ITIL Foundation Test (Review)
Certificates · Is your major worth it?

ITIL Foundation Test (Review)

economiccommanderLeave a comment

As some of you know, I previously discussed my experience with the CompTIA Security+ exam. That particular endeavor was challenging enough, but the material flowed rather easily, so it ended up being quite agreeable. Being the bright young thing I am, the next step was to pursue the ITIL Foundation test, which resulted in a peculiar saga.

What Is ITIL?             

To put things simply, a framework for IT management developed by the UK government for use in various different industries. While it does have business applications, the models and principles end up feeling extremely bureaucratic, even more so than those covered by Security+.

How I Studied

My initial move was to grab the iCertify study guide on Amazon, which cost about  $35.00. It had countless positive reviews and seemed to be a flagship offering, so I went ahead. Bad decision. One of the reviewers noted that the book seemed to have been written by a robot or algorithm, and I would have to concur. The pages were replete with spelling errors, grammatical nightmares, and incorrect spacing of words. Even the practice tests had inaccurate answer keys, and were almost unusable. As a result, I sent back for a refund. If I am correct, iCertify has since removed the book from Amazon, at least temporarily.

The next chapter involved using the study app off of Google Play made by PaulWen. This proved more useful, with over 600 practice questions and answers. I also took advantage of a special on Udemy to purchase six practice tests offered by Jason Dion for around $14.00. These were valuable for studying, but I found the real exam to be markedly different, so their utility is somewhat limited.

To take the exam itself, I  bought a package from iCertify which allows two resits for $350.00. This was more than I wanted to pay, especially after the study guide dilemma, but it ended up being a wise choice. The full price voucher is $300.00, and a second one runs you fifty dollars anyway, so it’s not a terrible deal. As it turned out, the pocket guide and practice tests included in iCertify’s package were right on the mark, making my second run at the exam a lot easier.

Is The Test Hard?

This will depend on how readily the material comes to you. The first time I took it, the results shocked me: 24/40, all while I needed 26 to pass. I attribute this to confusion over differences between the Service Value System model and Service Value Chain. Further complicating the matter is how vague and overlapping ITIL tends to be. It is thus easy to get confused and answer for the wrong option, which means delivering more money to PeopleCert, the exam provider.

After reviewing my weaknesses, I sat again and crushed the test. If you are looking to do the same, make sure to hone in on the following:

  • Difference between Service Value System and Service Value Chain.
  • Have a firm understanding of the SVC practices.
  • Understand the difference between processes for a Change Schedule, Continual Improvement, and Change Control.
  • Be clear about the various management types: Deployment vs. Release, Incident vs. Problem, etc.
  • Do not neglect how various management models interact with SVC practices, such as Service Request Management together with Deliver and Support.

What’s The Cert Worth?

ITIL is less common in the United States outside of contracting, but it is growing due to the standardizing nature of the principles. Your job may not forcibly require it, but having the cert looks good, especially in an IT project management environment.

The Power of Chant Warfare
Culturalism

The Power of Chant Warfare

economiccommander4 Comments

While in college, I wrote a piece about the futility of “respectable discourse” in the modern age. I pointed out that those who practice such behavior are made out as suckers and left to drown in the popular swill of rage.

To be quite sullen, I think I was correct. We have already long witnessed the analysis of “post-truth politics”, although this descriptor implies a nostalgic longing for some better time, which probably never existed. You can cycle back and study the 1800 election for good measure.

The better general term to use is “Chant Warfare.” Whenever someone attempts to inject reality into a discussion, the normal response is to hoot and holler until they cannot be heard.

Think back to Occupy Atlanta and their “agenda.”

Consider being a representative supporting Obamacare, or one desiring to replace it. The advanced human species will ensure you have a reasoned discussion.

Best of all, try presenting facts to the caravan of paranoid Del Spooners who want a paycheck. The floodgates will gush.

The danger lies with how these “Scream first, listen after ten years” attitudes will play out in November. If their guy, gal, or someone in the trans community fails to make the Oval, what happens next?

Culturalism

The Impoundment Act Is Unconstitutional

economiccommanderLeave a comment

Trump broke the law.

That’s the shrill new screech echoing in the footsteps of the GAO report, which claims his administration was a bit naughty when it withheld foreign aid to the government of Ukraine. According to the GAO, this constitutes a violation of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

Of course this output presents a critical question: how has the federal law on impoundment not been ruled unconstitutional?

As a bit of background, the legislation was passed under the administration of President Nixon to curtail congressional rage over his “setting aside” of money he did not believe in spending. To be clear, Nixon was not vetoing the spending, but simply declining to release it for specific programs.

The Act simply represented another attempt by Congress to keep the coffers flowing and hamstring the president into agreeing to “all or nothing.” We see the consequences regularly today with Trump signing massive spending bills because there is no way to pick and choose based on practicality or need.

Supporters of impoundment restrictions will point to the alleged supremacy of the legislature, but history undermines them sharply if we assume the branches are co-equal.

For instance, Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, giving the president power to pick and choose what he would accept from appropriations. Bill Clinton used this mechanism 82 times to help bring the budget under control, but the legislation was struck down by a liberal-conservative SCOTUS majority in Clinton v. City of New York, which concluded that the president must to accept all or nothing with spending bills.

In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer noted:

“does not violate any specific textual constitutional command, nor does it violate any implicit Separation of Powers principle.”

Now, if we stick with the court’s majority opinion that Congress’ power to spend cannot be moderated or limited save on a “take it or leave it” basis without a constitutional amendment, then how exactly is it permissible for them to turn around and restrict the president’s power to release funds using only a legislative act?

It’s time to challenge the Impoundment Act before the Supreme Court.

How To Win At Economic Dating
Culturalism · Personal Finance

How To Win At Economic Dating

economiccommander1 Comment

If you’re more than a young whippersnapper, you probably remember the video I made on Prince Harry’s decision to wed Meghan Markle. It got about 60,000 views, and made a lot of folks angry.

Why? Because I called his decision an “impending disaster.” This was wholly unacceptable, for anyone detracting from his life choices was necessarily a hater in the eyes of my critics.

As it turns out, I was 100 percent correct. Harry the heroic helicopter pilot has been relegated to the status of a dutiful servant beneath his hard-charging and clever wife. Yes, I meant clever. The mistake of the outrage crowd is to assume a negative attitude towards Meghan, which was never the case. We should rather look to her as a model.

Stop and figure things for a second. At the time of their wedding, Markle was pushing forty and recently divorced. Her acting career had been moderately successful, but nothing to ensure long-term dominance in the entertainment industry. She stood to end up like a more ethical Lori Loughlin: famous, but hardly a star.

Nevertheless, she managed to wife up a younger prince with access to copious wealth, AND had a son with him. That’s pure talent.

The press frenzy over the royal couple’s “Megxit” chapter of stepping back from duties to live in Canada remains baseless controversy, as it’s all part of the plan. With legal and blood ties to the royal family, plus a newly-minted trademark brand, she has become financially invincible. Even Camilla Parker Bowels could never dream up such a fantasy.

How’s that for happily ever after?

Culturalism · Personal Finance

The Broken Male

economiccommanderLeave a comment

I tend to avoid aimless social meandering, but sometimes an image rolls by that says everything without speaking a word. Let’s take a look:

What makes it odd? Well, this is a campaign promo pic, typically meant to showcase the warmth and nonthreatening Americanism embodied by the office-seeker. Instead, we have an unsmiling man forced into the process, perhaps to “keep the peace” at home.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is jayapal2.jpg

Maybe it’s a cheap shot, but does the tight-lipped Mr. Jayapal look even remotely happy? The expression signals passivity and resignation to the dominion of another person. He looks scared and restless, as if he wants nothing more than to escape the setting and play a few hours of Railroad Tycoon III, but only with the wife’s permission.

As you can see, his hands aren’t around the wife’s back, or clasping hers, suggesting a coldness or distance between them. Affectionate couples usually strive to showoff their union in public, particularly in politics. Case in point:

Trump firmly clasps his wife’s arms, and doesn’t lean away from her when posing. Whether you believe there relationship is sincere or not, it looks like one bathed in affection and admiration.

Mr. Jayapal on the other hand seems to be a prisoner of the sanctified institution known as marriage.

Personal Finance

Why I (Usually) Support Privatization

economiccommanderLeave a comment

Sometimes being too realistic is a major problem. It’s easier to get lost in a swell of partisan tribalism than deal with the uncomfortable merits of a specific, emotionally-driven issue.

Consider privatization as an example. Somewhere in the 1970s and 80s, the Neoliberalism train launched, promising increased efficiencies to ward off the corrupt and stagnant government organizations of before. Assets got sold and regulations were rolled back, all in the name of a leaner administrative state with less bureaucracy.

Today, it is difficult to measure how effective these approaches have been. On the one hand, we pay less generous pensions to federal workers under FERS than its juicier parent, CSRS, while ensuring money is injected into the market with 401ks. We have passed these claimed benefits on through the explosion of government contracting, which allows federal authorities to pay for services without shelling out cash for the expansive benefits enjoyed by its own workers. In the case of the Postal Service, they are actually demanding further reforms to reduce the pension liability.

Has it eliminated waste? This is a harder one to gauge. Certainly the Iraq and Afghanistan wars showed us how well contractors manage taxpayer dollars, and the recent Accenture story about a  $297 million heartbreak is cause for skepticism. At bare minimum, there is no question that government spending has exploded since the neoliberal era, so the tremendous savings are questionable.

Finally, we might examine the bureaucracy issue. People like to point towards the DMV as a bad instance of government administration, but anyone who has worked in a large corporation or government contracting company knows they have massive bureaucratic tendencies. It is easier to fire a contractor than a federal employee however, so perhaps that side bolsters the efficiency argument.

So with spending up and job security down, why would anyone support the privatization practice?

To make money. I am well past having optimistic ideas of the government or private corporations, but the only immediate benefit of state-run bureaucracies is for those employed full-time by them. Otherwise, the return on taxpayer investment is minimal.

With a privatized  state entity, just like with a private company that bids for federal contracts, there is an opportunity to invest in shares and earn more.  Governments don’t do that outside of bonds, and those are the poor man’s arsenal.   

Culturalism · Personal Finance

While You Were Outraging…

economiccommander1 Comment

Is any anger campaign organic?

It might seem like a silly question, as we already known that “going viral” is largely a planned and calculated event, designed by firms to generate followers and purchases. That’s old news. The real query relates to whether these “outrage activist” movements are not aligned with the same interests.

Think about it for a second: at the beginning of December, Peloton’s cute holiday mom ad began to generate substantial controversy for its depiction of a woman working out.

Fat activists were furious at the misogyny and sexism, because the husband is not shown working out, and his wife already happens to be slim. Those who thought the fury was silly probably pointed out that exercising is not just about losing weight, but also remaining healthy.

 Now, I will not pretend the Denny’s Division was not at some level legitimate; after all, we are well aware of the Trigglypuff saga.

But what was the broader objective? Let’s take a look at Peloton’s stock price right before this controversy blew up around December 2nd:

And now December 5th:

As you can see, Peloton suffers a nearly six-dollar drop over the course of a few days, the perfect opportunity for someone SHORTING the stock. In the event they chose to wait a bit longer, Peloton actually hit $27.00 per share on December 26th.

So, is Wall Street paying for SJW campaigns in order to rig speculative bets on stocks?

I’d lean yes, but no one is really paying attention.

Personal Finance

Is Buying a House Worth It?

economiccommanderLeave a comment

“Buy a house, cause it’s an ASSET.”

You’ve probably heard this line before, perhaps from a baby who boomed. It sounds good, as rent can be expensive and just tosses money out the door to someone else. Who wants to do THAT?

In reality, home ownership less of a prize than your elderly benefactors (read: mortgage salesmen) will let out. While exceptions exist, a house is often a net financial loss due to misconceptions about what it entails.

To begin, we have entry expenditures. These will include the time investment of looking at potential homes, paying for inspections (home, radon, and chimney are just a few), and closing costs. Together this can run $4-5k, if not more.

Now, if you don’t put down 20 percent on the mortgage, you’ll have to deal with PMI, and should the bank say you don’t have to pay with them, it’s probably just fancy calculus. Your monthly expenses will include the loan principal, usually homeowners insurance, utilities, PMI, and interest.

“Yeah but you can DEDUCT your mortgage interest.”

Hehe, nice try. Due to changes enacted in the Tax Jobs and Cut Ass legislation signed by Trumpy, you have to itemize to receive the deduction, and in many cases the Standard Deduction will be a better deal. Key point here: the deduction is not a dollar-for-dollar benefit, so you can’t assume massive proceeds.

Then we have upkeep and repair. A house I recently looked at came back with so many problems it would have required about $70,000 in improvements to be worth what I initially offered. It was “AS IS,” of course. You either make those changes as a homeowner, or sell for far below what you want years later. Houses are like cars; they don’t usually age well with constant use.

To be fair, it’s possible to use the pass-through rules to save on taxes if you rent out rooms, and there might still be a tax credit for solar panels if that sounds desirable, so it’s not all bad.

But it isn’t the dream they talk about.

Culturalism

The Sad Truth About Andrew Yang

economiccommander2 Comments

It’s Déjà vu, but you probably don’t remember. In 2008 we had throngs of young people singing the praises of a politician who promised  to rescue them from war and poverty, whilst delivering healthcare to millions and also balancing the budget.

He ended up doing only one of those things, and badly at that, but forget about history. There’s a new kid in town who millions have started talking point simping for on the Internet dot com: Chairman Andrew Yang.

I would normally refrain from silly allusions to communism, but there is no question Mr. Yang shares many of the same communitarian principles, with a necessary dollop of ethnocentrism to boot.

And his fans love it. Take these tidbits for example:

Brilliant points

My favorite is the last one, which drips of Marxist useful idiocy. She won’t respond or explain herself, but others continue chanting in support, so it’s ok. This is typical low IQ behavior, the hallmark of people who can’t get past the basic veneer of issues and simply support a guy because he offers them money.

The comments also tend to explain away any flaws in his plans by appealing to “Andrew says…,” or “Andrew believes…” Forget the realities of politics, or the applied effects. If it sounds good, then it must be good.

The broader danger lies with WHAT Yang has been saying, whilst play acting as Mr. Common Sense. For instance, he boosted his racial self-interest by predicting Asians would be the targets of White shootings in the future:

“I think we’re one generation away from falling into the same camps as the Jews, who were attacked in a synagogue in Pittsburgh like just a couple months ago. It’s like we’re probably one generation away from Americans shooting up a bunch of Asians saying like, you know, ‘Damn the Chinese,’ because there’s a giant cold war even more with China. That is the great danger that I fear that my children are going to grow up in.”

Remember, this is the guy bringing people together. Let’s of course forget the Virginia Tech shooting, Eliot Rodger, and Santa Clarita. I suppose they were insecure about the Chinese taking their jobs too.

As I noted in the video, Andrew Yang also likes to pander and cuck for feminists, against all reality..

Finally, we have the bizarre idea that women raising children at home should be PAID by the government. This is the clearest link to communitarian thinking we have seen so far, the “It takes a village” psychosis on full display. Yes folks, we need the STATE to help you raise your kids, because you can’t do it alone, and you aren’t allowed to be free.

 Nevertheless, his fans will persist.