Why do pirates still exist?

Pirates

If you’re like me, you think three things when hearing about pirates off the coast of Somalia. The first is “Yarrrrrr, Matey!” The second is that nobody should pay those guys because they are essentially extortionists. The third is that it sounds like they’re making some decent money during a pretty bad economy. It can’t be that hard to obtain the necessary job skills. All I probably need is an AK47 and nothing to lose.

Well, I learned that I was wrong from a podcast by NPR’s Planet Money. Chana Joffe-Walts’s interviews revealed why piracy pays. The reason it works is because pirates have financial backing and a sound business plan.

Why pay?

The basic reason pirates get paid is that targets are picked well, making the financial decision relatively simple. Pirates take ships that are associated with countries that have no other option. If a shipping company doesn’t want to pay, it has to convince a navy to deal with the pirates. Otherwise, the shipping company has to pay the ransom if they want their ship and crew back. A dead crew brings a PR mess that costs money. There’s also the basic fact that they don’t want to keep buying ships or pay for the cargo on the ship. And would you, as a customer, ship freight with a company that doesn’t recover the goods you gave it?

We saw what happens when pirates choose a ship from a country that has a navy. The Maersk captain and crew were rescued because the US was willing to use its military might. All in all, a pretty terrible decision by the pirates. Pirates get paid only when it’s the cheapest option for the company. And usually that’s the case because they get inside information.

The Costs

I really did think piracy was 20 guys with guns, a boat, and no better options. However, these guys need much more. First, they need a financial backer who can pay off officials, foot the bill for supplies, and even provide a little bit of training at pirate camp. Yeah, pirate camp. All this costs $150-250K.

Officials are paid to turn a blind eye or provide intelligence. After all, the sea is quite large, if you haven’t looked at a map recently, and not every ship has value. If pirates take a ship that has no value to people or people can’t pay, they’ve wasted their time. Pirates also like to know who owns the ship and the origin of the crew and contractor to prevent having to deal with navies. They like to know what kind of security the ship has, if any. All of this information can make their jobs easier, but this intel costs money.

Supplies are probably the most obvious expense but possibly underestimated expense. They include a big boat to launch smaller faster boats, guns, and catering. Yes, catering. If you are on a ship for a month or two, a supplier drops by with food and supplies that you need. The podcast pointed out the fact that pirates need everything pretty much what Royal Caribbean needs to run a cruise ship minus the entertainment. That’s not cheap. As for entertainment, what’s more riveting than a hostage standoff at sea?

The next expense is personnel. Bodies aren’t hard to find when unemployment is as high as it is in Somalia, but bodies have to be trained. It’s hard to swing on ropes from one ship to another when there are no sails and masts like Pirates of the Caribbean. The pirates are actually attacking in small boats, way below the deck of the ship. And they have guns, which not everybody knows how to use. To recap, pirates have to drive a boat, board a huge ship, and, at the very least, look menacing with a gun. I can’t actually do any of these, and I’m pretty educated. I was considering piracy as a backup career, but now that I know camp is involved . . .

The Benefits

The negotiations are surprisingly civil. The pirates aren’t driven by ideals, so they don’t want to kill anybody. That means it all boils down to price, like buying a car. In the example on the podcast, the pirates called up, introduced themselves, and started at $7 million. The guy negotiating pretty much laughed and came back with the lowball offer of $300K. After a couple weeks, they were offering $5 million and $400K, at which point, the shipping company walked away, just like a car deal. The pirates called back a couple weeks later and eventually both parties settled on a price in the range of $1-2 million.

Once the price was settled, the company faxed the terms to the ship, which actually included filling up the tank with gas, and the money was dropped from the air in sealed bags. They also included a money counter to help the pirates count it. Once the pirates took their cut, you may think they’d just leave, but a few actually wanted rides up the coast. You may also think the shipping company would tell them to get out, but they obliged the pirates and dropped them off somewhere up the coast. After getting the ship back, the company found timesheets. It looked like the pirates were keeping track of their hours. The pirates actually came across as a pretty organized group conducting a pretty civil transaction.

Everybody on the pirate side makes a pretty penny. The backer takes about 30% of the total, which is about 1 to 2 million dollars. That means he makes can pretty much double his money for a few months worth of work. 20% goes to pay off officials. The rest is for paying off personnel, which includes the guys that take the ship, the guys that guard it, the negotiator who has probably spent a good amount of time learning English in the US, the caterer, and everybody behind the scenes. The guys that took the ship can make around $10K. The guards usually net around $1K. Considering that the average family in Somalia lives on $500, it’s great pay for a couple month’s work. That’s good living for two to ten years.

At the end of the day, you have unwilling “customers” called shippers paying a “company” that employs pirates and has a monopoly on the merchandise: the hijacked ship. I think it's unfair to draw any comparisons between pirates and cable or utility companies . . . but mostly because it sounds like the pirates are competent and relatively cordial.

Why aren't there rules for status updates?

If you had told me a year ago that Twitter would make it, I would have laughed in your face. If you had told me that I would use it, I would have slapped your face for being utterly ridiculous. Of course, I recently joined Twitter, which sparked a debate with a friend about the purpose of a status update. He contended they should be entertaining, and I came to agree with that.

Status updates are written for an audience, which means they are more than journal entries. Thus, they should have the same purpose as any writing aimed at an audience: to inform, to entertain, or to convince. Good ones accomplish all three.

For those of you who do not know, status updates are short internet entries that people use to tell their friends what they are doing, what they are thinking, or what they are whatevering. I use Twitter and Facebook. People write blurbs ranging from the prosaic "I’m sleepy" and “Just ate a turkey sandwich” to more inventive or emotional ones like "Can Notre Dame lose the Blue-Gold game?"and "5TPD000 you are supposed to yield to on coming traffic. Thanks for helping test out my horn." Good status updates inform readers in an entertaining way and possibly even provoke a discussion.

Many posts are about what a person is doing, falling into the "inform" category. Unfortunately, many are about sleeping or being tired. This is one of the least useful pieces of information in status updates. Everybody sleeps, and most everybody sleeps every day unless you’re a meth addict or an insomniac. The other activity that falls into this category eating (unless eating something or somewhere unusual). Cooking or baking? That’s good information because everybody is looking for a good recipe and readers may not know you cook or bake.

If you are on your way to a bar and want company or are traveling out of town, including this information in a status update is fine because it is useful. If I am bored, I may meet you. If you have a nice stereo system that I covet, I may drop by when you are gone. However, if you are just bored and update because you think people want to know what you are doing, this is a bit narcissistic. I’ve done it because I’m an obvious narcissist, but I now realize that most people probably don’t care. Useless information should not be included in a status update.

Many updates fall into the "entertain" category—or at least they should. My friend contends that these are the only ones worth posting. I agree that a status update should consider the audience and should thus be at least mildly entertaining. After all, I don't care if you are eating a turkey sandwich or going to sleep. If you're eating somewhere new or going to sleep with somebody new, that's a different story. That could be very, very entertaining. Status updates should make the audience laugh or cringe, not fall asleep.

Finally, some updates fall into the “convince” category, even though “convince” may be too strong of a term. Simple opinion statements are often posted, which implicitly voice opinions like “Notre Dame can’t play football” or “Many drivers are idiots”. Sure, updaters are probably looking more for validation than to convince the audience, but at least they are taking a stand. Anybody can reply to a statement, which can be the beginning of a discussion. However, these often deteriorate into childish name calling and mockery—aka good times. Take a stand in your updates.

Some other status-update topics for discussion: posting the latest song stuck in your head, using more than one exclamation point, leaving open-ended statements like “I had a nice day!”

A recent experience illustrated that people do not care about the mundane moments of my daily life. I joined Twitter to keep my family up to date about my daily life because I don’t tell them enough when we speak on the phone. I really thought they might be interested because, well, they are my family. Of course, none of them joined to follow. People may want to know what I’m doing, but they don’t want to know what I’m doing all the time. Instead, readers of status updates want to be entertained, and if they learn a little information, even better. 

Why would you ever say “irregardless”?

This has been a pet peeve of mine and somebody requested a post on it, so here it is.

Save your breath and just drop the “ir”. “Irregardless” is not a word, and if it were a word, pretty much everybody that uses it would be using it incorrectly. “Irregardless of the stench, I will eat that raw meat that has been sitting out for five days.” “Irregardless of the danger, I would gladly take a yacht trip off the coast of Somalia.” In these cases, the speaker uses the non-word “irregardless” when he or she means “despite” or “regardless”. I understand that there are some double negatives and it can get confusing, so let’s just take a close, step-by-step look.

We’ll start with the root word “regard”. According to. The verb form is from the Anglo-French, meaning “to look back at”. Broken down into the literal translation, we get the following. “Re” means “back”, as in “Reverse (turn back) course” or “She was disgusted by his rehair (back hair), and told him to shave it.” “Guard” means “to look”, as in “Kevin Costner was in that sexy movie, The Bodyguard (one who looks at a body)”. Regard = look back. It’s not a huge leap to see how this verb form is connected to the noun form, which Merriam-Webster defines as “an aspect to be taken into consideration”.

Now, let’s add the “less”, which means “without”. Think of the statement “I must be brainless if I use irregardless”, which also serves as a mnemonic device. This results in “regardless” meaning “without regard for” or “without looking back at” or “without taking into consideration”. This word makes sense when used in “Regardless of the stench, I will eat that raw meat that has been sitting out for five days”. In this case, you only look less than intelligent because you are eating rancid meat but not because you are using a non-existent word. You have clearly conveyed your point. Congrats!

Finally, let’s add “ir” to the non-word “irregardless”. In Spanish, “ir” is a verb meaning “to go”. Unfortunately, in English or Latin as a prefix, it means “not”. This results in the logical conclusion that “irregardless” means “not without regard for” or more simply “with regard for”. For you math-inclined people, it looks like the following: “irregardless” = (a negative) x “regard” x (a negative) = (positive) x “regard” =  “to look back at”. “Irregardless” would, if it were a word, mean that a fact or statement is taken into consideration.

So, regardless where you picked it up, “irregardless” is probably not the non-word you want.

Why ride like you drive?

My bike is fondly referred to as the "death bike" and sits oustide of my lab until I need to travel across campus. Its green frame props up a torn seat, which serves as a sponge, leaving a wet mark on my butt days after it has rained. The gears mostly shift and the tires mostly hold air, but the brakes are its namesake. While not as bad as Flintstone brakes, they are less than immediately responsive. I tend to ride slowly and watch for obstacles and cross streets way ahead of me. Luckily, the bike swerves just fine. Anybody that borrows the bike is strongly advised to use the helmet I provide. Don't worry, I'm going to get the brakes fixed soon.

Though the state of my bike may make me a danger on the road, it makes me only slightly more dangerous than some bikers. I appreciate what bikers do for the environment and the street traffic. But there are a number of bikers that give every other biker a bad name. There are just enough of them that don't obey the rules of the road to make drivers uncertain about their behavior. They are the ones that don't do the following.

1) Don't signal. I'm just a driver, not a psychic. To be fair, I can't stand it when drivers don't signal either. It's dangerous and discourteous.

2) Don't stop at stop signs. I agree that some stop signs are more optional than others for bikers. I don't care if a biker doesn't stop at a sign when nobody is there. That's between the biker and the hidden cop. But if there is a car already waiting, a biker should wait his turn because it's safe and because cutting isn't cool.

3) Don't ride single file. I get it that some bikers may want to chat while riding. But it's a bike lane, and they are usually wide enough for one bike. Riding two abreast is like that driver in front of you that keeps drifting into your lane. Besides, if you can chat, you're not riding hard enough.

4) Don't have lights. I don't care if a biker can't see what's in front of him at night. That's not my problem. However, lightlessness becomes my problem when I can't see him and he comes out of nowhere. I'll yield to what I can see, but give me a chance.

5) Don't use a hands free device. Drivers aren't allowed and shouldn't be allowed to hold a phone to their ears while driving. I think bikers should be held to the same standard--at least on the road. 

In general, I think you should ride like you would drive. But I don't mean this to be a tirade against bikers. I'm willing to stipulate that most follow the rules and are considerate road partners. And I'm sure that drivers do stupid things that affect bikers. I'd like to hear about those so that I can avoid them as a driver. Let me know. Post it here. Then you'll at least have one driver trying to make it easier on you. 

A side note on why I'm no biker

I realized the other day that I am one of the only people in my lab, which consists of 22 people, who drives to work. Nineteen people take public transportation or bike. I applaud everybody that does and applaud Stanford for making it so financially appealing. I actually enjoy taking public transportation if it's affordable and runs often. I loved taking the T in Boston and using the shuttle when I lived on campus. 

However, I also tried biking. For one month I tried biking in Boston to save money. I biked for awhile on campus, too. Both of those experiences gave me an aversion to biking. 

My reasons for not riding are the following in order of least to most legitimate. I'm lazy. It hurts my butt. It takes too long. My girlfriend is already driving. I get disgustingly sweaty by the time I arrive at work or home. It's scary; I don't trust drivers when I'm in my airbagless car, and it seems stupid to give them an even better shot at me by riding a bike. 

I know these may all be lame excuses and maybe I could and should ride a bike. But then I'd have to fix my brakes and share the road with those idiots called drivers.