to defend their wealth from the “Takers”. Our current President seems to be of the mindset that the wealthy should share their wealth with the poor through higher taxes for the rich and increased public assistance programs for the poor. This has sparked a debate within the country because many believe it is not fair. “Why should I work, only to pay more in taxes so someone who doesn’t work (and is fully capable) is taken care of and given extended benefits?” This is the “Robin Hood” effect. Steal from the rich to give to the poor. When you have government leaders promoting this behavior it tends to create some disagreements.
 I like the terms “Makers” and “Takers” because they make a clear distinction between the differences of people with respect to this topic.
 A “Maker” is someone who creates value in the world, typically through business. The value may be in the products they create, the services they provide, or the housing they provide. In order to provide these things the Maker simultaneously creates jobs and employs people–sometimes many thousands of people. America has been synonymous with entrepreneurship because it has always been a place where this type of person can thrive and this type of activity was welcomed and appreciated. Makers are the people that keep the economy alive.
A “Taker” has come to be referred to as a person who does not produce value and finds ways to live off others. This might be found in the welfare system, or by literally stealing from others. In other words taking what you have not created or earned and offering no value in return. When governments make this easy for people to do for extended periods of time, some of those people develop a sense of entitlement to these types of handouts and lash out when these things become difficult to receive or when they are cut off.
 When a Government extends prolonged welfare, unemployment, and other public assistant benefits it also develops a dependency of the people on the government. This dependency compounds on itself because as time goes by, the people who have been taking advantage of these benefits become more distanced from being able to produce for themselves and their families. This then becomes a way of life that is taught to their children and their children’s children and so on down the line. This keeps people in bondage, controlled by and dependent on the governmental system. Not only does it create dependency, it also creates a sense of disapproval among the Makers within the society because they see that their efforts are being taken away and given to others without any exchange of real value. This part is important–because when the exchange is one-sided (with nothing in return) animosity develops because the Makers feel like they are being stolen from.
 The idea that a company, union or government has the responsibility of taking care of its people is an idea that is taught and passed down through generations. Some parents will teach their children to rely on or expect things from these entities. The concept of giving and exchange of value is lost when we think that we deserve some special treatment or entitlement just because we are part of a group. The idea that you can create your own destiny, build your own wealth and rely on yourself is also a concept that is taught and handed down through generations. These two different thought processes lead people down two completely different life paths.
 There is a distinct difference between the way an entrepreneur or business owner thinks and the way an employee thinks. There are two major, defining components in the thought process of an entrepreneur. It is in the way the entrepreneur views the concept of personal accountability and the production of value. I am not making the claim that a government employee or union worker does not take responsibility or produce value. I am saying that in many cases they take this type of work because they know they will have a safety net. A government pension, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, the ability to strike if they don’t get what they think they deserve, etc. The entrepreneur has no safety net and they know this going in. The entrepreneur knows one thing–they will live or die by their own actions. That is why an entrepreneur can soar to the top. Along with the risk they take, there is also the opportunity for unlimited success and the ability to tap into their own inner strength at a level that others may never know they have. The employee is not offered this type of reward. The process of being an entrepreneur forces you to tap into these resources out of sheer necessity because there is no safety net. I so often see employees complaining about their rate of pay or the way they are treated by their company and I have to laugh because I also see entrepreneurs struggle to put food on the table for their families when they are starting a new venture and never complain once. They just work harder to find new ways to produce value, improve their product or service and build their business. Somehow they know something that others don’t know. I urge you to venture out and put your strength to the test. It is an empowering experience.

 On the other end of the spectrum, there is a part of society that believes they are entitled to a free ride on the backs of all the people that work in this country. I think business owners and employees alike will agree that a certain percentage of our American society takes advantage of the freebies that the Makers work very hard for. I am of course talking about the ones who are fully capable of working and producing value, but choose not to. Most would agree that if a person is fully capable of producing, then they should. Some might also argue that, it is the fault of the government created entitlement programs that keep these people in a parasitic state of being. In other words, make it easier to live off public assistance than to produce value. Many without the drive and ambition will choose the former.
To read more and get a copy of Defining Success in America, go to: To your Success!Dan Wos