Category the future

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 17 2013

If North Korea and Cuba have been trading arms…

North Korean Missiles aboard the DPRK Ship Chong Chon Gang. (Courtesy of Yahoo)

North Korean Missiles aboard the DPRK Ship Chong Chon Gang. (Courtesy of Yahoo)

…could this lead to a new Cuban Missile Crisis?

Panama found a North Korean vessel with several missiles (stated to be “outdated”) in its hold bound from Cuba back to the Juche-state that is banned from importing almost any type of weapon by sanction.

The Cuban government, in a televised statement, stated they were headed to North Korea for “repair” and return back to the communist state.

Let’s leave the “repair” aspect of this alone — and assume for a moment, that that’s true.  This means that North Korea and Cuba could very  well have been doing this for awhile, freely — with nobody’s knowledge.

Imagine another Cuban Missile Crisis, with arms once again aimed at the United States by a nation less than 100 miles away from the US Coastline.  Except this time, the arms and the figurative “button” are now in the hands of authoritarian North Korea — and a government hell-bent on proving a point to it’s people that it can, indeed “rain holy fire” down on the nation that the Juche and Songun state has made out to be it’s blood-enemy.

chong-chon-gang

DPRK Ship Chong Chon Gang

Could this be a flue warning sign of something that could come in the future?  Could this have also blown open a cover of how North Korea’s been getting stuff?

Related articles
Jul 13 2013

Iowa Supreme Court rules on Melissa Nelson

quote-open

Eva Evangelina (Courtesy of Brazzers.com)

Eva Evangelina
(Courtesy of Brazzers.com)

“Without proof of sex discrimination, the employment-at-will doctrine followed in Iowa guides the outcome.”
— Iowa Supreme Court Ruling, 12 July 2013

The problem I see here is, this sets a dangerous precedent.

Miss Nelson alleges that she was fired because her employer found her “irresistible,” and indeed, her presence during his on-again-off-again sexual relationship with his wife was like “…like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.”  The employer doesn’t deny he said this, if I remember correctly.

Okay, a fair statement, perhaps.  Perhaps during the downturn of his sexual relationship with his wife, he found himself enamored with his assistant.  This has the makings of a very unfortunate situation.  A marriage hangs in the balance on one side, and Nelson’s employment on the other.  Unfortunately for Nelson, the marriage argument won out, and the employer, under the at-will employment laws in Iowa, terminated her employment — for that exact reason.  She is “irresistible.”

Most At-will laws say that employment can be terminated at any time, by either party, for any reason that doesn’t violate other laws, such as the Civil Rights Act, or anything that’s essentially NOT a BFOQ.  This is common knowledge.  You can be terminated for showing up to work late, even once.  You can be fired for misfiling an important document, even once.  While not “good” reasons, they are reasons under the law.

However, my concern here is the precedent it sets.  While this reason may be “legal,” is it 1) ethical; and 2) safe from precedent?

Because now that the Iowa Supreme Court does not count this at-will termination as a form of sex discrimination, does this set the scene for even more extreme terminations for similar reasons?

Let’s not forget: The court has UPHELD the employer’s right to fire because of his “irresistible” attraction to her, likely physically; as there are mentions of his requiring her to wear lab coats, and her other physical attributes.  Does this now, mean that someone, such as I am now allowed to terminate someone like ME, under the rules of something along the lines of…

quote-open“You are being terminated because I found the size and shape of your breasts to not be large enough.  Because you are a front-office worker of a successful company, I require front-line employees to be dressed and appear impeccable, including your physical attributes, such as breast size, shape, appearance, acceptable amounts of cleavage showing, etc.”

Basically, it means I’m allowed to fire her because her tits aren’t big enough — and she’s not wearing tops or suits that expose them “properly.”  While this may sound ridiculous, is it *REALLY* something that could be unprecedented, if this ruling is upheld in the high court as part of an “at-will” termination?

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?

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
Jun 3 2013

“Are you out there?” Maybe — but not so fast…

Image

An Asgard, from Stargate SG-1

We’ve transmitted friendship messages, we’ve sent satellites, we’ve scanned the heavens… but we’ve found no clues as to ET or Supreme Commander Thor’s wearabouts yet.  Or have we?

Think of the Internet.  When we send an email, we click “Send” and the email is broken apart into bits and bytes, going through several [if not dozens of] separate servers and paths all over the internet, until it finally arrives at the server address you designated, where it’s reassembled, and readable to the receiver.

Now, to you and me, that’s no news.  No news at all whatsoever.  But imagine intercepting just one piece of this email.  It’s broken apart from the other parts of it; and because it is, it makes no sense to anyone.  You know something is here — but what?

That could be how an advanced alien culture is communicating — but instead of using different wires and communications steams, they could be using different frequencies and technologies all at one time; just as we use several different data pipes to move our information around the world at the same time, even just in email.  We haven’t quite figured out how to map frequency spread communication past hydrogen-based frequencies, which is what we scan for the most often (programs like SETI, etc.)

Michio Kaku, my favorite theoretical physicist, likens this to an Ant, versus a superhighway.  “Imagine you’re an ant,” he says.  “You’re going about your business, doing what ants do…” and meanwhile, you have NO idea that other more complex creatures are building an eight-lane superhighway a few feet away from you.  Now, a few feet in ant-size is the equivalent of several MILES away from you.  However, one of these creatures, a human, approaches you.  He looks down at you and says “I bring you this superhighway.  I bring you the internet.  I bring you nuclear medicine.  Take me to your leader.”

Unfortunately, we have a problem here.  One, not only are you able to understand this human, but two, you have no CONCEPT of what any of this is.  Let’s assume this language barrier doesn’t exist — and that you are now the human, looking down at the ant, saying “I bring you all of this.”  How do you explain to an ANT the basics of a superhighway?  Much less, how do you explain the benefits of nuclear medicine, or the internet?  It’s mind isn’t able to understand these things.

Dr. Kaku states, which I believe, that at this point, we haven’t evolved to an understanding of how things at that level work yet.  Sure, the ants can see us, and may be aware of us… but if you were to walk up to an Ant, and say “Hello…” how could you two break that barrier — not only the language barrier, but communicate so that you both understand each other.

Related articles
May 25 2013

2700 Planets so far…

An artist's depiction of an extrasolar, Earthl...

An artist’s depiction of an extrasolar, Earthlike planet. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

NASA’s Kepler Observatory satellite has discovered over 2700 exoplanets so far…  and counting.  Most of these are super-earths — however, there’s a lot more there, according to the people who run it.

Ames Research Center scientists have the Observatory’s Photometer observes 145,000 Main Sequence stars simultaneously, looking for the slightest dimming of the stars that indicate an orbital body.  Of these, 114 have been actually confirmed and observed, one of them is a Mars-sized planet.

Ames also believes that, based on the observed planets, with the confirmations in mind, that the galaxy is full of Earth-sized planets.

Yale Astronomy Professor Debra Fisher, who has worked on improving the planet-detecting technology we have today to detect Earth-sized planets, says it’s only a matter of time before we detect life on other planets; specifically, those in the ‘habitable zone‘ of the stars they observe — that is, the area that’s “just right” in light and temperature, for life to flourish.

Do you think we’ll find alien life in our lifetime?

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