Category government

Jul 8 2013

“Intellectual Disarmament”

James Albaugh is president and chief executive...

James Albaugh, President & CEO of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems.(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

…a phrase coined by Boeing’s James Albaugh, should be a major concern for intellectuals, academics and theorists in the world, in my opinion.

The United States academic system, particularly the University-level education system, is among the best and brightest in the world.  Armed with more Ph.D.’s, Ed.D.‘s, J.D.’s, MBAs and MS’s than in some COUNTRIES, the University system in America is unique — and perhaps, even special.  But we’ve got major flaws that, if not addressed, could wind up becoming our undoing.

Right now, the US has one very special “weapon” in its arsenal.  And that’s the F-1 visa.  Our great nation allows students from other countries to come to our nation, study and achieve a quality education, and then return to their nation and, with any luck, achieve great things.  Not only does our economy benefit from this arrangement, by receiving the tuition and fees from the visiting student, but it would stand to reason the student also eats, buys music or engages in some other forms of recreation — even to a small degree.  All of these things come together to form a fairly beneficial process to both parties.

However, the problem therein lies that that’s exactly what happens.  Often, they don’t have an incentive to stay in the USA.  They receive their American education, and return home.  An education subsidized by American taxpayers.  Now, is there anything “wrong” with this… not “as such,” of course not.  America, in my opinion, has the duty and obligation to the world to be a place where those who want to raise themselves up in the world can come and do so.

But what incentive are we giving those hard working students to STAY in America?  Often, as soon as their Visa runs out, they HAVE to go home.  Other nations recall their students as soon as they finish their course of study.  Why aren’t we, as a nation, saying “Look, we’ve given you the tools to succeed… why not stay HERE, and let us help you succeed anymore?”

Albaugh put it very well: Other nations, be it the nation the student hails from, or others, see graduating students and are actively attracting them.  Why aren’t we, as a nation, offering foreign students and other intellectuals/academics an “easy in” to America, particularly after they’ve spent several years here already?  Will America continue to stay innovative if such  trends continue?

Between government cuts (particularly in Defense) and the hemorrhaging of talented minds that are educated here and otherwise leave — what could this hail in the future?

Jul 7 2013

Russia — What’s happening?

English: Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin

English: Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Everyone’s concerned with things in the Middle East.  Be it Iran or Morsi’s Egypt… or even the Korean Peninsula.  Rightfully so, these could be hotspots for problems that America; and even the world, could find itself dealing with in the future if they’re not handled appropriately by the international community.

However, I look at one country — like many others, and wonder: What’s happening in Russia?

Over the past several years, Putin has managed to not only consolidate a considerable purse of power, but indeed, even a cult of personality that North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Un would even find respectable.  However, compared to North Korea, Russia is far more democratic.  …or is it?

Not only has Putin managed to skirt the constitutional term limits in office by playing musical chairs with his Prime Minister (and former President) Dmitry Medvedev, but he’s also begun exercising power by “popular decree.”

Indeed, when Putin was originally elected in 2000, he drastically restructured the governance of the Federation as such.  When he took office, there were 89 regions that had some form of independent governance.  Chechnya itself had a democratically elected President.   This changed under Putin, who essentially reshuffled their powers into seven (now eight) federal districts that aligned almost exclusively with the Army commands, with the heads of these regions enjoying powers similar to that under Imperial Russia.

Bribery, particularly when it comes to government contracts, went from “accepted” practice to near-standard practice.  In a poll conducted in 2010, 15% of Russians admitted to paying a bribe within the previous year.  Those are the ADMITTED numbers.

Moreover, the amount of bribes in the economy have skyrocketed from the equivalent of $33 billion to over $400 billion in the last decade, notably during the Putin Administrations.  Arguably a consequence of economic and legal mismanagement after Federation from the Soviet era.

Media has also become a major concern.  Two of the three major television outlets are owned and operated by the Russian Federation itself.  State owned, state controlled.  Further, ITAR and RIA-Novosti are state-owned as well, while Interfax is stated to not be.  Music and public expression is also a concern, as members of the band Pussy Riot were arrested and charged with “hooliganism,” stating that the band was trying to incite religious hatred and blasphemy.  The Orthodox Church has even called on the Russian government to “criminalize” acts of blasphemy.

Obviously, the external forces in government, as well as the will of Vladimir Putin, are a major concern.  Bribes fly back and forth, ambitious Putin-friendly commissars are installed as figurative regional-governors general, and the political freedom of the people continue to erode, all while the cult of personality that surrounds Vladimir Putin continues.

Why aren’t people talking about the political freedoms in the largest nation on the face of the planet being talked about more?

Related articles
Jul 4 2013

Social Justice in the Arab Spring claims another Government…

…for the second time in the same country.

English: Celebrations in Tahrir Square after O...

English: Celebrations in Tahrir Square after Omar Soliman’s statement that concerns Mubarak’s resignation. February 11, 2011 – 10:15 PM (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Morsi presidency has officially been toppled, according to the heads of the Army, who have surrounded Morsi’s palace with barbed wire, effectively placing him under house arrest.

Arguably one of the largest gatherings in history, the millions crowding in Tahrir Square to protest on the anniversary of Morsi’s ascension to Egypt’s presidency — his toppling comes just over a year after his election.

So, what made this democratically elected President so toxic to the Egyptian people just over 50 weeks after he took power?

His apparent hunger for power started almost immediately, culminating with him decreeing his having unlimited power to “protect” the Egyptian nation, which resulted in the Courts protesting his obvious grabs for more and more political power.  The national wounds of the Mubarak administration’s dictatorship still open and weeping, the people took to Tahrir Square once again to protest the figuratively hypersonic grab of power.

The Arab Spring is alive and well — the love of self-determination and Democracy in people in the age of information and social awareness won’t stop those who want it from getting it.

Related articles
Jun 24 2013

$11 Minimum Wage? Hmmm… YES, but…

English: Exterior of a Wal-Mart Supercenter in...

English: Exterior of a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Madison Heights, Virginia. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One of the labor-rights movements right now is calling for an $11/hour minimum wage in the United States — bringing the per-hour cost of labor much closer to a living wage figure.  While I completely agree that a double digit minimum or a living-wage should be a goal, I see several problems with this.

The first I see is the small business.  Small business owners often don’t make a lot of money, particularly when they first start out — often taking what’s left after all the bills are paid, and that’s NOT assuming the company has some sort of “rainy day fund.”  Small business owners may find such a surge in output to employees that they may find little money left in the till after the bills and payroll are made.  This would be unfortunate.

The second, I see being much more sinister and calculated.  We already know “Big Box” companies like Wal-Mart and Meijer have a reputation for dolling out hours “just below” full-time to avoid having to pay their employees’ health care, or other benefits, but get almost the same benefits of having a full-time labor force.  Often very underpaid, they wind up having to go on forms of assistance to get medical care.  While it’s arguable and readily easy to assume that a company like Wal-Mart could fairly easily absorb such a rise in wages, my fear is that they will cut hours.  All of a sudden, the 38-hour employee finds himself at 27 hours.  Or worse, the full-time 40+ hour a week person finds himself at 30 hours, and now, his or her benefits cut as a result.

However, COSTCO, the Big-Box retailer that’s known for paying it’s employees very handsomely, enjoys a successful and relatively happy workforce, with a CEO who, while underpaid compared to his CEO-brethren, still lives a very comfortable life.  I feel he deserves recognition as such in any such a debate.

Is this pure conjecture — surely.  But is it out of the realm of possibility?  I don’t think so.  Big-Box retailers in general are known for looking for ways to cut costs while keeping productivity high.  My fear is a wage increase could make an already lame situation much worse.

Related articles
Jun 23 2013

SCOTUS’ Summer 2012 “Flood Week” Decisions…

English: The inscription Equal Justice Under L...

English: The inscription Equal Justice Under Law as seen on the frieze of the United States Supreme Court building (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

With the Supreme Court’s final week of the season upon us, several high profile decisions will likely be rendered — many of which will no doubt have major ramifications in the future.  I think I have an idea of what they’ll do; and I believe the following is going to be announced in short order:

Affirmative Action: While I don’t agree with it, it’s true that people of color are NOT on equal footing.  Despite having a Black Commander-in-Chief, people of color still earn, on average, 64 cents on the dollar compared to their white, similarly credentialed counterparts.  I agree that race can never be a BFOQ, so until this problem is solved, I believe minorities deserve special protection.  I expect this to be upheld.

Voting Rights:  Drawing from above, it’s obvious that discrimination still exists — even in the 21st Century.  I expect Federal Oversight in areas that discrimination is historical will continue.  I expect this to be upheld.

Same-Sex Marriage:  Probably the hottest item for the news this season for the Supreme Court, and one I care about too, is Same-Sex Marriage.  Generally, the Court has ruled in favor of civil rights historically — but one with such a broad re-definition of the legal rights involved in marriage and benefits I think is unprecedented.  I see the following happening relating to Same-sex Marriage:

– DOMA will be ruled unconstitutional.  It’s a discriminatory law, and I believe a violation of the Equal Protection Clause — so I expect it to be dissolved; which brings us to the next item in the ruling:

– California’s Proposition 8:  I expect this to be upheld.  I expect the Supreme Court’s majority opinion to be that that Same-sex marriage should be a States’ Rights issue, and allow States to determine the law when it comes to redefining marriage — allowing States to keep laws on the books that allow for it, and those who have laws against it to do so as well.  That said, I also believe that, in accordance with DOMA being wiped out, that those who are married, Same-sex or otherwise in States that allow it, will now be entitled to receive Federal benefits.

These are just conjecture — based off my experience and personal expectations.  Take them as you will.

Related articles
Jun 21 2013

Trans-Pacific Partnership — what’s the deal?

Seal of the Office of the United States Trade ...I’m deeply disturbed by something Senator Elizabeth Warren has brought to the floor of Congress just recently.

The US Trade Representative is currently conducting negotiations on renewing a trade agreement with several allied nations, called the “Trans-Pacific Partnership.”  Historically, and even under the Bush Administration, this had Congressional oversight.  Apparently, under the Obama Administration — the Administration who’s buzzword is ‘Transparency,” that’s no longer the case.

The US Trade Representative is REFUSING Congressional requests for review — in any capacity, including “scrubbed” versions, with individual country names redacted, but the policy proposals visible.

Why would a treaty involving commerce, and indeed, including representatives from companies like Bank of America, Comcast, TimeWarner, be so secretive?

Indeed, the only Representative in Congress who’s SEEN the agreement, has said the following:

Florida congressman Alan Grayson.

“There is no national security purpose in keeping this text secret.”
 — Represenative Alan Grayson (D-FL)

Repeatedly asked for the text that Senator Warren refers to, she, and Congress, have been categorically DENIED.  Why is the US Trade Representative not allowing for either a) Public transparency or b) Congressional transparency when the only member of Congress YET to review it, says there is no concern for National Security?

“…’transparency would undermine the Trade Representative’s policy to complete the trade agreement, because Public Opposition would be significant.’   In other words, if the Public knew what was going on, they would STOP it.”
 — Senator Elizabeth Warren, quoting the US Trade Representative

“If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States.”
— Senator Elizabeth Warren

See her speech to Congress here.

Related articles
May 14 2013

DUI at 0.05 as opposed to 0.08 justice or overreaching?

drunk-driving-stop-293x300The National Transportation Safety Board (“the NTSB”) wrote a report today recommending all 50 states in the United States lower the level of driving under the influence from 0.08 to 0.05 Blood-Alcohol Content.  The responses from each side of the argument have been interesting to say the least. Swift action, including the revocation of driver licenses was also indicated as a punishment to those to keep repeat offenders from becoming habitual drunk drivers.

The report published by the NTSB also noted that lowering the intoxication threshold would save anywhere from “500 to 800 lives per year.”

Indeed, there is precedence for this figure.  A decade ago, the laws were changed to criminalize driving under the influence at 0.08 BAC.  Alcohol-related deaths on the road plunged from 20,000 in 1980 to 9,878 in 2011.

Even the lowest levels of alcohol seem to impair drivers, the NTSB has said.  In an NTSB study, people were given alcohol and drove in simulators.  At 0.01 BAC, drivers in simulators demonstrate attention problems and lane deviations. At 0.02, they exhibit drowsiness, and at 0.04, vigilance problems.

quote-open“This recommendation is ludicrous,” Sarah Longwell, managing director of the American Beverage Institute, said in a statement to CNN.

“Moving from 0.08 to 0.05 would criminalize perfectly responsible behavior. …A little over a decade ago, we lowered our legal limit from 0.1 percent after groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving assured the country that, based on all the science, 0.08 BAC was absolutely, unequivocally where the legal threshold should be set for drunk driving. Has the science changed? Or have anti-alcohol activists simply set their sights on a new goal?” Longwell asked.

Related articles
Apr 28 2013

Signs of a failing infrastructure?

Livonia Water Tank Explosion

One of the things I’ve started to notice is the failure or sheer disasters associated with infrastructure or other related items lately.  A ten million gallon water tank in my neighborhood explodes, dousing the neighborhood in massive amounts of water — which, due to the pressure blew water mains all around, the Texas fertilizer plant explodes, a refinery in Detroit on Fort Street catastrophically fails and blew its top off last evening, causing evacuations around the neighboring city.

Fort Street Refinery Fire in Detroit

The sudden apparent-surge in explosions in things that one would think are regulated makes me wonder if we have a serious two-fold problem: a lack of oversight, and a failing infrastructure.

Infrastructure isn’t just roads, highways and avenues…  It’s pipes.  It’s tanks.  All of these things, particularly when they’re related to anything hazardous.  All of this stuff requires oversight and inspection.  Is it just a freak occurrence in quick succession, or is it a symbol of things to come?

Related articles
Apr 24 2013

Are Athlete Fraudsters Liable for Reimbursing Funders?

Lance Armstrong finishing 3rd in Sète, taking ...

Lance Armstrong finishing 3rd in Sète, taking over the Yellow Jersey at Grand Prix Midi Libre 2002 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Late Tuesday afternoon, the United States Government filed a lawsuit against former Olympic-Gold Medalist cyclist Lance Armstrong, citing the fact that he defrauded them out of millions of dollars in his doping campaign.

The Government, citing the False Claims Act, state that he defrauded the United States Postal Service by doping, and under that law, the USPS is, technically entitled to triple the amount of funds spent, or money in excess of US$120 Million; as the Government is contesting US$40 Million.

The United States asserts in its suit that a use of performance enhancing drugs is a violation and breach of contract of the agreement he signed with the USPS, originally in 1998 – through 2004.

Should any entities who chose to fund people be entitled to collect monies if they were unable to  prove during that time that the athlete/etc in question was doping, or taking other performance enhancing drugs?  While I agree it’s a great deterrent, when people make bad investments, often they are told they “are out of luck.”

Could such a ruling, for instance, be worked into such a precedent as Bankers and Executives for financial companies making and funding bad loans to be held responsible for them; and repayment as well?

Related articles