It is just a bit ironic that Russia's President Vladimir Putin is lauding Snowden as "an advocate for human rights and a crusader for personal liberties." As most know, Snowden has applied for asylum in numerous countries around the world, but at this point seems close to leaving the Russian transit center to establish himself in that country, at least temporarily.
The New York Times reports that Putin doesn't expect Russia's granting asylum to Snowden to harm U.S.-Russia relations, and characterized Snowden almost as a hero, though he has put a caveat on the offer of asylum - Snowden must not continue to harm U.S. interests.
Given the historically...contentious-to-wary relations between the U.S. and Russia, this is an interesting mixed message to send the States - "yes, we'll grant asylum to your runaway and we applaud his exposure of NSA programs, but he needs to stop publicizing additional information that could further harm the U.S." All of this comes alongside Senator Graham calling for a U.S. boycott of the 2014 Solchi Olympics if Russia goes through with granting Snowden asylum, The Hill reports.
Speaker John Boehner basically classified Graham's statement as absurd, but it is interesting to see a statement that seems so anachronistically cold era. Putin may just want a monopoly on Snowden's information for himself, and as such does not want anyone else in the world to have it, or Putin may genuinely be invested in preserving and developing the U.S.-Russia relationship, or perhaps it's a bit of both - but it seems almost certain that he has an ulterior motive. It will be interesting to see what influence, if any, Snowden's flight continues to have in foreign policy and on privacy and surveillance laws back at home.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
SCOTUS 2013 Key Decisions
As the Supreme Court nears the end of its term, the judicial-minded have waited with baited breath for each new decision the Court hands down. Today, history was made - SCOTUS ruled the Defense of Marriage Act's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.
Around the country, proponents of civil rights broadly and same-sex marriage specifically rejoiced - the Court has finally issued a sane, progressive opinion in line with public opinion. Not to say that SCOTUS should abide by public opinion, but in this case, the writing was on the wall - blatant discrimination is not tolerated. It is a huge step forward for gay rights, and a nod to the younger generation's feelings about sexuality - that it is only the business of the people involved.
Several Republican members of Congress responded with statements along the lines of "this belittles traditional marriage," and "I hope the states define marriage as being only between a man and a woman" - but the Court and the country have spoken out against bigotry.
Unfortunately, while this area of civil rights benefited from a huge step forward, other areas haven't been so lucky. Yesterday, the Court overturned a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 - the nine states that had been required to attain advance federal approval before making changes to their voting laws (originally intended to prevent Southern state governments from enacting laws that would make it more difficult for African Americans to register to and cast their votes) may now make changes to their voting laws immediately.
In her dissent, Justice Ginsberg cited several instances of Voting Rights Act violations (view them in this summary) that have occurred in the past 15-20 years - from southern city councils trying to postpone elections to prevent African Americans from being elected to attempted gerrymandering to decrease the impact of the Hispanic vote.
It is interesting that the Court majority feels that the country has changed, when there are so many instances of voting violations in recent years. Chief Justice Roberts, the majority opinion author, clarified that it is the data on which current enforcement of the Voting Rights Act is based that needs to be updated, and that Congress may vote to impose new federal oversight with current data. It remains to be seen whether or not Congress will feel compelled to act on this - judging by its recent lack of productivity, though, it seems unlikely.
One can only hope that this will not have as severe ramifications of disenfranchisement as predicted.
Around the country, proponents of civil rights broadly and same-sex marriage specifically rejoiced - the Court has finally issued a sane, progressive opinion in line with public opinion. Not to say that SCOTUS should abide by public opinion, but in this case, the writing was on the wall - blatant discrimination is not tolerated. It is a huge step forward for gay rights, and a nod to the younger generation's feelings about sexuality - that it is only the business of the people involved.
Several Republican members of Congress responded with statements along the lines of "this belittles traditional marriage," and "I hope the states define marriage as being only between a man and a woman" - but the Court and the country have spoken out against bigotry.
Unfortunately, while this area of civil rights benefited from a huge step forward, other areas haven't been so lucky. Yesterday, the Court overturned a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 - the nine states that had been required to attain advance federal approval before making changes to their voting laws (originally intended to prevent Southern state governments from enacting laws that would make it more difficult for African Americans to register to and cast their votes) may now make changes to their voting laws immediately.
In her dissent, Justice Ginsberg cited several instances of Voting Rights Act violations (view them in this summary) that have occurred in the past 15-20 years - from southern city councils trying to postpone elections to prevent African Americans from being elected to attempted gerrymandering to decrease the impact of the Hispanic vote.
It is interesting that the Court majority feels that the country has changed, when there are so many instances of voting violations in recent years. Chief Justice Roberts, the majority opinion author, clarified that it is the data on which current enforcement of the Voting Rights Act is based that needs to be updated, and that Congress may vote to impose new federal oversight with current data. It remains to be seen whether or not Congress will feel compelled to act on this - judging by its recent lack of productivity, though, it seems unlikely.
One can only hope that this will not have as severe ramifications of disenfranchisement as predicted.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Stop legislating choice
Slate posted an article this morning about a proposed federal abortion ban after 20 weeks. The proposed legislation makes only one exception - if the mother has a life-endangering physical condition. No allowances for rape or incest are included.
One Texas lawmaker advocated for a ban after 20 weeks because he once witnessed a 15-week old male fetus masterbating, and "if a fetus can feel pain, it can certainly feel pleasure." When explaining his objection to abortion in the case of rape or incest, another lawmaker said "because, you know, the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.
First of all, this is absurd. Using masterbation as a justification against abortion boggles the mind, - what does one have to do with the other? The comment about pregnancy after rape really just serves to convince me that our nation's lawmakers need a sexual education class - perhaps they all missed those lessons in high school, but pregnancy can happen any time a man and a woman have unprotected intercourse. End of story.
This is another instance of [generally] conservative, male lawmakers trying to interfere with a woman's sexual and reproductive health. Aside from misplaced religious beliefs, the main motivation from this seems to be a persistent and purposeful misunderstanding of things they cannot experience themselves. It is suspicious that only women's health is targeted - no other health care providers or concerns are so heavily legislated and debated.
One Texas lawmaker advocated for a ban after 20 weeks because he once witnessed a 15-week old male fetus masterbating, and "if a fetus can feel pain, it can certainly feel pleasure." When explaining his objection to abortion in the case of rape or incest, another lawmaker said "because, you know, the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.
First of all, this is absurd. Using masterbation as a justification against abortion boggles the mind, - what does one have to do with the other? The comment about pregnancy after rape really just serves to convince me that our nation's lawmakers need a sexual education class - perhaps they all missed those lessons in high school, but pregnancy can happen any time a man and a woman have unprotected intercourse. End of story.
This is another instance of [generally] conservative, male lawmakers trying to interfere with a woman's sexual and reproductive health. Aside from misplaced religious beliefs, the main motivation from this seems to be a persistent and purposeful misunderstanding of things they cannot experience themselves. It is suspicious that only women's health is targeted - no other health care providers or concerns are so heavily legislated and debated.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
We Plant Trees
If you've ever seen the movie Keeping the Faith, you know it's about a priest and a rabbi who were best friends growing up (and remained best friends as adults in their respective religious leadership positions).
Today, I found out that an elderly relative passed away. I thought of this exchange between the priest and the rabbi:
As the rabbi in the movie says, when Jewish people experience a significant life cycle event (including a death), planting a tree can also help bring peace to the family dealing with the death. Family members participate in the planting itself - a distraction - and their act provides future generations both a living memorial of the past and the benefits of having a tree - be it fruit, shade, or the wood of which it is composed.
Here's to you, Uncle Archie - rest in peace.
Today, I found out that an elderly relative passed away. I thought of this exchange between the priest and the rabbi:
- Priest: What do you want me to do, flagellate myself?Rabbi: Jews don't do that. We-- We plant trees.
As the rabbi in the movie says, when Jewish people experience a significant life cycle event (including a death), planting a tree can also help bring peace to the family dealing with the death. Family members participate in the planting itself - a distraction - and their act provides future generations both a living memorial of the past and the benefits of having a tree - be it fruit, shade, or the wood of which it is composed.
Here's to you, Uncle Archie - rest in peace.
Monday, June 3, 2013
When work is rewarding
Looking through this admittedly sparsely populated blog, I came across a post I wrote in 2010 evaluating what I like and dislike in a job. Namely, I liked being responsible for a variety of tasks, as well as being able to provide clients with real, influential advice based on research, experience, and/or industry knowledge. I also noted my dislike for "useless busy work" that no one cares about and that accomplishes nothing.
Almost three years after writing this, as I again consider what I want in a job, my earlier insights about what I find rewarding in a job still hold true. I've gained more consulting experience and worked with a wider variety of clients and organizations, I know more specifically the type of consulting work I like to do - and it still entails having a variety of different types of tasks to complete in a given day or week, helping address various types of client challenges.
As long as I know that my work is being valued and having an impact, I know I'm doing good work. Conversely, when that shifts to being more repetitive tasks, more excel formatting than original thought generation, the work product is far less meaningful and rewarding.
There is a lot to be said for creativity, be it through artistic expression or analyzing a new topic. The greater the ability to think outside the box, the more we are able to grow and evolve within our jobs, and the more inspired we are to do so. We spend the majority of our days and weeks at our places of employment. The more mentally stimulated we are, the more enjoyable the experience.
Friday, May 31, 2013
United States Postal Service
I have been working with the U.S. Postal Service for the past year and a half. You've probably read and heard all about USPS' financial woes, Congressional roadblocks, and institutional challenges. In working with the organization at their DC headquarters, I've learned a lot about the Postal Service - how it has evolved in recent years, how it got to be where it is today, its original founding principles, and and its service to America.
The Postal Service is a unique organization. Though it is self-funded by its own sales and operations, it is bound to government regulation and oversight. It is required to pre-fund retirement for its employees, though no other organization in the world does so. The Postal Service must deliver mail six days a week to every address in the nation, including some which are only accessible by helicopter or mule. It is the only representative of the government (despite not being funded by the government) that reaches every U.S. town, village, and dwelling with an address on a regular basis.
Originally created first by a British grant and then by the Second Continental Congress, the Postal Service was established to enable early American colonists to communicate and connect with one another in a geographically disparate region. Nominated as the first Postmaster General, Benjamin Franklin implemented many policies and procedures that are still in use today.
The Postal Service's mandate is humbling, and its supporting infrastructure is astounding. However, with the growth of electronic mail and package delivery, and the decrease of traditional mail, the Postal Service is working to realign its physical assets to better serve current demand. In the meantime, USPS must continue to serve its paper-based business customers while becoming even more creative in its product and service development in the electronic sphere. Amongst all this, USPS still must present any major changes to current offerings and services and potential new offerings to Congress for approval, as USPS is beholden to Congressional oversight even though they do not receive Congressional funding.
Given these challenges, it is not surprising that the Postal Service is struggling. Nor is it surprising that USPS's role in and interaction with government is not well understood - many people (incorrectly) assume the Postal Service receives government funding and is still somehow billions of dollars in debt. USPS is working on making changes to remain viable to the American people while still upholding their original mandate of connecting the country. Unfortunately, Congress has rejected most, if not all of the Postal Service's proposals.
The Postal Service has a long history of innovation and early adoption of new technology. In recent years, though, its enormous physical infrastructure and Congressional gridlock have crippled this trait. The mandate to connect the country and allow nation-wide communication is still a vital, valid one - online connectivity notwithstanding. Though sending physical mail and packages around the country is the stated responsibility of USPS, the outreach our mail carriers provide to the most remote corners of the nation, to the most isolated citizens, may be the most valuable activity the Postal Service has to offer.
USPS is always the first agency back on the ground after natural disasters, the first representation of authority to reconnect people to a sense of normalcy. Their physical and technological infrastructure allows them to make adjustments to delivery in the face of those disasters so that vital medications and the like are still delivered to the intended recipients in a timely manner. USPS is the only organization in the mailing industry that can and does achieve all this, both because of and thanks to its constitutional mandate. The U.S. Postal Service is a model for other posts around the globe. Its role in our lives is essential. USPS can evolve to meet the digital age, if we let it - and we must.
The Postal Service is a unique organization. Though it is self-funded by its own sales and operations, it is bound to government regulation and oversight. It is required to pre-fund retirement for its employees, though no other organization in the world does so. The Postal Service must deliver mail six days a week to every address in the nation, including some which are only accessible by helicopter or mule. It is the only representative of the government (despite not being funded by the government) that reaches every U.S. town, village, and dwelling with an address on a regular basis.
Originally created first by a British grant and then by the Second Continental Congress, the Postal Service was established to enable early American colonists to communicate and connect with one another in a geographically disparate region. Nominated as the first Postmaster General, Benjamin Franklin implemented many policies and procedures that are still in use today.
The Postal Service's mandate is humbling, and its supporting infrastructure is astounding. However, with the growth of electronic mail and package delivery, and the decrease of traditional mail, the Postal Service is working to realign its physical assets to better serve current demand. In the meantime, USPS must continue to serve its paper-based business customers while becoming even more creative in its product and service development in the electronic sphere. Amongst all this, USPS still must present any major changes to current offerings and services and potential new offerings to Congress for approval, as USPS is beholden to Congressional oversight even though they do not receive Congressional funding.
Given these challenges, it is not surprising that the Postal Service is struggling. Nor is it surprising that USPS's role in and interaction with government is not well understood - many people (incorrectly) assume the Postal Service receives government funding and is still somehow billions of dollars in debt. USPS is working on making changes to remain viable to the American people while still upholding their original mandate of connecting the country. Unfortunately, Congress has rejected most, if not all of the Postal Service's proposals.
The Postal Service has a long history of innovation and early adoption of new technology. In recent years, though, its enormous physical infrastructure and Congressional gridlock have crippled this trait. The mandate to connect the country and allow nation-wide communication is still a vital, valid one - online connectivity notwithstanding. Though sending physical mail and packages around the country is the stated responsibility of USPS, the outreach our mail carriers provide to the most remote corners of the nation, to the most isolated citizens, may be the most valuable activity the Postal Service has to offer.
USPS is always the first agency back on the ground after natural disasters, the first representation of authority to reconnect people to a sense of normalcy. Their physical and technological infrastructure allows them to make adjustments to delivery in the face of those disasters so that vital medications and the like are still delivered to the intended recipients in a timely manner. USPS is the only organization in the mailing industry that can and does achieve all this, both because of and thanks to its constitutional mandate. The U.S. Postal Service is a model for other posts around the globe. Its role in our lives is essential. USPS can evolve to meet the digital age, if we let it - and we must.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
2013 Tea Party
With the upcoming Virginia gubernatorial elections, Virginia will serve as a signpost for the current status and popularity and perceived chances of longevity for the tea party. The Republican ticket includes current Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who believes that the University of Virginia somehow fraudulently funded research into global warming and that women's rights should be more reminiscent of the 1850s, and E.W. Jackson who compared Planned Parenthood to the KKK. For a state that has been described as going purple, this is a fairly extreme party ticket.
Contrasted with this is the news that Michelle Bachman is not seeking reelection to her U.S. House of Representatives seat. As a (formerly?) prominent advocate of Tea Party beliefs, this news is not entirely surprising in light of the fact that tea party popularity seems to be waning. Some say her decision is due to lack of confidence in her ability to be reelected - perhaps the tea party is weakening in Minnesota more quickly in Virginia.
Third parties are potentially a valuable shot in the arm for the two party system. Libertarian and Green parties have straggled along as minority parties for years now, but have not gained mainstream traction. Perhaps the reason so much attention has been paid to the Tea Party is because it is potentially the first alternative party to garner nation-wide attention since the Republicans overtook the Whigs in the 1850s-1860s. Virginia's November election results may determine the course of the party going forward.
Contrasted with this is the news that Michelle Bachman is not seeking reelection to her U.S. House of Representatives seat. As a (formerly?) prominent advocate of Tea Party beliefs, this news is not entirely surprising in light of the fact that tea party popularity seems to be waning. Some say her decision is due to lack of confidence in her ability to be reelected - perhaps the tea party is weakening in Minnesota more quickly in Virginia.
Third parties are potentially a valuable shot in the arm for the two party system. Libertarian and Green parties have straggled along as minority parties for years now, but have not gained mainstream traction. Perhaps the reason so much attention has been paid to the Tea Party is because it is potentially the first alternative party to garner nation-wide attention since the Republicans overtook the Whigs in the 1850s-1860s. Virginia's November election results may determine the course of the party going forward.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
One Tiny Step at a Time
Yesterday, North Carolina took a step back in time and decided to deny a group of people their civil rights. Today, President Obama came out in favor of coming out - he formally supports gay marriage.
Yesterday's Washington Post:
Today's:
How can these two completely divergent opinions coexist? In the same country, at the same time? It is scary to think that we, as a county, have a contingent of people who are moving so far backwards when the younger generation is, overall, pretty accepting of differing beliefs, sexuality, etc. Live and let live - if it's not hurting you, why do you care if other people do it? I understand feeling uncomfortable about the thought of a man marrying another man - it's not "traditional" marriage. But, if they love each other just like a man and a woman, why not get married? As long as they're not trying to marry *you*, why do you feel it's your place to legislate their behavior?
This is something that continues to perplex me. This class of politicians wants less government, less controls over their lives - their right to own guns, to have or not have insurance, to not pay taxes (and consequentially not receive the government services that those taxes fund...) - but they want extreme government intervention in women's reproductive rights, contraception, and homosexuality. Why are these things the government's business, but taxes, social security, health care, etc. are not? I would really love to see a logical, constitution-based argument for that.
The argument that controlling gun ownership and use is for public safety is sound, as is paying taxes to support government-provided services, such as highway maintenance. If gay people get married, who is harmed? Who is being protected by preventing their happiness, by treating them as second class citizens? It has been all over Facebook today, but I'll reiterate it here - what is being done in North Carolina and other places is an eerie reenactment of the 1960s civil rights era, something we learn about in school today and can't figure out why it took them so long to fix what was clearly an injustice, and why it required so much violence and hate. Our children and our children's children will read about the homosexual/transexual/transgender civil rights era of the 2000s and 2010s, and most likely will ask us what was wrong with us, in our time, that we couldn't accept people for who they are.
Yesterday's Washington Post:
Today's:
How can these two completely divergent opinions coexist? In the same country, at the same time? It is scary to think that we, as a county, have a contingent of people who are moving so far backwards when the younger generation is, overall, pretty accepting of differing beliefs, sexuality, etc. Live and let live - if it's not hurting you, why do you care if other people do it? I understand feeling uncomfortable about the thought of a man marrying another man - it's not "traditional" marriage. But, if they love each other just like a man and a woman, why not get married? As long as they're not trying to marry *you*, why do you feel it's your place to legislate their behavior?
This is something that continues to perplex me. This class of politicians wants less government, less controls over their lives - their right to own guns, to have or not have insurance, to not pay taxes (and consequentially not receive the government services that those taxes fund...) - but they want extreme government intervention in women's reproductive rights, contraception, and homosexuality. Why are these things the government's business, but taxes, social security, health care, etc. are not? I would really love to see a logical, constitution-based argument for that.
The argument that controlling gun ownership and use is for public safety is sound, as is paying taxes to support government-provided services, such as highway maintenance. If gay people get married, who is harmed? Who is being protected by preventing their happiness, by treating them as second class citizens? It has been all over Facebook today, but I'll reiterate it here - what is being done in North Carolina and other places is an eerie reenactment of the 1960s civil rights era, something we learn about in school today and can't figure out why it took them so long to fix what was clearly an injustice, and why it required so much violence and hate. Our children and our children's children will read about the homosexual/transexual/transgender civil rights era of the 2000s and 2010s, and most likely will ask us what was wrong with us, in our time, that we couldn't accept people for who they are.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Thoughts on North Korea
I read this article today in the BBC and was struck by the article's use of the term "concentration camp." It seems that the number of news articles that allude to human rights abuses and atrocities in North Korea has increased lately, perhaps due to the country's recent leadership turnover and failed rocket launches. Its continued talks with China and other international politics faux pas don't help.
In this article, a South Korean citizen and his family defected to North Korea for a job opportunity promised him by North Korean agents who convinced him to defect. Almost immediately, he and his family regretted their decision, and they were installed in a guarded camp and forced to produce propaganda communications. He was given the opportunity to go on a mission to Denmark, and was eventually able to escape. However, his family was left behind. His wife and two daughters were put into a concentration camp. He heard from them once, most likely as an attempt at manipulation, but he never saw them again and doesn't know if they are still alive.
Really? There are still concentration camps, 65 years after the Holocaust? I felt so disgusted when I read this article - disgusted, appalled, and a little scared that these things still happen. And, in North Korea, it can happen to anyone - anyone who displeases the government, anyone who is in the wrong place at the wrong time. I read another article recently, this one in The Washington Post, about a man who was essentially born a slave in a North Korean labor camp. This article likened the camps to Soviet gulags, and said that the man's parents were ordered to mate and have him. His mother and brother were executed in front of him, and he had no reaction to this - because his only functions in life were to labor and work to avoid beatings. He was able to escape, the only known person ever to do so.
How do these things still happen? I know that attacking North Korea is in no one's best interests right now, and that that is not the way to deal with this. I know that the US and other countries have sanctions on North Korea, and are refusing to provide aid because of their continued nuclear efforts, but clearly these actions are having no effect. I don't know what the solution is, but the human rights situation is beyond anything that has been acceptable since the American Civil War.
In this article, a South Korean citizen and his family defected to North Korea for a job opportunity promised him by North Korean agents who convinced him to defect. Almost immediately, he and his family regretted their decision, and they were installed in a guarded camp and forced to produce propaganda communications. He was given the opportunity to go on a mission to Denmark, and was eventually able to escape. However, his family was left behind. His wife and two daughters were put into a concentration camp. He heard from them once, most likely as an attempt at manipulation, but he never saw them again and doesn't know if they are still alive.
Really? There are still concentration camps, 65 years after the Holocaust? I felt so disgusted when I read this article - disgusted, appalled, and a little scared that these things still happen. And, in North Korea, it can happen to anyone - anyone who displeases the government, anyone who is in the wrong place at the wrong time. I read another article recently, this one in The Washington Post, about a man who was essentially born a slave in a North Korean labor camp. This article likened the camps to Soviet gulags, and said that the man's parents were ordered to mate and have him. His mother and brother were executed in front of him, and he had no reaction to this - because his only functions in life were to labor and work to avoid beatings. He was able to escape, the only known person ever to do so.
How do these things still happen? I know that attacking North Korea is in no one's best interests right now, and that that is not the way to deal with this. I know that the US and other countries have sanctions on North Korea, and are refusing to provide aid because of their continued nuclear efforts, but clearly these actions are having no effect. I don't know what the solution is, but the human rights situation is beyond anything that has been acceptable since the American Civil War.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Since I am an unreliable blogger
(on this site, anyway) - clearly I 've been neglecting this. However, I do blog fairly frequently for work at www.magamaps.com. Check it out!
And perhaps soon I'll update this, too.
And perhaps soon I'll update this, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)