Issue 168 Professional Jury's September 23, 2013

Many people in America dread getting that notice in the mail saying it is time for you to serve. Many go reluctantly, but still see it as a civic duty. Even I went to serve. Of course I fell asleep in the court room for a good 30 seconds before the Judge yelled at me, I was happy to go. But what if we had true professionals who are trained to be impartial? What would that be like?

Motivation: For one, having a professional jury would get rid of those individuals who serve reluctantly or fall asleep (like me). In other words we will have motivated people who wish to carry out justice. And we do need people who want to seek the truth. I believe that the people who choose to become a professional juror are those motivated to arrive at the best conclusion based on the facts presented in the case.

Advantages: Some clear advantages would come from the type of training these professionals would need to receive. They would have to know law up to a certain extent and as such be familiar with the terminology used in the court room. No more lawyers having to dumb down the language or jurors getting lost when a legal objection is presented. These professionals could keep up with the faster pace of a speedier trail and thus save the courts and the defendants money by making a traditionally long trial shorter. Basically, a professional juror would be a professional listener who could discern facts from conjecture.

Training: I believe a professional juror would need some sort of training. For the most part, I would have them trained in the basic terminology of the legal profession. This would be in an effort to reduce miscommunication in a court room between the lawyers and the jury. A professional juror would need training to discern facts from conjecture in a lawyer’s legal argument. Also, a basic knowledge of law would also aid in ensuring the professional jurors know and understand why an objection is being carried out, why something may be stricken from the record and so on. Finally they would have to be trained with the ability to turn off their opinions and become as impartial as possible. This last part is obvious as an impartial jury is the only true one that can give the best judgments (at least that is what we have come to believe). Basically all this training I feel is what amounts to a two year associates degree in college.

The lawyer’s wont like it: Lawyers in selecting jurors look to see who is most susceptible to their arguments. The opposition approves or disapproves the juror. Basically it is a game in trying to figure out which juror gives them the best chance of winning and ultimately a juror is chosen. This professional system would eliminate such a practice as much as possible. A lawyer does not want a truly impartial person and as such would be totally against this.

Conclusion: Professionals would require professional pay. Pay high enough to keep them on the job and also attract new people to take up the mantel of a professional juror. So something like $80,000 a year may be appropriate. Of course these individuals would need health care and a retirement package as well. The costs would be offset by not having to seek out as many people from around the country to serve on a jury and these professionals can serve on multiple cases at the same time (this is a possibility depending on how well they are trained). Overall, this is just an idea that may never take off. People have this idea that you need a jury made up of your peers. A professional juror would of course be one of your "peers," but people as a whole may not see it that way. It is a concept and that as they say is that.

Issue 167 Syria and WMDs September 20, 2013

As you may have heard, Syria has agreed to a deal to disarm its chemical weapons. Russia mad its move (as I suspect that they were the ones who gave the chemical weapons to the Syrians) so as to cover its butt, and look good for the international community. But I have doubts as to the overall intentions of both my country and that of Russia. I state now that this is all my opinion and opinion exclusively.

Syria's intentions Assad: The reason that Syrian President Assad agreed to the deal was to prevent other countries from entering Syria and siding with the rebels. Even though Al Quada and other Jihadist infiltrated the rebels with western governments like the U.S. supporting them (who is giving them weapons) will mean Assad's forces will be out numbered and out gunned. Let us face it; Russia is not going to fight a proxy war against the U.S. and other countries to save Assad. The Russian government is smart and they know how the international power struggle works. America is weakening and Russia is looking to take the top spot. As such Assad surrendered to the international pressure to stall for time. He needs to suppress the rebels, or at least buy time to escape along with his loyalists to another country. In addition, this gives Assad a chance to stay in power as he does have support from groups like Hezbollah and even Iran who are sending in Iranian soldiers to fight for Assad. Russia and Iran need Syria for an upcoming oil pipeline which can either go from Russia, through Iran and finally into Syria up into Europe, or it will go from Qatar into Saudi Arabia into Syria and then into Europe. It is no wonder why Qatar and Saudi Arabia have decided to back the rebels and even go as far as to say they will help pay for most of the conflict (they stand to get their money back and more).

Syria's intentions Rebels: The rebels are a hodgepodge of various groups. Some are Kurds seeking autonomy. Others are those who seek democracy. But unfortunately for both groups, terrorists have infiltrated the rebels. Many foreign terrorists see this as apart of the greater Jihad and are also using this conflict as a recruiting tool. What people may not know is that the rebels are almost entirely Sunni Muslim while Assad and his Soldiers are Shiite Muslim. This conflict goes back to the days when Muslims argued over who should succeed in leadership in the Muslim faith. So this conflict is as old if not older than the hatred that radical Muslims have for Israel and the Jews. As such, the Jihadist terrorist rebels seek control and power over the region to suppress their Shiite brethren. There are even unconfirmed reports that Sunni rebel groups have wiped out Shiite rebel groups. So aside from taking control and making a Sunni government, the rebels and the intentions of each rebel faction are far from clear.

The rest of us: The United States feels it is doing its duty as the world police by saying they will interfere in the conflict. Russia as you know needs allies in the region and wants the oil pipeline to be successful. Sunni Muslim countries want the oil pipeline for themselves. The European Union has the same stance as the U.S., but does not have the resources to mount a long term conflict. International groups that advocate for human rights and peace sided with the rebels under the naive notion that democracy will solve the problem of conflicts in the region. Sadly the democracy they speak of died with the Athenian City State. What they need is a republic, but so far, the only truly successful republic is still the United States (though like all democratic forms of government they face collapse). So what is to be done?

Conclusion: What is best is also the choice no one wants to hear. That is for the conflict to continue. Buy keeping the battles going, the Russian and U.S. governments can draw out the conflict to bring in more Jihadist terrorists. By doing so, there will be less to cause trouble in their own countries and allied countries. For those terrorists who cannot afford to go, the intelligence agencies can sponsor them (secretly of course) to go there to fight for "their" cause. With the fighting centralized in one location the Jihadists will have less of a chance to recruit as many new members and their numbers will dwindle do to this slow down and them being suicidal fighters to begin with. Both Russia and the U.S. can agree on this strategy as both face the same problem with Jihadists (the U.S. being declared the "great Satan" by Jihadists and Jihadists in Chechnya fighting the Russians for control). A win win for the two "great" super powers. As to the innocent victims in between, well that is where intelligence agencies come in again to smuggle people out of the conflict. In addition, hit teams will be used to keep either side from becoming too powerful. The U.S. will even be able to drain Iran of its financial resources due to their support for Syria. Basically every one wins except the Syrian people themselves. But I would not be surprised to see the conflict explode further into Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey. At that point, it stops being a rebellion and it becomes World War III. I pray that this does not happen, but it may be the most likely scenario.

Issue 166 Stop "Q" Frisk September 19, 2013

Everyone has heard of the Stop and Frisk program in New York City. But for those who don't know, it is where the police randomly search people for weapons. This program has come under fire and has people looking for an alternative.

History: The Stop and Frisk program came out of the attacks of September 11, 2001. The idea was to prevent other terrorist threats from happening on soft targets like the subways and in tourist traps like time square. Later the program was copied by other law enforcement agencies due to its effectiveness as it not only deterred terrorism, but other crime as well. In fact the program in its first years confiscated numerous illegally obtained weapons and drugs. As a result, crime has gone down.

Controversy: What the argument is about is race. Even though the searches are in general random, the stop and frisk program in black communities has been deemed raciest. However it is not raciest in the first place, it was simply the fact that disproportionately black men were being caught will illegal drugs and guns. As such the black community felt as if they were being targeted.

On top of this, the program itself is deemed unconstitutional. As it violates the requirement that police need to have a warrant to conduct a search. Therefore, if at any time the program is brought before the courts questioning its constitutionality, it would fail.

What’s to be done: Well for some, they want the program to be eliminated. They of course say this due to the "racism" and how it is unconstitutional. But there is a good solution. That is for the officer to use police techniques to decide if the person is first worth calling over. That means looking at the persons clothing and items from afar and asking to themselves, is that what a terrorist or a criminal would wear or is that how a regular person would behave. From there the officer would question the person to see if they have reason to want to search that person’s bag. In short, the officer would chit chat with the individual long enough to know if that person could be a potential threat to society. If the person is deemed OK through the casual conversation, then the person may move along fine. However, if the person shows signs of stress or other symptoms of wanting to escape the officers questions (outside of wanting to get to work) the officer will ask to search their bags. Key word is "ask." This eliminates the unconstitutional element completely from the equation for if the person submits to the search then it is voluntary and thus no warrant is required. The individual is still free to refuse, but most will not because they know that they will then become suspect in the eyes of the police. Also, if carried out this way it would still deter crime. Basically this is how Stop, Question and Frisk will work.

Conclusion: Most of the time the Stop and Frisk program works as described in “the what’s to be done” section of today's issue.  Police generally don’t want to interfere with people’s daily lives.  However, most people don't actually realize that. People want it gone partly because it is an inconvenience and because of the number of African American Men being caught with illegal paraphernalia. Truth is the program just needs a re-branding to keep up with the general populace who don't pay attention because let's face it; they just want to go about their daily lives unhindered. I like the re-branding of the program and the methodology behind it as people will feel less like criminals being asked about their daily routine. I don't know what to do with the whole racial element as that is something the black community has to address when it comes to their kids, and male adults.

Issue 165 Guidlines for leadership September 18, 2013

Following on the heels of Issues 163 and 164, leadership becomes critical. As such what is needed to be a good leader?

1. Create an ethos to accomplish mission and/or goals.

People need to not only know what they are working toward but the methodology behind it. They need a uniting ethos to keep them motivated and enable them to work together for their common goal.

2. Be mindful of other commitments.

As a leader you must be mindful of all the jobs and tasks assigned to your company, division or section. But this also includes the commitments that your individual employees have. This may include their children, their elderly parents or even a second job. Helping them work in the company while ensuring they can maintain their commitments aids in keeping up moral. But it also helps to garner respect.

3. People are more important.

When it comes down to it, your business and your workers come first. If forced between harming your business/ workers or losing a contract then you should probably loose the contract.

4. Intuition is a leadership tool.

Use your intuition to decide what is right for the given situation. It may be wrong latter, but not acting on a situation can be much worse.

5. Ensure individuals and their positions are adaptable.

People in a corporation need to know they are valued. By giving them flexibility either at the personal or the position level it will allow the person to solve problems and meet goals that much more easily.

When all is said and done, a good leader requires the respect from his/her workers. These guidelines help, but they cannot do it alone. They cannot force people to respect you as a leader. Respect will always be earned. Good luck to all you leaders and potential leaders out there.

Issue 164 Personal Managment 2 Spetember 17, 2013

Part 2 is all about promoting individuals (which can also be used for the hiring process as well). Remember, putting the right individuals in the right positions is crucial to maintaining good work flow and running a successful business overall.

1. Performance, Competence and leadership potential are the primary considerations for deciding if a person gets promoted.

Each of these qualities is judged separately to find the best overall measure in comparison to other eligible persons who want the same position. This insures that only the best qualified person gets into the position that they are needed in most.

2. The qualities for each of the aforementioned in number one are determined by the individual person’s attributes and traits.

Basically, know each of the skill levels of your employees and how well they work with others. Know about their personality and what makes them a good worker.

3. To help decipher who is the best candidate, hold a yearly test to determine these traits and attributes. Then if they qualify hold an interview before a panel.

The tests help you figure out overall levels of ability and help you measure your workers against each other. Once these measurements have figured out the necessary measurements in number one, the panel looks into the overall personality and ability. It will determine if the person is worthy of the position over another talented individual.

4. All appointees are only to be employed when all talents are confirmed.

Basically, ensure they are as good as they look.

5. If this process is being used to hire someone new then you separate them into general applicants and applicants who have committed crimes or are involved with scandals.

General applicants move on, but those with black marks on their record must be evaluated to insure that they are still worth hiring despite their history and that it will not negatively impact the company if they are hired.

Of course the same principle of placing people into positions that they are most useful in is still maintained to insure the jobs assigned are done quickly and efficiently.

Issue 163 Personal Managment 1 Spetember 16,2013

Managing a business is a very tough task. But if you already own a business you should have already realized that. There are tips though that can help a person manage a business however which I have collected from various sources. So here are some of those tips.

1. Principle: Hire those more talented than yourself.

The reason for this is so that they can make up the differences in your own weaknesses. People with talent will get the job done with little effort and as such they can handle a larger work load. All this equals more profit.

2. Remove those who are unqualified for a position and place them into one that they are useful in.

Basically, rather than firing a talented individual, first look to where their talents and skill can be best put to good use. As such, you retain a skilled worker and maintain an efficient work flow.

3. Manage people as if they were volunteers.

You pay people for their work because you value their efforts. But this is not always enough. By managing them as if they were volunteers it allows them to feel as if they are more valued then just their work.

4. Treat as an associate.

While you can manage them like volunteers, you must treat them as if they are your partners in the business. So even the lowest person on the corporate ladder can feel valued.

5. Employees must be challenged (knowing and believing in mission).

By keeping employees busy with tasks that suit them, but also challenging them will prevent them from getting board. A board employee loses their moral and thus brings everyone in the company down as well.

6. Capitalize on people’s strengths and Knowledge.

You do not have to wait to place a person with talent in a position that would best help the company prosper. If a person has prior knowledge and understanding they can be useful even as an advisory role and that knowledge should be taken advantage of.

Hope this all helps. See you all for part 2 on promotions tomorrow.

Issue 162 Orwell's language rules Spetember 12, 2013

Well George Orwell had his own rules for language. As I cannot say it any better than him, I will simply re-write them for you here for your own personal use.

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

(Basically avoid such this as they over complicate your point or thought).

2. Never use long word where a short one will do.

(Aka, don't use a word like "excommunication" where a word like "banished" would and could be used instead).

3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

(You can see I am trying to do that right?! But yes, keep you sentences simple and free of complexity where ever you can so as to not over complicate your message).

4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

(I learned this lesson over time, and it was hard for me as I always used to write in the passive. Basically by keeping the message or your writing in the active, you provide action to your words. Make your words represent what is happening now, not what has happened).

5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

(By using words from any of what Orwell describes above, you complicate your message and thoughts. People will not understand the word Scuttlebutt, but they will understand the word gossip).

6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

(In other words, if there is no other way to say it, then break these rules. If you try to change a sentence to make it simpler where such simplicity cannot exist due to the overall message then you are just going to loose that message by changing it. You can only keep it as simple as the rules of language will allow).

I prefer Orwell's rules to Luntz's mainly because I like George Orwell. But use these and Luntz's rules as you wish. I wish you all luck in your own written and vocal endeavors.

I'm off to another wedding so I will be unable to post tomorrow.  So enjoy the weekend and see you all Monday.