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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)