Category social justice

Oct 1 2013

A Government Shutdown… what it means, and why you should care…

download“Due to the failure of Congress to enact appropriations for fiscal year 2014, Office of Management and Budget Director Sylvia Mathews Burwell tonight directed agencies to execute their plans for an orderly shutdown of the Federal government.”

Continue reading →

Aug 15 2013

Gag Order includes your Defense?

Courtesy drivebyplanet.com

Courtesy drivebyplanet.com

Ladar Levison started the email service Lavabit ten years ago; taking a significant amount of his adult life building his business.  While it’s understandable some in the government could be concerned over the use of non-government interceptable communications (is that even a phrase?) being used by terrorists or other people bent on causing whatever, this fact isn’t what disturbs me.

What deeply disturbs me, is he was forced to close, then under a gag order of the United States Government, isn’t allowed to discuss it at all — not even with his LAWYER.

Has it come to such a point where the United States will use legal scare-tactics to not only shut down threatening interests, but even deny those people (when they, themselves, have done nothing wrong) the right to not only defend themselves against it, but silence them?

I get that Lavabit was seen as a threat by the US Government, I’m not denying that.  Stuff like that CAN a threat.  It’s that they went after the owner, who has business interests in keeping people’s private information PRIVATE, and they essentially scared him into silence to such a point, he can’t even legally consult his lawyer.

Deeply disturbing.

Related articles
Aug 13 2013

Cummings’ Rules of Being The Boss…

Having been a manager, I have a pretty solid set of rules I’ve always followed that not only work well, but inspired some true loyalty from the people I employed — honestly, to the point that I felt truly moved by the dedication I received from them.  With any luck, someone will read it one day, and it may inspire them as a manager.

FE_DA_BossRelax_032713425x2831.  Never make your employees do something you’re not willing to do yourself.
Yes, part of being a Boss is delegating, but never make people who work under you do something that you’re not willing to take on yourself should the time call for it.

2.  Be straight with those who work with you.
If you have intentions that could effect them, get their input on it, if at all possible; which brings us to:

3.  Be willing to get input from those under your charge.
Those who work for you can not only draw inspiration from your confidence in them, but it can make them more productive if they feel their opinion is respected.  There are times autocratic leadership is required — but in just as many, if not more times, more democratic authority can make for just as effective, if not even better solutions.

4.  Be straight with prospective hires.
Often, people are just not the right fit for the job you’re advertising for, and you have to let them down — particularly those who need the work.  Be up front with your feelings, but offer them reassurance.  There’s no reason to create ill-will with those who could very well pass along someone else to you who could be a better fit.  While it’s not your job to hand-hold or counsel a prospective employee, it doesn’t hurt to give them a little positive reinforcement.

5.  NEVER fire on a Friday.
To me this is a capital offense I see too many managers make, particularly those who are calculating a firing in advance that could otherwise be served at another time.  Not only is it depressing for your employee facing the terminal pen, it can also create an atmosphere of distrust.  Mondays are a better time for this; not only for your employee (Getting fired sucks, but hey, I can go home early on Monday!)  Getting a pink slip on a Friday kills a weekend.  Hard.

6.  Encourage productivity and positive work environments.
Start an “Employee of the Month” program.  Offer prizes or incentives for those who put in the extra “little bit” or who perform just that little bit more.  Not only does this create some friendly rivalry in the office to compete for the prizes you lay out, but it also can show who has dedication and drive to succeed.

7.  Reward those who go out of the way for you on a favor.
Sometimes, you may have to call an employee in for that weekend audit, or something that they normally wouldn’t do.  While they’re being paid for their work, give them a little something extra.  Buy them a lunch, or offer to pick up a set of concert tickets for the band you hear them talk about.  After they’ve done their job during their otherwise off-time…  offer them a $20 from your wallet.  The gesture alone says a lot, even if they refuse.

8.  Ask them “How’s everything going, all okay?”
As their supervisor, the decisions you make effect their lives.  With the swipe of a pen, your decisions can make their day, or throw them into a depression.  While you may not care to know about every detail of their lives… be interested in your employees.  Ask them about their hobbies and interests.  Not only does this give you an insight as to who they are past their nametag, it inspires a feeling of trust and interest that can make an employee feel important, and that they really are a part of your team.  If you see a change in their behavior, even if it’s not effecting their performance, ask them about it.  Give them a moment or two to vent.  They produce to make you productive — stuff like that only helps.

Related articles
Detroit Skyline. Courtesy of Mike Boening www.memoriesbymike.zenfolio.com
Jul 19 2013

Detroit Bankruptcy… Why is this such a big deal? I will tell you…

Yesterday, at 4:07PM, on approval from Governor Rick Snyder, Detroit Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr ordered the City of Detroit to file for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection under Title XI of the USC.  Sure.  Other cities have done this before — and people and businesses do it every day, but what’s the big deal?

The big deal is simple: Detroit is the largest municipality in history to declare itself insolvent.  This not only is going to be a major rule-writing moment in American legal history, but also has the potential to do as much harm as it does good over the long term.

The long term positives are fairly simple: Detroit, if successful, will be relieved of most of it’s obligations, and many of the others will be repaid at drastically reduced amounts, as ordered by a federal bankruptcy judge.  This will allow Detroit to begin paying its bills — without borrowing to do so, as it has for the past decade.  This is a good thing.

Detroit Mayor Dave Bing, Detroit Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder

Detroit Mayor Dave Bing, Detroit Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder

The bad news is what gets cut.  The Emergency Manager of Detroit made it clear that his priorities were people first, then creditors — meaning he wanted to protect pay, pensions and benefits for workers and retirees of the City of Detroit as much as he could.  He made this abundantly clear; but stated it was not off the table.  Creditors and contractors would be the next priority.  Creditors didn’t take kindly to this, and indeed, made THAT also clear.

Before all this can happen though, the filing sets in motion several things: the first is immediate relief from creditors.  As of the moment the bankruptcy was filed, for the moment, creditors lost all rights to any money for the time being.  This can, if the Judge allows, give Detroit enough relief to pay what’s necessary to keep it running: it’s employees, contractors and even things like the light bills.  What’s next, and likely beginning to happen today, is the investigation by the court of wether or not Detroit CAN qualify for a Title XI bankruptcy.  Just because one files doesn’t mean one qualifies.  This sets into motion a massive audit of EVERY creditor of every DOLLAR owed BY the City — likely including employees as well.  Next, creditors to the city have a right to appeal, and will likely use the excuse that the City/Emergency Manager negotiated in bad faith, just to hold the process up — as it’s their legal right to do so.  Assuming the City is found to be eligible, the Judge then decides what gets the axe, what gets paid, and who gets paid in what amounts; as likely, those who do get paid (speaking in the terms of creditors and contracts) will likely get paid only a portion, if not a FRACTION, of what they’re owed.

Because this move essentially lays waste to Detroit’s already junk-level bond and credit, the move also will not at all inspire confidence in businesses in Detroit, particularly those who DO business with Detroit.  My major fear is large employers will wind up packing up, and saying “So long, Detroit — it was a nice ride, we wish you the best of luck.”  Not only is this further revenue from taxes and spending lost, just one or two larges businesses to do so could inspire other businesses OR people to flee as well.  A CLEAR vote of no-confidence by the business sector if it were to happen.

Make no mistake, we’re witnessing history — the municipal equivalent of Lehman Brothers is happening as we  speak; which will write books and rules on how to accomplish such a bankruptcy in the future.

I see a Title XI as a mixed blessing for Detroit.  The good — DEFINITELY comes with the bad here.

“We have a great city, but a city going down hill for the last 60 years,” he said at an evening press conference. He said 38% of the city’s budget is being spent on “legacy costs,” such as pensions and debt service. He said police take almost an hour to respond to calls, compared to a national average of 11 minutes, and that 40% of street lights in the city are turned off.  That’s unacceptable,”
    — Kevyn Orr
    Emergency Manager, City of Detroit

Detroit city skyline shot courtesy of Mike Boening
www.memoriesbymike.zenfolio.com

Related articles
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 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 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