Kiva, in a nutshell, connects third world entrepreneurs with “investors” all over the globe. But these aren’t investors that you and I typically think of like banks and capital investment firms - they are in fact, you and I. Many of the entrepreneurs are seeking small ($500 - $1250), short-term (6 months - 1 year) loans to get their businesses going. Kiva uses a network of established micro-investment firms to connect the entrepreneurs with investors and ensure the security of the transaction. Entrepreneurs and their loan agents keep investors up-to-date with journals and pictures of their business.

Needless to say, I’m impressed with the setup and am already looking for my own investment opportunity. Check it out.

Liar. She’s was definitely in Seat B - maybe C. I was a little tired and blurry eyed.

I’ve been a fairly big fan of Broken Lizard since being introduced to them in college - I even smirked at “Club Dread”. I, to this day, cannot see the name “Penelope” and not pronounce it “Pea-na-lope”.

But going back to “a wavering economy”… Many people are worried about the immediate future of the United States economy. Political parties are blaming one another for the downturn and stagnation. Folks are working longer to hopefully ensure their retirement. Others are going further into credit card debt to stay afloat. And many are concerned where they will live in three, six or twelve months. My fraternity brother set his Facebook status to, at what was first amusing but soon somewhat frightening, “T. bought a house. Haha. When will I foreclose?”

It was at this point that I pulled up my morning news sources (CNN, Drudge Report and Fark) and noticed several disturbing stories regarding “questionable” business practices. And I began to wonder: “Can American businesses help stabilize the economy and restore consumer confidence?” From the news stories I read, it looks like companies are on the path to destroy consumer confidence.

For instance, CNN reported this morning that Southwest Airlines “flew thousands of passengers on aircraft federal inspectors said were ‘unsafe’ as recently as last March…” I’ve never flown Southwest, but throughout business school, I’ve heard praise stacked upon praise of the company and its operations. Who would think that Southwest’s “no frills” approach would also include failure to meet FAA guidelines? It’s scary to know that Southwest carried more passengers than any other domestic airline last year and the FAA - a government organization designed to protect the safety of passengers - turned a blind eye because requiring Southwest to fix the planes would “disrupt their flight schedule”. While Southwest claims there is no truth to these reports and should be afforded due process in these claims, I have a hard time thinking I will be “okay” flying Southwest in the upcoming year or two when there are documents showing 47 Southwest jets “flying after missing deadlines for inspections for cracks in the planes’ fuselage or ’skin’.”

Another article by CNN that caught my eye had the following headline: “$75M in gift cards could become worthless“. According to the story, The Sharper Image - who I had no idea was experiencing severe financial difficulty - announced it was suspending the acceptance of gift cards. When you buy a gift card, you effectively become an unsecured creditor and therefore last in the pecking order of creditors if a company goes bankrupt. This seems to go against the philosophy of gift cards. When you buy a gift card, you are not investing in the company, expecting a return on your investment in the future. Instead, you’re handing over hard cash for receipt of credit at a later date equal in value to that cash. It’s much like when you traded baseball cards as a kid and had the stipulation of “a player to be named at a later date”. Now, the other kid is saying, “Sorry - I’m going to keep your card and you can forget about that other card I promised you.” I thought there was a very poignant quote in the article from C. Britt Beemer, chairman of America’s Research Group. He said, “… you will see a lot of frustration among customers. You basically stole (money) out of the customers’ pocket. They will never forgive you.” How true.

I have a feeling we’ve seen only half of what’s in store from consumers.

According to the article, the gun can fire miniature bullets at speeds of up to 300 miles per hour at distances over 300 feet. The gun cannot be imported into the United Kingdom, but can be purchased most anywhere in Europe. Smartly, the gun is “banned from being imported into the US - because it’s barrel is less than three inches, meaning it is deemed too small to qualify for sporting purposes.”

The developer of the gun could not see why there was so much debate and commotion over the gun when anyone could “go out and buy a Kalashinkov”. Excuse me? You can’t see a problem with a gun that’s smaller than my girlfriend’s key chain? You don’t see how that gun could be used in the commission of a crime?

While the gun company describes the gun as a “collector’s item” - and it is indeed a collector’s item considering it is the smallest working gun in existence - I have to ask, “Is this really necessary?”

What’s the verdict?

It’s amazing to think, with all the negative connotations we attach to news outlets, that an entire country’s media would refrain themselves from even mentioning one of its most valued citizens was serving in the War on Terror. Interestingly enough, he was being filmed and interviewed while he was in Afghanistan, most likely so the news groups could publish his story as soon as he returned from service. According to the Washington Post, reports from UK media outlets include “lengthy taped interviews with Harry just before his deployment in December and last week at his Afghan base. Photos and video showed Harry firing a machine gun, patrolling on foot in full combat gear in an Afghan village and washing his socks in a camp sink.”

It is, however, sad to think that a US website - with our country’s central role in the War on Terror - was the one to shed light on this news blackout. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) noted in a CNN article, “The decision by elements of the foreign media to report Prince Harry’s presence in Afghanistan without any consultation with the Ministry of Defence is regrettable.”

Needless to say, I must agree with the MoD. While I turn to the Drudge Report daily for all the latest news updates, I think Matt Drudge crossed the line on this exclusive. Not only did he risk the life of Prince Harry (including those under his command and pretty much any British soldier) by exposing him, but he cost Harry the opportunity to serve his country - something he has been quite distraught over since completing Sandhurst and subsequently being denied deployment to Iraq.

I honestly believe there are times when news reporters must weigh the greater good against being the first to break a story. Just like news reporters held back on publishing stories regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis for Kennedy, this was one of those instances where the blackout should have been observed not only by the UK media, but all foreign outlets as well. There was no public benefit in knowing that Prince Harry was serving in Afghanistan. No one’s life, freedom or economic prosperity was jeopardized by holding back on the story - except maybe for the unlucky bastards who ran into Harry’s armored unit.

Cheers Harry! And Matt Drudge, next time… just STFU.

However, in the recent elections, I’ve noticed a trend of specific attacks on appearance. Candidates are no longer sticking to the facts - they’re attacking how a person looks.

When I was in grade school, my social studies teachers often made reference to the famous Presidential debate between Kennedy and Nixon. Nixon - who had recently been sick, was campaigning prior to the debate and refused to wear makeup - appeared shifty, tired and “old”. On the other hand, Kennedy - who had rested prior to the debate - appeared confident and “young”.

In the 2004 Presidential Elections, Kerry’s campaign was attacked using pictures of him at play and touring NASA.

And now in the 2008 Presidential Election, Barack Obama is being attacked with pictures of him dressed in traditional Somali garments.

While Clinton’s campaign has received severe criticism for leaking the Obama photos, it still happened and I’m sure it will continue to happen. These photos were not of Obama or Kerry sleeping with an underage prostitute, snorting cocaine off a coffee table, clubbing a baby seal or picking someone’s pocket. They were photos of men being educated and cultural or simply participating in activities that everyone else participates in with no social stigma attached to those activities. Yet, we’re supposed to take these photos as speaking to their character and credentials.

I’m not an avid liberal or voting Democrat, but there is nothing shameful in the activities Kerry or Obama were participating in - even if the photos look a little silly to some people. It seems as if political advisers have convinced themselves that the best tactics are those from the women on “Gossip Girl”… “Oh… My… God! Look at what she’s wearing. I wouldn’t be caught dead in that.”

Attention politicos! Enough is enough. Stick to the facts. If you can’t find enough there to separate your candidate from the others, you need to find a new line of work.