The state of Maryland boasts of some of the fastest-growing technology industries in North America. For businesses looking for telecom services in particular, this means having a wide range of options for service providers, and devoting some time for telecom contract negotiations. If your Maryland business is looking for a good vendor to partner with, read on for tips on securing a fool-proof deal with one.
Present a well-researched baseline. A good partnership depends not only on looking towards the same direction, but also having a solid understanding of where each is at, at the moment. For the client in particular, this should entail the conduct of a comprehensive inventory of the company’s existing telecom infrastructure, to determine the baseline. The task should cover both quantitative and qualitative parameters: how many telecom units have been deployed and how often, and what features and applications come with these devices, and what tasks they help the company’s employees accomplish.
Said inventory is supposed to serve as a guide for both parties regarding what should be improved on, using the service provider’s offerings. The data culled from the inventory should establish historical patterns linking the telecom measures taken with the company’s performance, and even bottomline. A prospective telecom vendor worth its salt would then be able to show how to drive up the performance and bottomline with its own proposed solutions - from deploying more gadgets and equipment, to designing a mobile device management application for the organization.
Agree on reasonable performance evaluation practices. The partnership can mean growth for both parties if they hold themselves to high standards for service delivery. These standards could be established by indicating in the telecom contract the metrics that will be used to evaluate the performance of the service provider.
Metrics must be based on levels that are relevant to the client’s business goals, be easily measurable, and be actually attainable and within the service provider’s locus of control. It is, for instance, not reasonable to hold the provider accountable for unsatisfactory telecom services resulting from behaviors of the company’s employees. Finally, there should be a strict timetable set for achieving the articulated goals and for conducting the performance evaluation.
Provide space for changes. Today’s business climate demands dynamism in companies, a culture that welcomes change wholeheartedly. This attitude should be reflected in telecom contracts: provisions must be able to accommodate adjustments in response to the rapid shifts in the market - from the emergence of new players, to extending one’s reach to a new target segment, to adopting new technologies.
When a contract has terms that allow for scalability and flexibility of the services offered, both parties will not needlessly go through long-drawn renegotiations that take up precious time and resources.
Partner with experts in telecoms contract negotiations from Maryland today, and benefit from the assistance of professionals in handling this challenge. Talk to Noble Eightfold today to learn more.
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
A Trial Consulting Firm’s Guidelines for Effective Theme Development
Winning a case is just as much about telling the right story as it is about having all the facts. As experts in communication and psychology, a trial consulting firm can be an indispensable ally in telling the story within the framework of the law that will prompt a jury to award a favorable verdict.
Facts and evidence tell jurors the what of a case; the theme goes into the why and how. The theme should allow them to see the facts and evidence within a bigger picture and in a way that resonates with them.
Take, for example, a product liability case. The main legal theories to pursue would be negligence, breach of warranty, or strict liability. However, all this jargon can go over the heads of many jurors. But when framed in the context of holding corporations accountable, then that is something many can relate to, as they have probably had their own experiences with others not taking responsibility for their actions.
Consultants have three main guidelines for developing an effective theme.
It should be tailored for the audience. Litigators must craft a message that would speak to even to those who are skeptical of their client’s position. Consultants can help litigators test their themes on individuals whose backgrounds are similar to their potential jury through focus group discussions or mock trials, and then again during voir dire. It is important to note that if the theme proves ineffective during research, litigators need to be able to adapt quickly and develop a better theme based on the insights they have gleaned.
It should fit the various aspects of the case. This means that it should not only be congruent with the evidence and the legal theory, but it should also fit the various people associated with the case - the client, the attorney, the witnesses, and even the jury and opposing counsel. For example, a David vs. Goliath theme could work well for a mild-mannered client who was wrongfully terminated by a large corporation.
It should be easy to use and remember. A theme can often be summarized in one sentence using a concept that would be relatable to many.Litigators should be able to easily incorporate it in various stages of the trial, from voir dire, to opening statements, to witness testimony, to closing arguments.With enough repetition, the theme will stick with jurors and enable them to see the different aspects of the case from this perspective.
Litigators need to remember that jurors have no stakes in the case. It is up to them to get the jury invested in their client’s position, and it starts with developing the theme that will truly resonate with their core beliefs.
Many litigators today work with trial consulting firms to plan their legal strategy. One such firm is Dubin Research and Consulting (DRC) in New York, which has over 10 years of experience in working with many of the country’s top law firms. For more information, log on to DubinConsulting.com.
Facts and evidence tell jurors the what of a case; the theme goes into the why and how. The theme should allow them to see the facts and evidence within a bigger picture and in a way that resonates with them.
Take, for example, a product liability case. The main legal theories to pursue would be negligence, breach of warranty, or strict liability. However, all this jargon can go over the heads of many jurors. But when framed in the context of holding corporations accountable, then that is something many can relate to, as they have probably had their own experiences with others not taking responsibility for their actions.
Consultants have three main guidelines for developing an effective theme.
It should be tailored for the audience. Litigators must craft a message that would speak to even to those who are skeptical of their client’s position. Consultants can help litigators test their themes on individuals whose backgrounds are similar to their potential jury through focus group discussions or mock trials, and then again during voir dire. It is important to note that if the theme proves ineffective during research, litigators need to be able to adapt quickly and develop a better theme based on the insights they have gleaned.
It should fit the various aspects of the case. This means that it should not only be congruent with the evidence and the legal theory, but it should also fit the various people associated with the case - the client, the attorney, the witnesses, and even the jury and opposing counsel. For example, a David vs. Goliath theme could work well for a mild-mannered client who was wrongfully terminated by a large corporation.
It should be easy to use and remember. A theme can often be summarized in one sentence using a concept that would be relatable to many.Litigators should be able to easily incorporate it in various stages of the trial, from voir dire, to opening statements, to witness testimony, to closing arguments.With enough repetition, the theme will stick with jurors and enable them to see the different aspects of the case from this perspective.
Litigators need to remember that jurors have no stakes in the case. It is up to them to get the jury invested in their client’s position, and it starts with developing the theme that will truly resonate with their core beliefs.
Many litigators today work with trial consulting firms to plan their legal strategy. One such firm is Dubin Research and Consulting (DRC) in New York, which has over 10 years of experience in working with many of the country’s top law firms. For more information, log on to DubinConsulting.com.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
What a Trump presidency means for the environment
So Donald J. Trump, has been elected as the 45th President of the United States of America. Being at the helm of the most powerful country on earth, Trump stands to greatly influence the global economy, politics, and environmental situation.
That he scored this victory at this juncture in world history will be talked about in the coming decades. But right now, environmentalists like myself are encouraged to take a closer look at how a Trump presidency will have strong and long-standing impact on arguably the most urgent issue of our times: Climate change.
Trump is a known climate change denier. How he could not grasp the entire science behind it perhaps warrants another post, but for now, we can say that he is not even alone in this. Perhaps he is truly unaware, but perhaps he is also feigning innocence, so that, like many others in the Republican party, they can continue entering lucrative ventures and be in business-as-usual mode, and thus also continue to wreak havoc on the environment.
Here are parts of his plan of action for his first 100 days in office. It should make us shudder (if his very election has not accomplished that for us):
"FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.
SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward."
Both are about generating domestic employment, which were his major campaign pitch to the disgruntled working-class Americans who lamented the offshoring practices of many businesses, which left them jobless. But at what cost?
Now, Trump is promising to push for these ventures that will simply add to the planet's climate woes. "Shale, oil, natural gas, and clean coal." We are not so sure about the latter, but we do know that at this stage, renewable is the way to go. We are one of the world's largest economies, and if we do not pay serious attention to finding a more sustainable way to fuel our activities, then all of the growth we are expecting will be for naught.
We will most likely suffer more extreme weather events, and witness another Hurricane Katrina that will devastate more communities. And of course, as we pursue this course of unsustainable development, our brothers and sisters from the more vulnerable parts of the globe will suffer. Do we want this?
Author's Note: This is a guest blog post by Richard A. Kimball, a California native who enjoys writing and blogging about the environment. To read more of his work, you can visit his blog, Google+ or LinkedIn.
That he scored this victory at this juncture in world history will be talked about in the coming decades. But right now, environmentalists like myself are encouraged to take a closer look at how a Trump presidency will have strong and long-standing impact on arguably the most urgent issue of our times: Climate change.
Trump is a known climate change denier. How he could not grasp the entire science behind it perhaps warrants another post, but for now, we can say that he is not even alone in this. Perhaps he is truly unaware, but perhaps he is also feigning innocence, so that, like many others in the Republican party, they can continue entering lucrative ventures and be in business-as-usual mode, and thus also continue to wreak havoc on the environment.
Here are parts of his plan of action for his first 100 days in office. It should make us shudder (if his very election has not accomplished that for us):
"FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.
SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward."
Both are about generating domestic employment, which were his major campaign pitch to the disgruntled working-class Americans who lamented the offshoring practices of many businesses, which left them jobless. But at what cost?
Now, Trump is promising to push for these ventures that will simply add to the planet's climate woes. "Shale, oil, natural gas, and clean coal." We are not so sure about the latter, but we do know that at this stage, renewable is the way to go. We are one of the world's largest economies, and if we do not pay serious attention to finding a more sustainable way to fuel our activities, then all of the growth we are expecting will be for naught.
We will most likely suffer more extreme weather events, and witness another Hurricane Katrina that will devastate more communities. And of course, as we pursue this course of unsustainable development, our brothers and sisters from the more vulnerable parts of the globe will suffer. Do we want this?
Author's Note: This is a guest blog post by Richard A. Kimball, a California native who enjoys writing and blogging about the environment. To read more of his work, you can visit his blog, Google+ or LinkedIn.
Friday, November 11, 2016
Donald Trump and climate change
As I have argued in a previous post, a Trump presidency will reverberate across the globe, and too, with important implications on the world environmental situation. This time, I would like to specifically link it with a deeply disturbing news.
In a report published on The Independent, climatologists warned that it could be “game over” for humanity soon. Within a lifetime, we may see global temperatures rise by over 7 degrees Celsius, as we continue to pump an increasing amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Part of the report reads, “According to the current best estimate, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), if humans carry on with a “business as usual” approach using large amounts of fossil fuels, the Earth’s average temperature will rise by between 2.6 and 4.8 degrees above pre-industrial levels by 2100.”
The trajectory of things happening is easy to imagine from here: Polar ice caps will melt, facilitating flooding in low-lying areas even after what is previously tagged as normal rainfall. We will experience harsher winters and hotter summers – a tragedy for those whose livelihoods depend on a more balanced ecological conditions: Farming, fishing, to name a few. When this happens, our peasants and fisherfolk are set to harvest way less produce than ever before.
Here in the United States, our farmers are relatively more moneyed and equipped with technologies, and also benefit from government subsidies. In less developed parts of the world, the impacts of climate change can only mean hunger in poor farming and fishing communities that have no financial means to deal with less water for irrigation, and long, dry spells. We might see the emergence of new diseases, too.
The fact is, we need to pour more investments towards climate change programs not just for our country but throughout the world. Unfortunately, Trump’s campaign has promised to do exactly the opposite.
Within his first 100 days, he said that he will “cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure.” The United States might also pull out from the Paris treaty, under Trump.
These are not the things we need in what has already described been described by scientists as an emergency situation. Surely, there is a need for all of us to campaign, and campaign hard, for a more sensible response from the government to this important issue.
Author's Note: This is a guest blog post by Richard A. Kimball, a California native who enjoys writing and blogging about the environment. To read more of his work, you can visit his blog, Facebook or Twitter.
In a report published on The Independent, climatologists warned that it could be “game over” for humanity soon. Within a lifetime, we may see global temperatures rise by over 7 degrees Celsius, as we continue to pump an increasing amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Part of the report reads, “According to the current best estimate, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), if humans carry on with a “business as usual” approach using large amounts of fossil fuels, the Earth’s average temperature will rise by between 2.6 and 4.8 degrees above pre-industrial levels by 2100.”
The trajectory of things happening is easy to imagine from here: Polar ice caps will melt, facilitating flooding in low-lying areas even after what is previously tagged as normal rainfall. We will experience harsher winters and hotter summers – a tragedy for those whose livelihoods depend on a more balanced ecological conditions: Farming, fishing, to name a few. When this happens, our peasants and fisherfolk are set to harvest way less produce than ever before.
Here in the United States, our farmers are relatively more moneyed and equipped with technologies, and also benefit from government subsidies. In less developed parts of the world, the impacts of climate change can only mean hunger in poor farming and fishing communities that have no financial means to deal with less water for irrigation, and long, dry spells. We might see the emergence of new diseases, too.
The fact is, we need to pour more investments towards climate change programs not just for our country but throughout the world. Unfortunately, Trump’s campaign has promised to do exactly the opposite.
Within his first 100 days, he said that he will “cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure.” The United States might also pull out from the Paris treaty, under Trump.
These are not the things we need in what has already described been described by scientists as an emergency situation. Surely, there is a need for all of us to campaign, and campaign hard, for a more sensible response from the government to this important issue.
Author's Note: This is a guest blog post by Richard A. Kimball, a California native who enjoys writing and blogging about the environment. To read more of his work, you can visit his blog, Facebook or Twitter.
Monday, October 3, 2016
Media in Society
Last night I saw a debate on television about what role the media is to play in our society. I found one speaker to be somewhat appalling. This person argued against the involvement of media in our societal discussion on issues that matter. Well sir, you are dead wrong...
Now if you happen to be on the right you’d be saying, "Well there is an obvious liberal bias in most of the media we receive and hear." I agree with you to a certain extent. Media in its purest form was designed as a tool people can use to provide a forum or platform for the issues we publicly debate. This would be an admirable role in a perfect society, but what it does not take into consideration is the human element. Our ability to modify the perceptions of others through the media in order to achieve political gain has hit the liberal bias peak. The inevitable backlash on the media monopoly I sense is coming to an end. The market of information is efficient and fair only when there are alternatives for people to chose. Can we blame Democrats who using the tools at hand to the fullest extent? Of course not.
It was inevitable.
Democratic candidates and leaders obtained the urban vote where media centers are controlled in most part by the majority of left-leaning civilians who work and live among its domain. Yes. This was the fate, seduction, and role media was to play on behalf of the Democratic Party for many decades.
However, imbalances eventually lead to balance. The old truths and myths of a liberal media are rapidly declining. Sure there has been a recent surge in popularity among the left media, but it is only because the country was fed up with a Republican held congress and presidency that failed to serve the interests of the public. In the long-term, I expect an equal following to build and continue amongst the supporters of the right media to provide the balance and difference in opinion that our country needs. It pushes elected officials to compromise and allow people to digest information from both sides in order to make effective electoral decisions based on their beliefs.
Now, take a step back and look try to imagine the big picture. Most would agree that media needs balance, but why? Let’s view this angle from the perspective of polarization and nationalism. In my estimation, media needs to ask tough questions, report on unethical behavior, and to provide an independent voice that serves as a check and balance to government. However, if media were to play the role of polarization and bias too well, then our nation would drift apart and stoke a fire of bitterness toward each other. Sure we have our differences, but in reality we share much more in common with each other. So, how can we work together with those that we have a hatred for? For example, how long must we see the election map showing red states and blue states when we are in fact a sea of purple swayed by moderate group of independent voters? Political parties must have a way to differentiate themselves, but occasionally the media does push the envelope, resulting in uncomfortable ramifications.
On the other hand, media also must be a spirit free of government control. If media casts its opinion with the government without any checks, it is likely that an unhealthy state of nationalism may take hold and shortly thereafter promote imperialistic tendencies. I can only imagine a state made op of a single-minded society where group think suffocates the ability of people to think freely. Would those of an opposing view be subjected to secrecy and casted away from society? Would new ideas be lost forever? Would an opposing political party have a voice or even cease to exist? It is certainly possible.
Think of a scenario where the media was used to promote the activities of government in a negative way. I believe this is the descriptive label for propaganda. A tool used to control and persuade the masses for better or worse. World War II is a perfect example. The good and honest people of Germany were lead to believe that their ideas and opinions should be forced on the rest of the world because the propaganda machine said they were a superior race. The civilian population for the most part bought into these lies. This is the absolute opposite end of the spectrum in the role that media has to play in society and we must be careful to learn the lessons that history has to teach us.
Media does have a role to play, but I would suggest that it strive to create balance and avoid extreme nationalistic and polarized political outlooks.
What of the present and future of media? Some say the internet is the next layer catalyst for fair and balanced opinions, news, and research. I couldn’t agree more. It is the wild card that few saw coming in the early 1990s and has proved to be a tidal wave of new found power that gives back to the people. Bloggers all over the United States and the world are spreading ideas and providing a balance of opinion far greater than anyone could have imagined. The blog world is the champion of the individual and protector of free speech. It will not eliminate old media, but instead provide an added channel or source of information and empower the individual like never before.
Now if you happen to be on the right you’d be saying, "Well there is an obvious liberal bias in most of the media we receive and hear." I agree with you to a certain extent. Media in its purest form was designed as a tool people can use to provide a forum or platform for the issues we publicly debate. This would be an admirable role in a perfect society, but what it does not take into consideration is the human element. Our ability to modify the perceptions of others through the media in order to achieve political gain has hit the liberal bias peak. The inevitable backlash on the media monopoly I sense is coming to an end. The market of information is efficient and fair only when there are alternatives for people to chose. Can we blame Democrats who using the tools at hand to the fullest extent? Of course not.
It was inevitable.
Democratic candidates and leaders obtained the urban vote where media centers are controlled in most part by the majority of left-leaning civilians who work and live among its domain. Yes. This was the fate, seduction, and role media was to play on behalf of the Democratic Party for many decades.
However, imbalances eventually lead to balance. The old truths and myths of a liberal media are rapidly declining. Sure there has been a recent surge in popularity among the left media, but it is only because the country was fed up with a Republican held congress and presidency that failed to serve the interests of the public. In the long-term, I expect an equal following to build and continue amongst the supporters of the right media to provide the balance and difference in opinion that our country needs. It pushes elected officials to compromise and allow people to digest information from both sides in order to make effective electoral decisions based on their beliefs.
Now, take a step back and look try to imagine the big picture. Most would agree that media needs balance, but why? Let’s view this angle from the perspective of polarization and nationalism. In my estimation, media needs to ask tough questions, report on unethical behavior, and to provide an independent voice that serves as a check and balance to government. However, if media were to play the role of polarization and bias too well, then our nation would drift apart and stoke a fire of bitterness toward each other. Sure we have our differences, but in reality we share much more in common with each other. So, how can we work together with those that we have a hatred for? For example, how long must we see the election map showing red states and blue states when we are in fact a sea of purple swayed by moderate group of independent voters? Political parties must have a way to differentiate themselves, but occasionally the media does push the envelope, resulting in uncomfortable ramifications.
On the other hand, media also must be a spirit free of government control. If media casts its opinion with the government without any checks, it is likely that an unhealthy state of nationalism may take hold and shortly thereafter promote imperialistic tendencies. I can only imagine a state made op of a single-minded society where group think suffocates the ability of people to think freely. Would those of an opposing view be subjected to secrecy and casted away from society? Would new ideas be lost forever? Would an opposing political party have a voice or even cease to exist? It is certainly possible.
Think of a scenario where the media was used to promote the activities of government in a negative way. I believe this is the descriptive label for propaganda. A tool used to control and persuade the masses for better or worse. World War II is a perfect example. The good and honest people of Germany were lead to believe that their ideas and opinions should be forced on the rest of the world because the propaganda machine said they were a superior race. The civilian population for the most part bought into these lies. This is the absolute opposite end of the spectrum in the role that media has to play in society and we must be careful to learn the lessons that history has to teach us.
Media does have a role to play, but I would suggest that it strive to create balance and avoid extreme nationalistic and polarized political outlooks.
What of the present and future of media? Some say the internet is the next layer catalyst for fair and balanced opinions, news, and research. I couldn’t agree more. It is the wild card that few saw coming in the early 1990s and has proved to be a tidal wave of new found power that gives back to the people. Bloggers all over the United States and the world are spreading ideas and providing a balance of opinion far greater than anyone could have imagined. The blog world is the champion of the individual and protector of free speech. It will not eliminate old media, but instead provide an added channel or source of information and empower the individual like never before.
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
North Korea: A Nuclear Player
The days of a non-nuclear Korean peninsula are over. With troops from the United States bogged down in Iraq and ineffective multilateral talks with North Korea, the world is on track for another major disaster.
So, what can be done to confront this nuclear threat?
The current situation can not be addressed by the United States alone. It is my fear that the Republican majority in all branches of U.S. government will continue with the typical and ineffective go-it-alone strategy that has not won us the key support needed in protect our international interests. The international community is the only body capable of effectively handling the North Korean situation which has now developed into a global problem.
Global issues need to be met by the global community. This does not mean that the United States can not lead the way. Obviously, there will always be the need for someone to take the initiative, but it has to be done in a way that does not isolate us from the other global players and delay effective resolution.
First, in a global economy, it is necessary for voters in the upcoming election to cast their votes to bring a more Democratic balance into the make-up of our current govenment. Democrats would be more effective in diplomacy and can speak the international tongue. Whether you agree with their policies and beliefs or not, they are more likely to restore trust and a sense of humanity to our foreign agenda.
Second, if the international community is the channel of tough sanctions, China is the key. The country of China is an emerging dominate player in the Asian region and is also responsible for trade that equates to roughly 50% of North Korea’s energy and food imports. If China does not accept its new international role in a responsible fashion, then the world will continue in its struggle to suppress renegade dictatorships.
Finally, North Korea has already been warned in their efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, but apparently decided not to listen. I believe we should impose the toughest of sanctions and work with our allies to allow for massive refugee transportation out of North Korea. At this point, deadlines should be drawn up for an international force to work together in removing this dictator from power if president Kim Jong-il does not comply and agree to dismantle his nuclear program.
If you do not believe that a solution similar to the one I have just discussed then I would invite you to focus more on the consequences of not taking action. Iran is watching world events very carefully right now. If they seek weak international resolve and come away from this scenario with the conclusion that North Korea has in fact strengthened its global position, then what is to stop them from developing nuclear weapons? Iran would probably target Israel and North Korea would likely make a hit on South Korea.
In regards to a potential North Korean attack on South Korea, we already know that underground tunnels have been discovered to be dug deep into South Korean territory. The scary thing to note is that millions of people live in the capital of Seoul, South Korea, which is not very from the border with the north. If it is already assumed that some tunnels have not yet been discovered, what is to stop North Korea from detonating a nuclear weapon right under the heels of a major South Korean city such as Seoul? This would cause millions of people to suffer a horrific death. Another possibility to ponder is North Korea’s capability to transport weapons of mass destruction to our enemies whether it is Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, etc.
Right now, the United States needs to continue its focus on immediate action in line with the international community, while at the same time researching preventative technologies that could strengthen our defenses within our own national borders. We have been warned, not the next question is whether or not we have what it takes to lead the international community and finally get something right.
So, what can be done to confront this nuclear threat?
The current situation can not be addressed by the United States alone. It is my fear that the Republican majority in all branches of U.S. government will continue with the typical and ineffective go-it-alone strategy that has not won us the key support needed in protect our international interests. The international community is the only body capable of effectively handling the North Korean situation which has now developed into a global problem.
Global issues need to be met by the global community. This does not mean that the United States can not lead the way. Obviously, there will always be the need for someone to take the initiative, but it has to be done in a way that does not isolate us from the other global players and delay effective resolution.
First, in a global economy, it is necessary for voters in the upcoming election to cast their votes to bring a more Democratic balance into the make-up of our current govenment. Democrats would be more effective in diplomacy and can speak the international tongue. Whether you agree with their policies and beliefs or not, they are more likely to restore trust and a sense of humanity to our foreign agenda.
Second, if the international community is the channel of tough sanctions, China is the key. The country of China is an emerging dominate player in the Asian region and is also responsible for trade that equates to roughly 50% of North Korea’s energy and food imports. If China does not accept its new international role in a responsible fashion, then the world will continue in its struggle to suppress renegade dictatorships.
Finally, North Korea has already been warned in their efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, but apparently decided not to listen. I believe we should impose the toughest of sanctions and work with our allies to allow for massive refugee transportation out of North Korea. At this point, deadlines should be drawn up for an international force to work together in removing this dictator from power if president Kim Jong-il does not comply and agree to dismantle his nuclear program.
If you do not believe that a solution similar to the one I have just discussed then I would invite you to focus more on the consequences of not taking action. Iran is watching world events very carefully right now. If they seek weak international resolve and come away from this scenario with the conclusion that North Korea has in fact strengthened its global position, then what is to stop them from developing nuclear weapons? Iran would probably target Israel and North Korea would likely make a hit on South Korea.
In regards to a potential North Korean attack on South Korea, we already know that underground tunnels have been discovered to be dug deep into South Korean territory. The scary thing to note is that millions of people live in the capital of Seoul, South Korea, which is not very from the border with the north. If it is already assumed that some tunnels have not yet been discovered, what is to stop North Korea from detonating a nuclear weapon right under the heels of a major South Korean city such as Seoul? This would cause millions of people to suffer a horrific death. Another possibility to ponder is North Korea’s capability to transport weapons of mass destruction to our enemies whether it is Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, etc.
Right now, the United States needs to continue its focus on immediate action in line with the international community, while at the same time researching preventative technologies that could strengthen our defenses within our own national borders. We have been warned, not the next question is whether or not we have what it takes to lead the international community and finally get something right.
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
Police Brutality - How to Fight Back
Ever since the Rodney King incident, the world at large has become increasingly aware of police brutality. One would presume that mass public awareness would stem such aggressive behavior from law enforcement officers, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Police officers, if anything, have only become more careful in how they verbally and physically abuse the general public.
Most U.S. residents don’t realize there is a simple method to combat such abuse. In fact, this particular expression of public-power can immobilize an officer’s career and, in extreme cases, bring an abrupt end to the officer’s employment; yes, you can get a police officer fired if you so desire.
If an officer is unnecessarily rough with you or is verbally abusive, you only need to do one thing: file a complaint.
Complaints are easy to file. Simply show up at the officer’s department, walk up to the front desk, and ask to file a complaint against an officer. The front desk must file the complaint; it is not the receptionist’s responsibility to validate your claim. You should then proceed to calmly and rationally fill out the paperwork and submit it.
If the receptionist refuses to assist you (which they will do almost every time), then you must ask to speak with the Watch Commander on duty. If the Watch Commander has any sense of responsibility, he or she will file the complaint without resistance. However, if he or she does not wish to file the complaint, then you must keep going up the chain of command until you reach the Chief of Police.
Once filed at the department, a complaint becomes a permanent record on the officer’s file. If an officer receives too many, he or she will get suspended or moved to a position that does not require public interaction. If enough complaints have been filed, the department may choose to fire the officer rather than risk having to explain why a troubled officer was allowed to continue serving the public.
Filing a complaint against an officer is extremely powerful. It has a lifetime effect on the officer’s career. It can prevent an officer from being promoted and can definitely cause problems whenever an officer attempts to lateral to a new department.
It is not only your right to file a complaint against an abusive police officer; you should look at it as your responsibility. Such behavior in a law enforcement officer is unacceptable. If you don’t file a complaint, the abusive behavior will only continue and could possibly escalate.
Filing a complaint against a police officer is one instance where the pen is truly mightier than the sword – or in this case, the gun.
Most U.S. residents don’t realize there is a simple method to combat such abuse. In fact, this particular expression of public-power can immobilize an officer’s career and, in extreme cases, bring an abrupt end to the officer’s employment; yes, you can get a police officer fired if you so desire.
If an officer is unnecessarily rough with you or is verbally abusive, you only need to do one thing: file a complaint.
Complaints are easy to file. Simply show up at the officer’s department, walk up to the front desk, and ask to file a complaint against an officer. The front desk must file the complaint; it is not the receptionist’s responsibility to validate your claim. You should then proceed to calmly and rationally fill out the paperwork and submit it.
If the receptionist refuses to assist you (which they will do almost every time), then you must ask to speak with the Watch Commander on duty. If the Watch Commander has any sense of responsibility, he or she will file the complaint without resistance. However, if he or she does not wish to file the complaint, then you must keep going up the chain of command until you reach the Chief of Police.
Once filed at the department, a complaint becomes a permanent record on the officer’s file. If an officer receives too many, he or she will get suspended or moved to a position that does not require public interaction. If enough complaints have been filed, the department may choose to fire the officer rather than risk having to explain why a troubled officer was allowed to continue serving the public.
Filing a complaint against an officer is extremely powerful. It has a lifetime effect on the officer’s career. It can prevent an officer from being promoted and can definitely cause problems whenever an officer attempts to lateral to a new department.
It is not only your right to file a complaint against an abusive police officer; you should look at it as your responsibility. Such behavior in a law enforcement officer is unacceptable. If you don’t file a complaint, the abusive behavior will only continue and could possibly escalate.
Filing a complaint against a police officer is one instance where the pen is truly mightier than the sword – or in this case, the gun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)