Oh, you neither knew this was a verb. It’s interesting how particular words take on verb form when a subject is overly introverted and obsessed by an operating environment. Here we have outright bias exercised by the ex-chair of the Democratic National Committee and then residual bumbling discussion still ensues whether she should gavel or not gavel and speak or not speak at this week’s convention. In business and in life there are consequences to our behavior. Particular forums leave no room for second chances when the public’s trust is at stake. If you malign your behavior when bestowed a position of authority, it becomes apparent that your character is unfit for the office and hence you must seek work elsewhere. Somebody may give you a second chance and in fact the lesson could very well be learned and demonstrated in ones new role. A character can be rehabilitated. It really is this simple but when a process of rationalization muddies the scene and contextual actors acquiesce to excuses, pandering or self righteous demands of entitlement, then the ethics of a whole organization come under question.
The Democratic convention ratings are bound to tick up in lieu of today’s Wiki Leaks divulgence. Although Debbie Wasserman Schultz will be stepping down as DNC chair due to alleged favoritism exercised during the nomination process, apparently as reported by CNN today Hillary Clinton will award her as an “honorary chairwoman with a 50 state program to build the party in every part of the country”. I know you’ve never been cynical about politics? One would think that Mrs. Clinton would at least wait a day before announcing such a reward for Wasserman Shultz’s behavior in the context of her portrayal by the FBI:
“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
Suddenly, Trump’s projection for picking up Bernie Sanders supporters is not looking so far-fetched.
Could an automated age be disrupting the brain’s capacity for making coherent decisions, Well, text walkers are now banned in Toronto.
At city council late Thursday, Nunziata requested Queen’s Park consider making changes to the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit “actively using a handheld wireless communication device or handheld electronic entertainment device while on any traveled portion of a roadway.”
Her motion was passed by a vote of 26 to 15, with the support of Mayor John Tory.
The new bylaw is directed toward text walkers. Legislators in Toronto apparently and from what I’ve also witnessed in Calgary believe you’ve become disabled mentally because of a propensity to respond to the bell similarly to Pavlov’s research subjects. You’ve seen it all before. Folks are so obsessed that it doesn’t matter what the present circumstance of existence – the phone comes first.
Could this become a slippery slope in regulating you because you can’t regulate yourself. It’s fascinating and amusing all combined together in your nanny state declaring you need it!
So you have a radical viewpoint? Is free speech censored? The internet is one forum for communicating your thoughts. If it’s truly radical then someone is not going to like it and if that someone has some kind of power over you, then you are tempered. So called “professionals” are typically tempered because they subscribe to a professional body which encourages members not to rock the boat so to speak. In fact, such organizations go so far as to encourage a subdued temperament when communicating opinions on social policy through their codes of ethics.
Race relations in the U.S. is in the news and obviously a hot button topic and here we have a Detroit police detective with a radical notion who has now apparently been sanctioned. He has characterized the “Black Lives Matter” movement as “racist and terrorist”. I’m obviously not condoning such a position but I do ponder his right to the assertion in the context of maintaining his livelihood. The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment clears a path for U.S. citizens to speak freely with impunity from their government. Hence; should an extension of government being law enforcement have the right to discipline a detective for an opinion expressed through social media in spite of the opinion contravening the broader mandate of policing? Does a detective with a skill set for solving crimes have a broader responsibility for aligning his philosophy or rationale with the goals of a largesse? Apparently Rory McIroy who interviewed recently will if asked about his career describe himself as a “golf professional”. He has asserted that his goal in golf is to “win” and not necessarily serve a broader mandate of “growing the game”. Apples and oranges you suggest? I’m not sure. Could it be that calling someone a racist or terrorist is simply a more passionate and socially contentious subject than is growing the game of golf of which both subjects are open for opinion based expression through the First Amendment. We know for sure that that Mr. McIroy will not be excluded from any upcoming PGA events. We also know that he wasn’t harboring thoughts of a sophisticated ethics code promulgated by his player association when commenting about not needing to grow the game.
In a time of race related turmoil, it is not helpful for law enforcement officers to utilize social media for a radical race related opinion. President Obama articulated eloquently in his memorial address to fallen Dallas police officers a just need to communicate more effectively issues that lead to racial divide in an effort not only to prevent acts of violence but to build upon progress achieved since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
It is radical opinion which provides stimulus for change. Radical opinion can be beneficial for discharging the energy required from taking a system burdened by mediocrity and turning it into a powerful productive positive force. The power of radical opinion should not be discouraged because of its misuse by the few in contexts where it does not belong.