pred_label
stringclasses 2
values | pred_label_prob
float64 0.5
1
| wiki_prob
float64 0.25
1
| text
stringlengths 78
1.01M
| source
stringlengths 37
43
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
__label__wiki
| 0.836469
| 0.836469
|
Former Ferrari Chairman Says Schumacher is ‘Not Good’
admin February 4, 2016 Headlines, Hot Seat, Racing No Comments on Former Ferrari Chairman Says Schumacher is ‘Not Good’
Former Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo says the latest news about the health of former Formula 1 champion Michael Schumacher “is not good,” but he has refused to elaborate.
“I have news and unfortunately it is not good,” former Ferrari boss Luca di Montezemolo told reporters Thursday. “Life is strange. He was a fantastic driver and only had one accident with Ferrari in 1999.”
It has been more than two years since Schumacher sustained severe brain injuries while skiing in the French Alps. He spent a number of months in intensive care in a Grenoble hospital before regaining consciousness. He was later moved to a hospital in Lausanne and returned home to continue intensive treatment in September 2014. Since then, there has been little information revealed about the 46-year-old and his recovery.
A spokesperson for the injured driver wouldn’t confirm or deny Di Montezemolo’s comments.
Michael Schumacher's spokesperson has declined to respond to Montezemolo's comments that the news on the former Ferrari driver is "not good"
— Richard Conway (@richard_conway) February 4, 2016
Prior to his accident, Schumacher was a seven-time F1 world champion, and is considered the greatest driver in the sport’s history.
|
cc/2021-04/en_head_0044.json.gz/line5
|
__label__cc
| 0.545272
| 0.454728
|
Home | Who We Are | What We Do | Publications | Contact
The Board of Directors of the Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR) has concluded that 2016 will be CEMAR’s last year of operations. When CEMAR’s founder and Executive Director Andrew Gunther announced his intention in 2015 to step down as of June 30, 2016, the Board of Directors determined that several other CEMAR staff were also planning professional transitions. The Board decided that such a significant loss of key staff made it unlikely that CEMAR would be able to maintain the quality and effectiveness of our operations.
We are proud of our programmatic accomplishments and the collaborative relationships we have created, and how we have demonstrated the value of scientific knowledge in pursuit of the sustainable management of coastal ecosystems. This website will continue to be maintained into the future so that regional practitioners can access the information it contains.
What's New at CEMAR
Clean and Healthy Bay Measure on June Ballot
The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority voted to place the San Francisco Bay Clean Water, Pollution Prevention, and Habitat Restoration Program, known as the Clean and Healthy Bay Ballot Measure, on the June 2016 ballot in all nine Bay Area counties. Passage of the measure will require approval by 2/3 of the total voters casting ballots cumulatively across all nine Bay Area counties in the June 2016 election. The measure would raise $500 million over 20 years to fund critical Bay restoration and flood protection projects. For more information go to: https://www.savesfbay.org/secure/restore
Restored Wetlands and the Floods in Our Future
CEMAR’s Executive Director Andrew Gunther published an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle (October 26, 2015) regarding the importance of wetlands restoration as flood protection for the Bay Area.
Letter to the Editor Published
The San Francisco Chronicle published a letter to the editor from CEMAR’s Executive Director Andrew Gunther in response to a op-ed promoting the opinion that those seeking action on climate change are part of a religious orthodoxy. Read the letter.
Steelhead in
Coastal California
Streamflow measurement
in key coastal watersheds
CEMAR: Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration
Pursuing innovative, collaborative approaches to restore California's coastal ecosystems.
Email: questions "at" cemar "dot" org
|
cc/2021-04/en_head_0044.json.gz/line10
|
__label__wiki
| 0.6043
| 0.6043
|
Steve Warren
Steve has been a popular radio personality since 1963, He is the author of the best-selling book on Radio Programming, RADIO: The Book, (Focal Press-NAB) and has been a radio professional starting at the age of 16. Since 1987, Steve has served as President of MOR Media International, Inc. an entrepreneurial media/entertainment company, developing, hosting and distributing radio programming, and radio station consulting and is currently Co-Founder and Executive Producer of Chinamerica Radio, the first 24 hour Internet radio station featuring the latest pop music from China. The station has studios in New York, but has an online global audience with Internet listeners, primarily Chinese and ex-pat Chinese young-adult professionals throughout the world. Steve projects a fun, entertaining radio personality. He’s topical, engaging, funny, and informative, speaking with authority on the contemporary media and entertainment scene. Since 1994, he’s been the host/producer of the weekly The Country Oldies Show, syndicated by the Envision Radio Network. From 1994-2000, he was an adjunct instructor at the International Academy of Broadcasting in Montreux, Switzerland. In 1998-1999 he was a prolific and compelling interviewer of radio industry leaders as Radio Editor of Radio Ink Magazine, a respected publication for radio Sales and Management. Starting in 1999, he designed and implemented all country music channels for Sirius Satellite Radio and was the first voice ever heard on Sirius (2001), conducting over 100 artist interviews in all genres of music and entertainment.
He’s sought after as an advisor, motivator, teacher, and cheerleader for compelling radio programming. His expert knowledge and love of the industry has secured his position as a radio programming authority. Clients include: NABEF Career Fair , NAB Radio Show, NAB Las Vegas conference and exposition, Country Radio Seminar, The Conclave, and the NAB European Conference, and State Broadcaster Associations in Tennessee, Indiana, New York, Missouri, Kansas, Idaho, Oregon, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Michigan.
Read more about Steve’s rich history in radio in this fantastic article from Astoria Characters.
The Country Oldies Show is produced by MOR Media International, Inc.
Powered by WordPress. Designed by elogi.
|
cc/2021-04/en_head_0044.json.gz/line13
|
__label__cc
| 0.749208
| 0.250792
|
Foreman presser in NYC tomorrow!
PRESS RELEASE: Undefeated middleweight Yuri Foreman was about to bite into a foot high pastrami-corned beef-turkey sandwich at the Carnegie Deli when someone dutifully asked: “What’s your weight class?” “Heavyweight,” laughed the Israeli fighter, who now boxes out of Brooklyn. He would not eat the sandwich, not by a longshot. The undefeated middleweight Foreman (18-0, 7 KO’s) will put his winning streak on the line against the tough-minded Ismail "The Arsenal" Arvin (13-0-1, 6 KO’s) in the main event of “Summer Punch at the Taj” on Friday night, September 2, at the Trump Taj Mahal Hotel and Casino’s Grand Ballroom in Atlantic City, NJ.
Foreman, who originally hailed from Belarus before migrating to Israel, now fights out of one of boxing’s hotbeds, Brooklyn, New York. Arvin, who is also unbeaten with a draw the lone “blemish” on his record, hails from Baltimore, Maryland.
The 10-round middleweight contest will be televised live on Showtime’s popular Shobox: The New Generation beginning at 11:00 p.m. ET.
In the co-featured attraction, a light middleweight contest, Atlantic City’s own Shamone Alvarez (12-0, 8 KO’s) squares off against Russell Jordan (10-2 6 KO’s) of Rochester, NY.
The Labor Day weekend kickoff on the shore will also feature local boxing catch of the day in separate bouts: lightweight Jorge "The Truth" Teron (4-0, 4 KO’s) of the Bronx, NY; super middleweight Joe Greene (5-0, 4 KO’s) of Brooklyn, NY; and heavyweight Kevin Johnson (7-0-1, 4 KO’s) Asbury Park, NJ; and light middleweight Raymond Biggs (3-0 3 KO’s) of Brooklyn, NY.
Tickets are priced at $100, $50 and $30, and are available at the Trump Taj Mahal box office (for information call 609-449-5150), and by calling TicketMaster at 800 736-1420.
|
cc/2021-04/en_head_0044.json.gz/line19
|
__label__cc
| 0.537469
| 0.462531
|
« Why do Colorado Senate Republicans think it’s a good idea to attack Jeffco voters?
Lundberg may try to subpoena witnesses who declined to answer questions at today’s hearing »
Radio host still upset that GOP elitism was big reason Republicans made themselves irrelevent in the presidential nomination process
It’s been a couple months since Colorado Republican Party Chair Steve House appeared on Craig Silverman’s radio show and said, in part, that it would be too unweildly to for Republicans to vote on the GOP presidential candidates at Colorado’s caucuses.
Silverman is still talking about House’s comment, arguing just yesterday on air that it would not be difficult to hold a straw poll at the caucuses. Silverman rightly maintains that without the presidential straw poll, which was nixed by an executive committee of state Republicans, Colorado is irrelevant in the national Republican nomination process.
Just because Silverman is saying the same thing repeatedly doesn’t really make me want to pay attention to it. He repeated himself for years about JonBenet Ramsey, and few cared. But in this case, I thought I’d head to the podcast archive and listen to what House actually factually told Silverman, whose show airs Saturday mornings on KNUS 710-AM.
It turns out that House said that holding a straw poll “inflates the number people who come [to the caucuses] by a dramatic amount, and all kinds of problems ensue.”
To be fair, House also argued that new GOP rules would bind Colorado Republicans to their straw poll selection, even if their preferred presidential candidate dropped out by the time the convention rolled around. And House didn’t want to risk that Colorado delegates to the convention would not be able to cast a vote.
But House said the logistics of running the caucuses with an increased number of participants was “one of the bigger reasons why the decision came down the way it did.”
Silverman called that an “elitist game,” and he hasn’t let go of it, to his credit.
Here’s what House said on air Aug. 29:
House: When you go to caucus – and I have run a county before — you go to caucus and instead of having 50 people show up you have 500 people show up because they want to vote in the straw poll, you’re trying to get the caucus process executed properly, which is very important because we have state politics that depend on that experience. And what goes on in selecting delgates — and ultimately, candidates –it’s very, very important for us to do that. When you add in the straw poll, during that experience, it inflates the number people who come by a dramatic amount, and all kinds of problems ensue. And I think that is part of the reason why the county chairs, on executive committee especially, were very opposed to doing it this way because they believed it will disrupt the overall process and it won’t gain us that much. So, I think that’s part of the – that’s probably one of the bigger reasons why the decision came down the way it did.
And here is the full discussion on the topic:
HOST CRAIG SILVERMAN: Well, I appreciate you coming on my show. The talk of the Colorado right now is, why don’t we get to participate in this exciting GOP presidential primary?
COLORADO GOP CHAIR, STEVE HOUSE: Well, we are going to participate. I mean, if you were sitting in that executive committee meeting when we had that discussion, I mean – the executive committee is made up mostly of large and small county chairs, and a lot of liberty activist folks are on the committee, and people believe that by picking the right delegates and giving them the authority to represent Colorado at the convention, we’re still participating. I don’t believe for a minute the Presidential candidates are not going to come out here and try to have impact on who those delegates are, and what they vote for. I think if the rules hadn’t changed, I don’t think – well, there would still be a question, Craig. Because there’s a fair number of counties that deal with preference polls at caucus, and I think that’s the other thing that a lot of people don’t understand. When you go to caucus – and I have run a county before — you go to caucus and instead of having 50 people show up you have 500 people show up because they want to vote in the straw poll, you’re trying to get the caucus process executed properly, which is very important because we have state politics that depend on that experience. And what goes on in selecting delgates — and ultimately, candidates –it’s very, very important for us to do that. When you add in the straw poll, during that experience, it inflates the number people who come by a dramatic amount, and all kinds of problems ensue. And I think that is part of the reason why the county chairs, on executive committee especially, were very opposed to doing it this way because they believed it will disrupt the overall process and it won’t gain us that much. So, I think that’s part of the – that’s probably one of the bigger reasons why the decision came down the way it did.
SILVERMAN: But it seems like such an elitist game. You talk about “the right delegates” being selected. How do people in the public know who the right delegates are? It seems like it’s all going to be Republican insiders.
HOUSE: You know, it’s not really the people in the public. If you are willing to go to caucus, and you’re still willing to go to caucus, and you work through the process, ultimately it comes down to picking 37 –acutally, 34 delegates – three are already designated, but picking 34 delegates and 34 alternates at the state assembly — that processes hasn’t changed at all. So, if you go participate, and you start to figure out, you know, which delegates are to going to represent your interests, they in many cases will talk about who they represent from a presidential perspective that, in the end, the people who go there are very invested, very committed Republicans who want to see the right thing happen to the state, and for the nation, as opposed to – you know, what if you did a preference poll where you said, “Look, instead of doing it in a caucus, you did a preference poll across the entire state to decide who our delegates are. Now you’re getting into the primary territory, and that’s where a lot of people are very passionate about caucus want those delegates to have the ability to pick the presidential candidate they want, and not be based on a straw poll in March, if they many things change between March and July, as they probably will.
SILVERMAN: Right. But why doesn’t Colorado have a primary? I think back to 1992, and my old Colorado College professor, Bob Loevy — who is going to be a guest next week on my show — he decries the way that political parties select nominees. It seems like a fixed process. Now we’re learning the Democrats, with their superdelegates, Hillary Clinton kind of the has it in the bag, if she can stay out of jail. But back in ’92, I remember when Paul Tsongas, Bill Clinton, Tom Harkin — they debated in Denver, Colorado. And even back then with the Republicans there was incumbent George Herbert Walker Bush being challenged by Pat Buchanan and people in Colorado got to vote on those things. Coloradans like to vote. They like elections. How come you’re not giving it to them?
HOUSE: Well, look, you talking about a primary process that did occur back in ’92, and I think, that’s a legislative issue. I mean, that’s something where you’ve got to get to the legislators and decide how you want to handle that. Um, we really think that what will happen here is, the process is not any different than it was four years ago, now. If we don’t do a binding straw poll, it’s no different than it was four years ago. The delegates are selected the same way. They go to the convention unbound, exactly like they were four years ago. And there has been many, many people who defend that process very, very passionately. In fact, I’ll tell you that all the feedback I’ve got – besides, you know, Chuck Todd and his stoner comment, and as far as I’m concerned, we’d be stoned if we were going to listen to Chuck Todd to begin with. Um, you know, that whole thing – that whole process–
SILVERMAN: You mean, sleepy-eyed Chuck Todd? That’s what Donald Trump calls him. And, just to bypass the rest of this stuff, doesn’t this come down to Donald Trump? Isn’t it true that the Republican establishment really disdains Donald Trump and is going to design every role to pose an obstacle to him becoming the Republican nominee?
HOUSE: I haven’t heard Republican National Committee people say that, Craig, but, you know, look. When you go back—
SILVERMAN: But they feel it.
HOUSE: They may very well feel it. As far as I’m concerned, I’m very interested in hearing from Donald Trump as much as I am anybody else. And I believe they will actively come to Colorado, not only for the debate on October 20, but throughout the process to try to get Colorado delegates and people who support those delegates, to go their way. I think if the guy standing is there with 25% of the vote, you’ve got to take him seriously. He’s got a double-digit lead. I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t take every single candidate seriously. I had somebody ask me the other day, “Are you doing this to prevent fringe candidates from getting delegates?” And I said, “I don’t consider any of our people to be fringe candidates, I don’t know where you come up with that process.” So, the overwhelming response I’ve got has been that it’s better the way it is. If the preference poll were not binding and our delegates could ultimately go and make decisions based on what was current at the time – and especially if the potential exists for a brokered convention, although it doesn’t happen often — this is a very unique year. We will be in a lot more powerful position to influence what happens, and who the eventual nominee is, this way, than we would if we were bound to a preference poll five months before the convention
SILVERMAN: Steve House, the chairman of the Colorado GOP, good enough to join us.
This entry was posted on Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 9:22 am and is filed under KNUS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
|
cc/2021-04/en_head_0044.json.gz/line21
|
__label__wiki
| 0.543439
| 0.543439
|
Top Management consists of the Chief Executive Officer and three Directors
Prof. Dorington O. Ogoyi is the CEO of National Biosafety Authority . Prior to his appointment, Prof. Ogoyi was an Associate Professor at the Department of Biochemistry and Biotechnology and Director of Research and Development at the Technical University of Kenya (TUK). He also taught for several years at the Department of Biochemistry, University of Nairobi.
Over the years, he has carried out research and mentored a number of graduate students in a wide range of research areas in Molecular Biology and Proteomics. Prof. Ogoyi obtained his BSc, MSc. and Ph.D. (Biochemistry) degrees from the University of Nairobi in the years 1986, 1990 and 1994, respectively. He gained his postdoctoral exposure at the Department of Experimental Zoology, University of Utrecht, Netherlands (1995-1996) and at the National Institute of Entomological Sciences (NISES), Tsukuba, Japan (2000-2002). He is also a holder of MBA (Strategic Mangement) from Moi University.
Prof. Ogoyi is currently the National Focal point for the Biosafety Clearing House and a member of the Advisory Adhoc Committee on Biosafety Clearing House. Recently, he was also selected to represent the African region in the Compliance committee of the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety. Prior to joining NBA, he participated in a number of Biotechnology and Biosafety awareness creation initiatives in the country incuding the agitation for the enactment of Biosafety Act, 2009. He is curretly a member of the African Food Safety expert network under the African Biosafety Network of Experties (ABNE).
Since joining NBA he has facilitated the establisment of a functional Biosafety regulatory framework in Kenya through establishment of a transparent and prectictable mechanism of review of applications based on sound science.
|
cc/2021-04/en_head_0044.json.gz/line22
|
__label__wiki
| 0.634944
| 0.634944
|
Recomposing precarity: Notes on the laboured politics of class composition
The communism of capital?
Stevphen Shukaitis
13-3shukaitis.pdf
precarity
In Precarious rhapsody (2009) Franco ‘Bifo’ Berardi argues that autonomous political movements in Italy in 1977 marked an important turning point in moving beyond modernity with its concomitant trends of progressive modernisation and class conflict as the driving motor of social transformation. Putting aside the epochal claims contained in this claim it is interesting to reflect on the role played by the notion of precarity in this description[1]. Berardi describes a moment in February 1977 when at the occupation of the University of Rome the head of the Communist Party, while attempting to give a speech, was thrown off campus by the students. Rejecting the party’s politics, in particular its almost exclusive focus on the wage earning industrial working class, the students shouted, ‘we are all precarious’. Berardi concludes that the students did not realise how correct they were. Over the subsequent years precarity has moved from what was then considered a marginal phenomenon, and one which was often held to be quite desirable (as a form of escape from the dictates of permanent wage labour in industry), to a much more central dynamic of neoliberal labour markets. Post-war social welfare programs were rolled back, and the presumed stability of employment has been undercut by massive increases in what used be referred to as ‘non-standard’ forms of work such as temporary contracts and project based work. Similarly, in more recent years, the question of precarity has moved from one of marginal importance to a much more debated area w ithin political and theoretical debates.
While in the English speaking world precarity more or less disappeared from the lexicon during the 1980s, it re-emerged in the late 1990s as sections of the anti-globalisation movement turned to it as a catalyst for developing a new radical politics of everyday life. Since then it has risen in status as an area of academic inquiry and research, from a point only several years ago where a declared interest as an area of research could be met with the objection ‘that’s not a word’ to a slew of new publications as well as seminars and conferences funded by impressively acronym-ed research bodies[2]. Over the past year income inequality has been put back on the political agenda. But if today we are really all precarious, what does that tell us about what it means to be precarious? What conceptual or political clarity is brought to bear by the concept? What I want to argue in this review essay and provocation is that there is an ambivalence located in the core of precarity as a concept. It is a tension between precarity as a strategic, political concept emerging from the autonomist and post-workerist traditions of politics, and a more sociological or empirical focus on precarity as condition to be investigated. This tension sometimes plays out in productive ways, and at other times risks emptying the concept of meaning through being too open, too undetermined. To explore this tension I will look at two recent books that take up and develop the notion of precarity, albeit in somewhat different ways: first the recent work of Guy Standing, who approaches precarity coming out of a background of international NGO politics and advocacy of basic income, and then through the recent writings of Franco Barchiesi, who approaches precarity through of framework of labour historiography and inquiry closer to the concept’s political roots.
Enter the precariat
First let’s turn to The precariat, which as a work of social theory has taken the idea of precarity from the pages of anarchist magazines and into the pages of The Guardian. Standing works at the University of Bath and for years previously worked at the ILO. His previous research focused on questions of work and the advocacy of basic income, as well as questions of security, welfare and citizenship. For better and worse this colours his approach to precarity. While his long-term experience with international labour organizing and NGO politics reduces the risk of seeing political developments as completely new and unprecedented, he is thus able to connect the areas he investigates with longer standing political questions. But this background also tends to lead Standing to approach precarity from an angle that departs from its political origins, although it is debatable whether that is necessarily a negative condition.
For Standing the precariat is primarily a class in the making. In perhaps more familiar Marxist terms it is a class in-itself but not yet one for-itself. And this is the crux of the political problem for Standing: what if the becoming of this incipient class does take the trajectory hoped for or desired? The word itself, precariat, is formed by combining precarity and the proletariat, but the combination of those words does not necessarily mean that its trajectory will take the same path or direction of the working class (although the development of working class politics frequently veers from outcomes that are expected of it by economists, party theorists, and union organizers alike). Standing’s main concern is flagged up in the subtitle as the idea of the precariat as the new dangerous class, which is to say precarity as a condition that has more in common with the Lumpenproletariat than the traditional working class. The precariat is the global result of several decades of neoliberalism, with its constant calls for increasing the ‘flexibility’ of labour marks, i.e. outsourcing increased levels of risk and uncertainty on to workers and their families. It is a condition that embeds insecurity across social status levels. For Standing the defining characteristic is its lacks of job-related security, more so than the particular status accorded to the form of labour. This is the prime concern for Standing: precarity not just as a condition of labour today, but how the development of the precariat, which does not correspond to traditional political or class categories, can lead to political energies and developments that are not containable within a pluralist-liberal framework.
Standing orients his project around several key questions about the precariat: What is it? Why should we care about its growth? Why is it growing? Who is entering it? And where is the precariat taking us (2011: vii)? All of these are key questions, and Standing rightly points out that it is the last that is the most pressing. Standing argues that if the becoming-class form is not given a form of political expression and experience of agency it could exhibit a very real tendency to support reactionary, regressive political formations, which he characterises as a ‘politics of inferno’. Against this he juxtaposes an argument for forging a new, mildly utopian form of politics, which he calls ‘a politics of paradise’ (although it sounds a bit like a reworked version of social democracy) to be taken up by politicians and civil society actors. But Standing is too clever, and sensible, to simply fall back on the idea of reviving a social democratic agenda, or to invoke calls to civil society without appreciating the limitations they contain.
Standing uses a definition and understanding of the precariat roughly similar with how the concept has been developed within autonomous politics and organizing, but also expands upon it. Standing argues that there are two basic ways of defining what is meant by the precariat, namely, either as a distinctive socio-economic group, functioning along the lines of a Weberian ideal type category that can be mobilised for empirical work (and thus stated whether someone is or isn’t in the precariat based upon a set of given criteria), and secondly as a political concept that fuses together a conception of precarity today with a class politics[3]. Throughout the book Standing moves back and forth between these two concepts, very much as such is often done in existing discussions about precarity. Standing expands his understanding of the precariat by defining it not in terms of class standing, but also class characteristics that go beyond an immediate position in the labour process. He argues the precariat is defined by these class characteristics, such as having minimal trust relationships with capital or the state, which makes it quite different from the position of what he refers to as the ‘salariat’ (people with higher degrees of job, economic, and social security, typically paid an annual salary rather than more contingent forms of wage-based income). The precariat experiences few trusting human relationships, particularly work-based ones. Standing argues that this is not simply the rolling back of social welfare programs developed within this century, but rather the undermining of the trust that has evolved in long-term communities and their institutional frameworks. Infinite levels of flexibility do not just threaten job security, but ‘jeopardise any sense of cooperation or moral consensus’ (2011: 22).
Standing identifies how those finding themselves in precarious positions are caught within a situation which is increasingly hard to escape from, a ‘precarity trap’ that is intensified by erosion of community support: ‘being in and out of temporary low-wage jobs does not build up entitlement to state or enterprise benefits, the person exhausts the ability to call on benefits provided by family and friends in times of need’ (ibid.: 49). When the labour market becomes increasingly precarious, it produces negative effects in terms of time and income for those at the margins, including the expectations and demands of those who are the beneficiaries of social support measures that trap them in marginal positions. This provides an important counter argument to the idea that those who are out of work ‘simply need to get a job’ or that there are sufficient forms of social support available for those finding themselves kicked to the increasingly casualised sectors of the economy. A scepticism to taking a job, any available job, far from being the irrational attitude of ‘job snobbery’ appears much more sensible when taking into account that those taking up temporary jobs tend to lower annual incomes and longer-term earning than whose who manage to weather unemployment longer for a better suited and better paying position.
For Standing this is especially a problem given that the public sector, which traditionally had been a bastion of stability, or at least higher levels of security or decent standards for labour, ‘is fast being turned into a zone of flexibility in which the precariat can grow’ (ibid.: 54). But the answer to this predicament is not simply more forms of job training or skills enhancement, which would traditionally be the fall back of a left liberal politics. Standing points out that for the precariat, finding itself in the thick of developments of technological and communicative labour, there is an ‘acceleration of occupational obsolescence’ where ‘the more trained you are, the more likely you are to become unskilled in your sphere of competence’ (ibid.: 124). Thus it is a problem of not just being as good as you were yesterday, but of having to constantly adjust to new standards of performance and expanding or shifting skill sets. This is why, paradoxically, ‘long-term employment can deskill’ (ibid.: 17) rather than be a space for the development of employees more highly valued for their experience. This condition can lead to varied reactions, from a frenzy of activity trying to upgrade skills or a feeling of dread because any course of action seems likely to fail eventually. Regardless of the response, Standing very justifiably points out that this creates something of an existential crisis for those who call for more training to address a lack of skills as the cause of economic insecurity, arguing that this ‘is not a social climate conducive to capability development; it is one of constant dissatisfaction and stress’ (ibid.: 124).
In this way Standing describes how precarity is not simply a contractual matter of job conditions, but a broader question where the intensification of labour through technological means and communication changes the very nature of the social fabric such that it is increasingly difficult to feel secure in any position. Precarity moves from a marginal concern sitting at the edge of the economy to one of itself defining features. In this way he seems to echo the arguments of Bifo (2009), who suggests that forms of immaterial labour and knowledge work, which have been much celebrated by the business press and autonomist theorists, have pathological side effects that prevent the emergence of a new form of politics adequate to the current situation. For Bifo it is the lack of a common space of engagement, outside of the overwhelming flows of data and information, which prevents the emergence of new political compositions. Likewise Standing argues that the overwhelming levels of technological permeation tend to encourage a short term approach, which for the precariat ‘could evolve into a mass incapacity to think long term, induced by the low probability of personal progress or building a career’ (2011: 18). Information overload, along with difficulties of sorting useful information from the useless, is argued to lead to anger, anomie, anxiety, and alienation. All of which shows that that despite the precariat being immersed in the bleeding edge of developments in work and its governance at the same time finds that these dynamics block it from developing a sense of agency in those very dynamics. This is what underlies Standing’s argument that the precariat is in the front ranks ‘but it has yet to find the Voice to bring its agenda to the fore’ (ibid: vii) – and thus the question becomes what are the necessary conditions for the finding of this voice.
Like Bifo also Standing marks the emergence of the precariat in a context of politics after 1968, as defined by a rejection of industrial society and institutionally organized labour politics. He is aware of, and does to some degree engage with, more recent forms of political organizing focused on precarity, in particular Euro May Day. But Standing’s engagement with them is somewhat varied and contradictory. At one level he wants to take these forms of formulating new political action seriously despite how they might seem to have little relevance to existing labour politics, noting for instance that their demands around free migration and basic income are far afield from traditional unionism. In this sense Standing’s work very much acts as a bridge between worlds, trying to find common ground between different political perspectives that doubt the effectiveness or usefulness of other approaches. Despite this Standing still tends to have a somewhat sceptical attitude to these very movements, arguing that as a left libertarian political current they have ‘yet to excite fear, or even interest, from those outside’ and that most of the activities have been public displays of ‘pride in precarious subjectivities’ (ibid.: 3) rather than forms of concerted political action. They have been forms of protest which Standing rightly characterizes as ‘anarchic and daredevilish’ rather than ‘strategic or socially threatening’ (2011: 3), as if bravado and a daring theatrically oriented political imagination could not be part of a strategic orientation to politics. While this simultaneous desire to embrace these forms of protest politics and keep a distance might not make sense at first, ultimately it is core to Standing’s approach. He wants to build upon the energies and importance he sees in a politics of precarity, but in the same way as these movements. This is why he regards a phenomenon such as Euro May Day as a precursor, bringing to light concerns that are quite important, but a precursor that needs to be superseded by being developed into a more mature form of politics. Somewhat echoing the ideas of Eric Hobsbawm he describes the politics of precarity so far as the ‘activities of primitive rebels preceding the emergence of collective action’ and building upon that argues that ‘now is the time for bodies that represent the precariat on a continuing basis to bargain with employers, with intermediaries such as brokers and with government agencies most of all’ (ibid.: 167).
One might wonder why Standing argues there is such a need for developing new institutional or representational forms for the precariat. This argument is supported by his analysis of the dangers of what could happen if they were not to take place. Standing argues that the existing forms of institutional politics do not represent or speak to the interests of the precariat. The danger with this is that the existence of a growing population whose interests are not represented within the existing institutional political arrangements could easily find themselves rejecting those very institutions and seeking more radical alternatives that are not contained within these institutions. The precariat composes a population that Standing describes as ‘floating, rudderless and potentially angry’ and thus is ‘capable of veering to the extreme right or extreme left politically and backing populist demagoguery that plays on their fears or phobias’ (ibid.: 4). Standing’s argument, in essence, is that unless a new form of labour politics or unionism is developed to address the concerns of the precariat there is a high likelihood that a sizeable portion of the precariat could embrace a radicalism of a strain, such as a reactionary populism, that would be best avoided[4]. In short, that unless ‘mainstream parties offer the precariat an agenda of economic security and social mobility, a substantial part will continue to drift to the dangerous extreme’ (ibid.: 151). While Standing rejects a narrative that frames the precariat as victim, he nonetheless insists that it cannot resist demagogic calls to neo-fascist politics and the further destruction of social welfare measures (ibid.: 153). That is, unless a new progressive politics formed around renewed social security measures and benefit programs such as basic income, coupled with new forms of flexible institutional politics, are developed.
There is much to be said for Standings’ approach. It is one that is a solidly left liberal form of progressive politics that through taking precarity seriously manages to avoid seeing the precariat purely either as victims or as the new revolutionary subject. He makes some comments about areas that are quite suggestive but could use further elaboration, such as his relatively brief commentary on the shaping of precarity in China and the way that precarity is taking part in a redefining of our basic categories of experience such as time. When he argues that as a counter-movement, ‘the precariat needs mechanisms to generate deliberative democracy’ (ibid.: 180), this seems like a sensible suggestion. It is not so far from what other left commentators have been calling for in different terms.
A ‘politics of the multitude’ or a call for ‘exodus’ likewise involves some consideration of new institutional forms, as well as developing rather the grammar of politics and networks. Standing is clearly not a Leninist, but the core of his project is in wanting to find the organizational and political form to move from an initial outburst of discontent among the precarious populations into something more durable, largely formed around demands for basic income. In short, it is a project of superseding these initial forms to develop this new ‘politics of paradise’ seemingly connected with a renewal of social movement unionism. Standing does not want to fall back on traditional unionism or welfare politics; he seems to know that the sell by date on them has passed. His is an approach that has learned much from anti-systemic movements, but he still wants a progressive strategy, albeit one that takes a new form. While the demand for basic income, and the call for deliberative democracy, might in some ways be quite sensible responses to what his analysis of the current situation suggest, they lack the imaginative flair and radicality to inspire continued struggles against and through precarity.
Precarious labour, precarious liberation
A common critique of the politics of precarity, as well as post-autonomist arguments more generally, is that they focus too much on the US and Europe, taking them as assumed background and framework. While this argument is debatable, in any case it is still a good sign to see such arguments explored outside of Europe. In Precarious liberation (2011), Franco Barchiesi examines the postcolonial politics of citizenship and work in South Africa. While discussions of precarity in Europe have tended to take the neoliberal turn in the 1980s as their backdrop, with its destruction of social welfare systems, discussing precarity in South Africa is complicated further by the connection and overlap between anti-apartheid struggles and the imposition of neoliberal austerity measures in their wake. It is the kind of conjuncture that often stymies political analysis, leading to questions of why ‘revolutionary’ governments, or even just left leaning ones, often end up implementing politics even more draconian then those of most ostensibly right wing regimes. Barchiesi is well placed to explore this conjuncture, examining how the tendency toward what the autonomist tradition refers to as ‘real subsumption’ serves to render even ostensibly progressive governance into an assemblage that serves capital accumulation.
The answer Barchiesi provides is more subtle and powerful than arguing that post-apartheid government sold out its deals or capitulated to the demands of the global economy (although both possess some degree of truth)[5]. Instead Barchiesi bases his argument on the importance and role that work has played in the political imagination in South Africa – from multiple angles – and also how the role and importance of work has been emptied out in the post-apartheid era. In short, Barchiesi examines what happens when work, after functioning as a central motif of virtue and national character, is fractured apart by the intensifying nature of precarious conditions. Precarity is examined here not just in the sense of labour, but as applied to the sense of national liberation struggles premised upon certain conceptions of labour as their foundation. This is where work functions as a guarantee of citizenship, national belonging, and forms the basis of the political imagination. But given the central role of work played, what happens when that falls away, or is undercut by growing precarisation?
Barchiesi provides a compelling account of the role that work played in anti-apartheid discourse, where the notion of the dignity of work played a key role. The national liberation struggle promised to restore work’s promise of solidarity and self-realisation, as did independent trade unionism. Because of this the position of black waged workers was of greater importance, as they could be seen to embody a dialectical movement toward democratisation, national liberation, and economic modernisation in their struggles. But this emphasis on work in terms of symbolic and political investment, in particular in its connection with citizenship, in turn presents a number of key questions that structure the book:
Has employment fulfilled its promise of emancipation and dignity in democratic South Africa? How did work relate to diverse visions of citizenship in the first post apartheid decades? How did government agencies, trade unions, and rank-and-file workers imagine such relationships? In what ways does the persistent precariousness of employment impact workers’ identities, discourse, and collective solidarity? Is it still possible to think of labour as a progressive subject of social transformation? (2011: 4)
Barchiesi’s answer is quite nuanced and complex, exploring the ways that an emphasis on work as subject of struggle and moral basis of the political imagination managed to take liberation struggles so far, but likewise managed to hold them back, and perhaps may even hobble their continued importance in the present. If one’s revolutionary politics is based around the value of work, it is perhaps not so surprising that as work itself becomes precarious the bases of those politics are themselves increasingly precarious.
At the most obvious level, basing liberation politics upon works tends to lead to the ignoring of political struggles that are not focused on work, or that occur outside or against it. In this way work becomes the only way to have a political voice. The status of precariousness, existing outside of long term formalised wage work, in this frame becomes a form of political speechlessness or exclusion from politics. During the 1980s the black labour movement was by far the most powerfully organized domestic force against apartheid, and thus it is not surprising that it would have the loudest voice. The problem with this, as Barchiesi suggests, is both that this ‘consigned to irrelevance and invisibility workers’ expressions not derived from occupational or political dynamics’ and tended to lead to an analysis that was sometimes reductively productivist and glorifying of wage labour, not as a target of resistance, but as an ‘immanent force of liberation and social empowerment’ (ibid.: 21).
This becomes more perplexing when Barchiesi investigates the ways that the emphasis on work and its glorification was not found just within the political imagination of the ANC, the national liberation struggle, and trade unions, but also played a similar role in the apartheid racial state. Barchiesi uses this argument, that political perspectives that appear at face value to be diametrically opposed on some values, can nonetheless share common positions in ways that might not be obvious. And these shared positions, in particular the assigned moral and political value of work, can be used to explain how the course of the liberation struggle has played out in ways incomprehensible without taking into account this overlap in the political imagination. Barchiesi suggests that this helps explain why the struggle against apartheid could end in a negotiated transition rather than cathartic break or rupture. Similarly, he suggests that this common valuing of work poses problems for the post-apartheid political order, suggesting that it ‘expose[s] a certain hollowness in the post apartheid project’ (ibid.: 61) through the failure to develop an alternative approach to the relationship between labour, citizenship, and political community. The continued role of work in the political imagination shows just how deeply it is embedded and continues to shape the field of politics in South Africa.
In the period of the post-apartheid transition work has moved to underpinning a notion of citizenship and as the basis of political inclusion. While the abstract universality of the employment contract at face value is quite preferable to previous racialised categories of governance and political inclusion / exclusion, Barchiesi suggests that it is not so clear-cut:
to understand why the postapartheid liberation of labour turned out to be precarious and hollow a focus on employment conditions is of limited use. Rather, the precariousness of black workers’ lives needs to be analysed as a social and existential reality… precariousness entails the contrast between the declining “centrality of the labour contract” in a social order where jobs are insecure (“precariousness of work”) and the norms that keep work central for individuals and households affected by the retrenchment of public programs and the official praise of work over welfare (“precariousness of subsistence”). (ibid.: 9)
The nexus of work-citizenship can thus be understood as a technique of governance, as the normative criteria for producing subjects and marking the bounds of official discourse. Barchiesi suggests that with the 1994 elections ‘the spirit of the worker was reborn in the body of the citizen’ (ibid.: 63). Citizenship, as a de-racialised status, came to function as the most important realm of rights and responsibilities. Notions of democracy, citizenship, work, and production ended up becoming inseparably linked, providing a conceptual cluster that not only served to indicate the possibility of post-apartheid politics, but that could also serve to hold back and place limits on the desires of popular movements. The linking together of work with democracy and citizenship starts to become a problem precisely because of how the lived material experiences of work, marked by increasing levels of precarity, diverge too starkly from work’s given glorification. Barchiesi suggests that precarity in South Africa today is not just a question of material insecurity, but also a precarity of the political imagination. This is particularly the case for those having not lived through the social struggles underpinned by this mythology (or theology) of labour, who find it hard to hold back a cynicism to this celebration of work: ‘The idea of dignified wage labor sounded increasingly hollow and distant in daily survival struggles haphazardly patching together irregular jobs, social grants, and economies of smuggling and counterfeiting’ (ibid.: 80).
Barchiesi’s approach, similar to Standing’s, is to consider precarity not just as a question of the workplace or of particular workplaces, but rather as a fundamental transformation of the wage relationship itself and the way the wage relationship is embedded within a larger social fabric. Precarity then is not just then part of reshaping particular employment contracts but rather is an integral part of transforming the social contract more broadly. The spreading of precarity as a condition is part of a broader intensification of labour, as those whose conditions are rendered more unstable are induced into taking on self-entrepreneurial strategies, constantly trying to upgrade their skills, abilities, contacts, and so forth, while attempting to secure some modicum of existence for themselves. While this may be more readily obvious in the coping strategies of migrant workers and communities who end up juggling expectations (as well as possibly forms of employment) to support themselves, it is a shift that marks the way we interact more broadly, from education to health care. In this framing all actions become thought of as individual investment decisions, for which one be called to account for, rather than as collective social arrangements. In this sense precarity is not simply a transformation of wage relationship, but nearly the death of the social itself, insofar as the social is something more than what can be subordinated to economic interactions.
Barchiesi suggests that these varied coping skills and ways of living developed by precarious workers are of immense value, and are most often indirectly appropriated by employers who do not have to provide compensation for them, as they occur outside of understood working hours. This is why analyses too narrowly centred on production are questionable in how they run the risk of essentialising and naturalising the primary location where workers express and enact their desires. Barchiesi questions these assumptions, which he sees as being held both by the social sciences and labour organizers, to ask whether the workplace is actually so central to the formation of workers’ subjectivities. What if workers’ strategies are not oriented to transforming the workplace but rather to escaping from it? This is an important question because Barchiesi does not argue that the previous over-focus on the bounded workplace should lead to disregarding it in favour of another area of analysis (for instance looking at the ways subjectivity is produced through consumer behaviour) as replacement for a labour politics. Rather Barchiesi is arguing for a form of approaching labour politics that is much broader than the workplace, as a politics of living labour more generally and not the bounded forms of work it is embodied in.
This is critical precisely because of the ways that work and its meaning are much more variable for South African workers, never really conforming to the discourse praising its glories and value. This is especially the case for black workers, both before the fall of apartheid and after, who tended to experience work as amplifying precarity rather than as a bulwark against it. While arguably there has long existed a juncture between this stated glorification of work and its lived realities, this disjuncture has become more readily apparent since the fall of apartheid, revealing what Barchiesi describes as ‘the spectre of insecurity, the powerlessness of union organizing – that underlie the incommensurability between the official glorification of work and its experienced realities’ (ibid.: 25). It is this gulf between the proclaimed status of work and its reality that helped to fuel workers’ desire to escape from work through ideals of self-employment, or led them into what Barchiesi describes as an emerging ‘politics of labour melancholia’ where discontent with conditions of work inadvertently feeds into a desire for restoring order secured by authority granted by the status of work.
In this way Barchiesi comes to a position close to Standing’s about the political risks posed by precarity in so far as it undermines the role of work in the political imagination. The increasing level of insecurity makes it clear that the ideological role of work can no longer function in the same way. Barchisi suggests that chauvinist attitudes and a regressive attachment to fixed forms of identity can step in to fill the symbolic space left by the decline of work as the central ideological fulcrum. Or perhaps more accurately not the decline of work in this role, but rather when the disjunction between the ideology of work and its reality are so wide as to not hold together. Barchiesi suggests that the politics of workers’ melancholia is formed by a continuing attachment to work where the workers perceive the meaningless of wage labour ‘as a bitter betrayal of emancipatory projects once vested in the labour market’ (ibid.: 255). But this is not used to argue for an abandoning of labour politics, or the drive for emancipation, but rather for ditching the limited view of a labour politics focused solely on the workplace. Barchiesi argues for ditching employment-based notions of liberation, instead placing ‘the precariousness of employment, rather than its idealized celebration, at the core of a new grammar of politics’ (ibid.: 247).
This brings us to what is perhaps the sharpest difference in the positions taken by Barchiesi and Standing, namely their quite divergent perspectives on the question of basic income. Barchiesi is in some ways broadly sympathetic to the arguments for basic income, for instance noting that it would serve to compensate value-creating activities outside the bounds of the wage relation and thus could serve to diminish the compulsion to work for survival. Basic income could thus fill a useful role in reducing the weight of the workplace in peoples’ activities and lives, thus opening possibilities for ways of living and political imaginaries not so bound by the necessity of work. But while he might seem sympathetic at that level, Barchiesi is quite critical of the position that basic income could be understood as a political solution to the question of precarity. This is in part because of how he argues that basic income can serve to maintain the centrality of work in the imagination of citizenship. Basic income becomes a way to transform work into a realm of self-actualisation rather than an activity undertaken out of compulsion. While this represents a move away from a development over previous ideas, the problem for Barchiesi is how basic income can serve to ‘salvage the connection between wage labour, rights, and human dignity whereas active labour market policies are at risk of merely forcing people into low-wage jobs’ (ibid.: 124). Barchiesi argues that such a conception of basic income provides not an alternative to precarious labour but rather an inducement to it by providing protection against the more egregious effects of the precarisation of work. Barchiesi rejects this conception of basic income in his displacement of a limited conception of work in the political imagination. Rather than redeeming the value of labour Barchiesi suggests that basic income is valuable as a critique of wage labour, not as a new form of policy intervention to ameliorate its excesses.
Ultimately what Barchiesi argues is that precarity is important not just for understanding the shaping of particular forms of labour, or of the security of conditions, but as applied to the ongoing stability of the national liberation project. This is South Africa’s precarious liberation, marked by the strange situation where political antagonisms were played out by competing forces that ‘have often held similar fantasies of order and normality’ (ibid.: 93) where the official imagination of post-apartheid politics has delegated these fantasies to the nexus of work and citizenship. In one of the interviews Barchiesi conducted for writing the book a waste worker draws on an image that resonates deeply with those used in the autonomist tradition: the waste worker describes democratisation as a liberating exodus, but one that has been halted by the precariousness of work. This worker describes how the 1994 election was a moment when they thought they were leaving Egypt, to find a better life not under tyranny, but that today they are still suffering. For this worker the fall of apartheid was ‘like coming from Egypt and now we are going back to Egypt. The old government was Egypt and we thought we were going to Canaan, but instead with this new [waste] utility we are going back to Egypt’ (ibid.: 190).
The fragility of any institutionalised liberation project is perhaps a bit fragile, and risks that the gains secured in the exodus are turned into the exact opposite of the freedom that was sought. It is perfectly clear that the exodus from apartheid was indeed a liberating process. But the problem is that while rejecting ‘going back to Egypt’ is clear enough, this leaves undefined what to do. Barchiesi’s central argument is that it is impossible to even begin to answer the question of what is to be done as long as the centrality of work, now displaced to the citizen, in the political imagination is maintained, as this is a position that has become untenable today, although it could equally be argued that it has always been untenable and that this has only become more recently apparent. Barchiesi takes the long-standing autonomist theme of the refusal of work and expands it, not just as a practice, but also as a central political motif and perspective, one that puts precarity at the centre of a new grammar of politics.
Ambivalence and/of transversal compositions
The emergence of precarity as an object of academic analysis corresponds with its decline as a political concept motivating social movement activity. (Neilson and Rossiter, 2008: 53)
The two versions of approaching precarity discussed here are in many ways quite similar, although also having important points of contrast. They agree that a focus on only the wage workplace leaves large populations out of the frame, and that this has quite negative political effects. They both share a concern with the rise of political currents who step in to fill the void left by the decline of a certain conception of labour in the political imagination, and that this could risk a sharp turn to the right and to forms of neo-fascism. Despite this level of agreement there are profound levels of disagreement, for instance on the question of basic income, and more fundamentally whether precarity is a political category to be incorporated into a renewed form of institutional politics, or one that requires a drastic critiquing and rethinking of the concepts used for thinking about politics and the position of work.
Perhaps rather than asking the question of what precarity is it is more useful to ask what precarity does, which is to say, what does precarity add to political analysis and strategy? This is a useful perspective precisely because it points to the reality that precarity is not one thing, but rather a versatile concept that has been deployed differently in varying situations and contexts. To compare the few examples discussed thus far, first we looked at precarity as a way to frame the desires of young workers in 1970s Italy to escape the factory and the constraints of regular wage labour: precarity as something beautiful and worth celebrating. In this framing precarity is the common ground of those who reject the Fordist compromise for a different conception of politics, life, and labour. By the time the concept reappears in the discourse of movements arising in the wake of the anti-globalisation movement, precarity is understood far differently, not as something to be celebrated but as a conceptual framework for theorising the shared ravages of neoliberalism across varying position of status, and income. Precarity is used to find a common ground for the positions of migrant workers and freelancers, with all problems that go along with such a proposition. Standing takes up precarity as a way to refocus labour politics upon populations ignored by only focusing on wage labour and unions, and to bring those stuck in more precarious positions into a common political project. Standing seeks to draw upon the energies of ‘primitive rebellion’ to rebuild a new institutional context for politics. Finally, Barchiesi rethinks the question of precarity within the context and complexity of the politics of national liberation in South Africa, in particular how they are rooted in a conception of work undercut by the growing precarisation of work. While each of these perspectives has its value, I’d suggest that Barchiesi’s work is the most profound, precisely because it tries to employ precarity not as a category to be applied, but rather as a moment of instability within the radical political imagination that is as much promise as threat. The precariat might indeed be the new dangerous class, but that could very well be part of its political potential rather being a danger. In each of these cases what we see is the tension between precarity as a sociological and as a strategic and political concept.
Brett Neilson and Ned Rossiter in their (2008) analysis provide a very useful insight into the politics of precarity and the ambivalence existing within precarity as political focus and analytic category. They declare the last thing they want to do is to ‘sociologise precarity’, to render into a concept that can be applied to map out the changing nature of class. In short, they are arguing against the use of precarity as a concept in the way that Standing seeks to develop it as concept, one that assess the current shape of labour and develop a new politics around this class formation. That is not to totally reject empirical approaches, which Neilson and Rossiter agree can be of assistance in identifying different types and experiences of precarity. But they argue that while this work can be a prelude to political organization, it is in itself not enough to generate a political intervention adequate to the challenges of the current situation. Rather than precarity as a concept to be applied, Neilson and Rossiter argue for a conception of precarity that cannot be grounded. For them precarity is not an empirical object but rather an experience, one that is best investigated through a ‘transpositional movement between the theoretical and the practical’ – a transversal movement that is never stable (2008: 63).
This in part explains why Neilson and Rossiter comment that the decline of precarity as a political focus connects to its rise as an academic area of investigation. It is not simply a comment on how academic work lags woefully years behind the pace of political developments and thus can only serve to pick up the pieces of social movement developments after they have subsided (although there is something to be said for that). Rather it is that the approaches employed in investigating precarity have entirely different ways of working. Or to express it in their framing, the investigation of precarity as a sociological phenomenon wants to fix it as a category that can be used for empirical work. While this fixing of the category, the agreement over what the concept is, can seem entirely reasonable on a certain level, this represents a kind of blocking of the transversal and transpositional moment that they argue is what was valuable in precarity as a political concept. Neilson and Rossiter suggest that precarity still has a critical potential, albeit one that is limited, but a potential that can be realised more by rejecting sociological framings and expectations of analytical and descriptive consistency.
It is in this sense that it is most useful to rethink precarity by connecting it back more closely to the autonomist tradition. That’s not to say that there is some ‘purer essence’ of the concept that is employed by political actors and not by academic writers. That would be to re-install a kind of essentialist theory-praxis divide in political analysis. Rather, what can be seen in the concept of precarity is a kind of tension between analysis and politics that has long existed in the middle of autonomist politics. One can see this in the tradition’s key concepts, such as the paired notions of technical and political composition. The former is used to understand the current composition of capital and workings of the economy including technical skills, knowledge, level of scientific development, and so forth. The latter is the existing political energies and capacities of the working class, or as the notion has been expanded even more broadly, the capacities of political actors in revolt, to transform the world around then. The autonomist tradition is marked heavily by a radical subjectivism that rejects narratives privileging capital’s perspective in explaining and understanding social and economic crisis and transformation[6]. Perhaps the most important element of the autonomist tradition is to emphasise this radical subjective becoming of political composition over the more traditionally political economic analysis of technical composition – and to privilege it as the basis of analysis and political strategy. But this very privileging of political composition and subjectivity brings along its own difficulties. If applied in a dogmatic and extreme fashion such an approach can lead to grand declarations about new forms of emerging subjectivities and political energies that lack a sufficient connection to the conditions around them. It can become almost a form of prophecy and declaration, unmoored from the composition of the social.
It is this ongoing tension between technical and political composition that is perhaps one of the greatest strengths of the autonomist concepts, but also their weakness. This is why the multiple meanings and roles of precarity, what it does as a concept, is not a problem of its lack of coherence, but rather an expression of its value. The meaning of precarity is not determined by a set of criteria that define it, and thus can be operationalised as tools of research (or at least solely as them). Rather it is a political tool whose meaning is shaped by the context from which it emerges, the composition of labour and politics in which it is utilised. Precarity is thus beautiful, an escape from the factory, and horrible, in the conditions of intensifying neoliberal globalisation and destruction of social welfare programs. It is like Walt Whitman, large, containing multitudes, and possibly contained by multitudes. Precarity is most useful not as a concept for mapping out new class categories for integrating them into a new institutional politics, but as a tool for intervening in the shaping of new struggles. Precarity is not just a question of the changing composition of labour, but of experimenting with modes of being and community that are not determined by labour. The task then for the politics of precarity today is not to refine it as a sociological concept to be applied in research but to renew it as a compositional project for the development of new forms of autonomy.
[1] The protest movement that Berardi describes in some ways seems quite similar to the tactics and approach of the recent occupation movements (or of the global justice movement) in a rejection of fixed party structures, a focus on joyful convergences in the streets, and a heavy focus on media politics.
[2] To list just a few of the more notable ones: Ross (2009), Gill and Pratt (2008), Raunig et al. (2011). Previously activist publications dedicated issues to examining precarity including Greenpepper Magazine (2004), Mute Magazine (2005, 2006), and fibreculture (2005). In terms of militant research on precarity it is important to point towards the Precarity Web Ring, which is mostly now defunct (http://precarity-map.net) and the activities of the Precarious Workers Brigade (http://precariousworkersbrigade.tumblr.com). Funding bodies that have started to fund research on precarity include the ESRC and the Carolina Asia Center. These examples are only some of the more obvious ones I’m aware of, there are surely far more currently existing.
[3] For Standing the precariat has a ‘truncated status’ in the sense that it does not correspond to the previous social position of the proletariat where ‘labour securities were provided in exchange for subordination and contingent loyalty, the unwritten deal underpinning welfare states’, and does not map neatly on to any craft occupation status (2011: 8). In this sense Standing picks up on the popular discussions of precarity that use it to characterise not just labour conditions, but the growing uncertainty of conditions of life in late neoliberalism.
[4] Strangely enough he doesn’t give nearly as much consideration to the idea that a left wing form of radicalism might be embraced as a result of growing precarity.
[5] For instance, Barchiesi argues that the democratic transition has largely benefitted business more than the people it was supposed to free, with the ongoing economic crisis amplifying forms of precarity experience by large parts of the population. Given that, the neoliberal measures that are responsible for this seem all the more troubling precisely when framed in revolutionary and Marxist jargon, such as when members of parliament defend their housing policy as ‘dialectical unity’ of government subsidies and corporate finance (2011: 20).
[6] A recent article by Bar-Yuchnei (2011) in the journal Endnotes makes a critique of this core autonomist notion, suggesting that in current ‘conditions of austerity’ the capacity of class antagonism to act as a motor of social and economic transformation has reached its end. This, however, is not framed as an argument to return to an analysis based upon analyzing ‘tendencies to crisis’ or other more economistic frames. Rather it seems to indicate that this emphasis on political composition as subjective becoming has reached something of a dead end. Bifo has made similar arguments. Perhaps it is the further incorporation of subjectivation as factor of production in flexible, creativity oriented economy that precludes it operating in the same role it did before. But it would seem that if subjectivity is more essential to the workings of the economy and class structure that its incorporation, its dynamic of decomposition, would serve as a basis for a new form of political recomposition. This remains to be seen.
Bar-Yuchnei (2011) ‘Two aspects of austerity’, Endnotes [http://endnotes.org.uk/articles/16.9/22/11].
Barchiesi, F. (2011) Precarious liberation: Workers, the state, and contested social citizenship in postapartheid South Africa. Albany: SUNY Press.
Berardi, F. (2009) Precarious rhapsody: Semiocapitalism and the pathologies of the post-alpha generation. London: Minor Compositions.
Gill, R. and A. Pratt (2008) ‘In the social factory? Immaterial labour, precariousness and cultural work’, Theory, Culture & Society, 25(7-8): 1-30.
Neilson, B. and N. Rossiter (2005) ‘Multitudes, creative organisation and the precarious condition of new media labour’, fibreculture, 5. [http://five.fibreculturejournal.org].
Neilson, B. and N. Rossiter (2008) ‘Precarity as a political concept, or, Fordism as exception’, Theory, Culture & Society, 25(7-8): 51-72.
Raunig, G., G. Ray and U. Wuggenig (eds.) (2011) Critique of creativity: Precarity, subjectivity and resistance in the ‘creative industries’. London: MayFly Books.
Ross, A. (2009) Nice work if you can get it: Life and labor in precarious times. New York: New York University Press.
Standing, G. (2011) The precariat: The new dangerous class. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Stevphen is a member of the ephemera editorial collective.
E-mail: sshuka AT essex.ac.uk
Pandemic times. A conversation with Lisa Baraitser about the temporal politics of COVID-19
Laura Kemmer, Annika Kühn , Vanessa Weber
Blok, A, Farías, I., & Roberts, C. (eds) (2019) The Routledge Companion to Actor-Network Theory, London: Routledge. (HC, pp. 458, $245, ISBN 9781315111667)
|
cc/2021-04/en_head_0044.json.gz/line37
|
__label__wiki
| 0.753679
| 0.753679
|
Larry Page and Sergey Brin cross-letters of the reins
It is an era to an end. As the company faced a series of antitrust investigations and installation of employee unrest, its two co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin announced that last week the two of them down from their leadership roles in the company. A page has been the CEO of Google the parent organization of the letters, and Brin as President. Transport-related information, the current CEO of Google, will continue his work, and in addition take in the CEO letters.
Page and Brin are not completely out of the picture. The two co-founders will remain employees of the alphabet, and retained their seats on the boat, where they together control 51. 3%of the voting rights, according to a recent regulatory filing. In other words, they still effectively control the company, although they will no longer run.
“Today, in 2019, if the company is a person, it will be a young adult of 21 and it will be time to leave the roost,”Brin and Page wrote in a joint press release. “Although having a huge franchise, deeply involved in the daily management of the company long-term, we believe that it is time to assume the role of the proud parents with advice and love, but not every day nagging!”
Page and Brin founded in 1998, when they were computer science graduate students at Stanford University. “I thought he was annoying. He’s really strong opinion about things, I guess I did too,”page said on the Bollinger wired in 2005. “We both found each other obnoxious,”Brin countered.
But to complement each other and together turn into a search engine to boot into a Silicon Valley huge ambitions to change the world through technology and therefore abandoned the motto of”not evil.” From its early days, as Nitasha described the company in a recent Wired cover story, Google has a unique Open Culture. Employees are encouraged to”bring their whole self”to work, and that if they see something they disagree with. Last Thursday, Google will host a company-wide meeting called TGIF, employees can ask managers challenging questions.
Under the guidance of their investors, Brin and Page hired Eric Schmidt, who became Google’s first CEO in 2001. Ten years later, the pages bring back the reins and become more involved in the company’s daily operation than Brin. But the page is too large, will eventually take a step back his involvement after the reorganization of the company, in 2015.
Four years ago the letter is to create a holding company, the separation of Google’s core advertising and Internet business, from the company’s more ambitious research projects and other acquisitions. A, long-term Executive, to become CEO. Since then, Page and Brin—each now worth more than $ 50 billion has to a large extent is still not the spotlight, dedicate yourself, rather than experimental projects, such as flying vehicles and the future of robots. They have rarely appeared in public or spoken on the investor call. To not even attend Google’s Annual Shareholders Meeting in June.
Brin and Page exit to just Google is working to solve some of the most difficult challenges. Although the company continues to print money, the US Congress, the state attorney General and Federal antitrust regulators are to review its dominant market position. Just this week, European regulators announced a preliminary investigation into Google and Facebook over how they collect and use data for their advertising business.
The company has to solve the high-end of tensions between the employees. The end of last month, more than 200 workers gathered outside the company’s San Francisco office supporting several staff members were released administrative leave and later transmit what they said reached the ILO. Last Tuesday, the former employees said they plan to file unfair labor practices complaints with the National Labor Relations Commission. In the past few years, Google’s workforce presented a protest against the company’s contracts with US government agencies, as well as due to the cancellation of the project, to establish a review of search engine in China. And in November last year, 20,000 employees, the employees get out of the sexual harassment, discrimination and pay inequality in the firm.
Despite such resistance, Google, the letters continued to grow, with the acquisition of such intelligence, of course, billions of dollars of profits. If the company’s co-founders have any concerns, where something is going, they issued shows that they lived in contact with the people they leave in charge. “We plan to continue with the sun large letter regularly, especially the title on, we are full of passion!” They write in their announcement.
More great Wired story
Huge Martian dust tower’looks like a larger version of mine showers
Tons of Star Wars board games are on sale at Amazon
Trade secret rights by the prospect of the Lakota stole the founder of the company-again
Yes, you should be wearing earplugs at a concert and this is the perfect pair
Treatment and Vaccine Trials are Halted, US Cases Rise, and More Coronavirus News
|
cc/2021-04/en_head_0044.json.gz/line38
|
__label__cc
| 0.640017
| 0.359983
|
About Kyle
From Cub Scouts to Boy Scouts, from basketball to grade school, and to the present, Kyle was a special person in all our lives. There are so many memories that I have shared with him that were the building blocks of the life that I live today, and I believe many people share the same feelings that I do.
By accessing this Internet Website ("Site"), you accept these Terms and Conditions of Use (“Terms”) as a legal agreement between you and The Kyle Charvat Foundation (“KCF”) and you are agreeing that the law of the state of Washington (United States of America), exclusive of its choice of law provisions, shall be the governing law for these Terms.
KCF has made a good faith effort to provide timely and correct information at this Site; however, some inaccuracies may periodically appear. The information provided on this Site is provided "as is." You assume all responsibilities and all risk for use of this Site. KCF does not represent or warrant the completeness or accuracy of the information and it makes no commitment to update the information.
In no event shall KCF be liable in contract, tort, or any other legal theory for any damages, loss, injury, illness, or death, including but not limited to incidental, special, or consequential damages that result from the use of or inability to use this Site. KCF disclaims all representations or warranties regarding information at this Site, including but not limited to, all express or implied warranties, representations or conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement of intellectual property, freedom of computer virus, or of any other nature.
The text, pictures, images, graphics, and other items provided by this Site are copyrighted by KCF or by the other owners of the respective items on this Site. Any access to other sites from this Site is at your own risk. KCF assumes no responsibility for information published by third parties to which this Site may be linked. KCF's providing of a hyperlink to another website is not an endorsement, sponsorship, association, or affiliation by KCF with respect to such websites, their owners, or their contributors. KCF reserves the right to modify these Terms at any time by updating this Terms of Use webpage.
These Terms and Conditions were last updated on November 15, 2006.
©2014 Kyle Charvat Foundation. All rights reserved.
Powered by PBW CMS from Point B Web Donate | Apply | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
|
cc/2021-04/en_head_0044.json.gz/line39
|
__label__wiki
| 0.707511
| 0.707511
|
J Balvin, Rosalia Lead Latin Grammy Nominations
by Rosy CorderoSeptember 20, 2018
Photo by: John Parra/Telemundo
The nominations for the 19th Annual Latin Grammy awards was released this morning, and it's no surprise that urban superstar J Balvin leads the charge with a total of eight nominations. The Colombian-born singer received recognition in the following categories: Album of the Year, Record of the Year (twice), Best Urban/Fusion Performance, Best Urban Song (3 nominations), and Best Urban Music Album.
There's no doubt he'll be celebrating this weekend when his Vibras tour comes through Los Angeles!
Spanish singer Rosalia follows his lead with a total of five nominations including Record of the Year, Song of the Year, Best Urban/Fusion Performance, Best Alternative Song, and Best Short Form Music Video.
Coming in with four nominations each are El David Aguilar, Jorge Drexler, Kany Garcia, Natalia LaFourcade, and producers Mauricio Rengifo and Andres Torres.
Other nominees include Juanes, Raquel Sofia, Bomba Estereo, La Santa Cecilia, Residente & Dillon Francis, and many more.
Check out the complete list of honorees via the Latina Grammys website
The awards show will take place on Thursday, November 15th at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas. You can watch the celebration live on Univision starting at 8pm.
Congratulations to all the nominees!
Selena Gomez Makes Statement Against Border Camps
Demian Bichir Announces Death Of His Wife Stefanie Sherk
J Balvin Brings 'Reggaeton' To Las Vegas
|
cc/2021-04/en_head_0044.json.gz/line41
|
__label__wiki
| 0.963598
| 0.963598
|
45 Latinas Who Have Changed the World!
by Latina StaffFebruary 26, 2018
Every day we are inspired by women who work to achieve more and give more. These Latinas show us that everyone has the potential to change the world and that it's up to us to make a difference! Here are 45 amazing Latinas who have changed the world.
- With additional reporting by Irina Gonzalez and Maria Arevalo
Name: Maria Elena Salinas
Roots: Mexico
How She Changed the World: Maria Elena Salinas was the longest running female news anchor on U.S. television and the first Latina to recieve a Lifetime Achievement Emmy. Salinas used her platform to shed light on various Latino issues including unaccompanied immigrant children. She actively works to increase voter registration in the Latino community and works to help Latino youth become journalists. Since leaving Univision, Salinas is working on the second season of her English-language series, "The Real Story with Maria Elena Salinas," on the Investigation Discovery network.
Name: Gina Rodriguez
Roots: Puerto Rico
How She Changed the World: In 2015, Gina Rodriguez won the Golden Globe for her performance in the wildy popular CW show 'Jane the Virgin.' She said of her win, "This award is so much more than myself, it represents a culture that wants to see themselves as heroes." Since her win, Rodriguez has stepped into the roles of Director and Producer as she works to bring Latinas and their stories to the film stage. She is currently developing projects for CBS and The CW centered around the Latin American community.
Name: Ana Mendieta
Roots: Cuba
How She Changed the World: Ana Mendieta was a refugee at age 12 when she fled the Cuban regime. Her trials and tribulations resulting from her displacement affected her life's work. The art she created was pro-feminist and pro-nature. She reconnected with her roots through her art, inlcuding having facial hair transplants on her face. According to the Guggenheim, Mendieta has said "I have been carrying out a dialogue between the landscape and the female body (based on my own silhouette). I believe this has been a direct result of my having been torn from my homeland (Cuba) during my adolescence. I am overwhelmed by the feeling of having been cast from the womb (nature). My art is the way I re-establish the bonds that unite me to the universe. It is a return to the maternal source." In 2009, Mendieta was awarded with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the Cintas Foundation.
Name: Demi Lovato
How She Changed the World: Demi Lovato has become an advocate for those struggling with mental illness. The stigma behind mental illness, especially in Latin American cultures, can prevent many from seeking help. Through becoming vulnerable and being open about her own experiences with depression and bipolar disoder, Lovato has paved the way for others to seek guidance and counsel. In 2017 she released her documentary titled 'Simply Complicated' wherein Lovato says, "When I got diagnosed with bipolar disorder, it just made sense... When I was younger I didn't know why I would stay up so late writing and playing music, and then I learned about episodes of mania and I realized that that's probably what it was... I was manic. In a way I knew, it wasn't my fault anymore. Something was actually off with me."
Name: Rosie Perez
How She Changed the World: Along with being a successful actress, Perez has made a name for herself in the world of activism. The documentary 'I'm Puerto Rican, Just so you Know' follows her activism. She starred and directed the Spanish AIDS PSA campaign 'Join the Fight'. In 2010, President Barack Obama appointed Perez to The Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS and she now serves as the chair of the artistic board for Urban Arts Partnership.
Rita Moreno
Roots: Puerto Rican
How She Changed the World: The legendary singer, dancer and actress has had an amazing career. She won acclaim for her role as Anita in the film adaptation of West Side Story, had a successful Broadway career and even performed at President Bill Clinton’s inauguration in 1993. She was only the second Puerto Rican to win an Academy Award and is still the only Latino who has earned the prestigious EGOT (Emmy, Grammy, Oscar and Tony).
Name: Selena Quintanilla
Roots: Mexican
How She Changed the World: Despite having her life tragically cut short, Selena accomplished more than most artists in her lifetime. She helped put Latin and Tejano music on the mainstream map. She was known as ‘The Queen of Tejano” and her voice transcended borders in hits like, “Como la Flor” and “Bidi Bidi Bom Bom.” Very few stars have been able to live up to the Grammy winner’s grace, talent, and ambition. And thanks to a M.A.C makeup collab, a Hollywood Walk of Fame star, and a wax figure, this Tejana is still a shining inspo for generations of young Latinas!
Name: Cristina Saralegui
Roots: Cuban
How She Changed the World: Known as the Latina Oprah, Cristina inspired and motivated for decades with her self-titled hit Univision show. Known for ending each episode with the Spanish phrase, ‘Pa'lante, pa'lante, pa'tras ni pa' coger impulso’ (Move forward and never look back) the Cuban journalist instantly won over the hearts of millions.
Name: Gloria Estefan
How She Changed the World: As if selling over 90 million albums isn’t enough, Gloria has served as a role model for women across the globe. The legendary singer is known for her energetic performances and one of the first Latin stars to crossover into the mainstream pop market. In 2010, Gloria also launched a charity single, “Somos el Mundo” to help support Haiti after the devastating earthquake. The Queen of Latin Pop is an icon with true love for her community.
Name: Celia Cruz
How She Changed the World: “¡Azúcar!” While most singers came and went, Cruz’s career lasted a span of nearly six decades. Her profoundly soulful voice and colorful presence revolutionized salsa and transformed her into a musical legend. Most importantly, the Cuban singer taught us that ‘life is a carnival’ (in one of her many hits “La Vida Es Un Carnaval”). The late singer was also a strong voice for freedom in Cuba and was strongly against Fidel Castro’s regime.
Name: Claribel Alegria
Age: Died at age 93
Roots: Nicaraguan
How She Changed the World: With over 25 published works, this former novelist was a powerful voice in contemporary literature in Central America. The George Washington University grad focused on the people’s movement, which helped overthrow dictator Anastasio Somoza Debayle.
Name: Julia de Burgos
Age: Died at 39
How She Changed the World: The renowned Puerto Rican writer and poet was a feminist at heart. Her poems, “Yo Misma Fui Mi Ruta (“I Was My Own Path”) and “A Julia de Burgos” symbolized messages of individual and nationalistic freedom. As the oldest of thirteen children, Burgos pursued her education at The University of Puerto Rico and would go on to become one of the most influential Caribbean civil rights activists.
Name: Sylvia Rivera
Age: Died in 2002, at age 50
Roots: Puerto Rican – Venezuelan
How She Changed the World: Orphaned at the age of 3, Rivera learned how to take life’s punches at an early age. The transgender activist fought for the LGBTQ community and organized plenty of protests fighting for gay rights in the 1970’s in New York City. Her legacy is still strongly felt within the community and she has been honored in the musical, Sylvia So Far.
Name: Hilda Solis
How She Changed the World: Solis knows how to work it! The former labor secretary, who has degrees from California State Polytechnic University, Ponoma, and the University of Southern California, won recognition from labor unions for pushing wage and hour laws, and also job safety regulations. “Growing up in a large Mexican-American family in La Puente, California, I never imagined that I would have the opportunity to serve in a president’s Cabinet, let alone in the service of such an incredible leader,” she said in a statement.
Name: Shakira
Roots: Colombian
How She Changed the World: The generous pop star is known for giving back to her community thanks to her foundation Pies Descalzos. While her music career has continued to flourish, Shakira has never forgotten her roots. She has raised millions dedicated to improving the quality of education in her hometown and throughout Latin America. As a UNICEF ambassador, the “Hips Don’t Lie” singer has also committed to making a global impact for the less fortunate. She is now a proud mami to boys, Milan and Sasha.
Roots: Dominican
How She Changed the World: The Domican-American poet, essayist and novelist gained national acclaim after her 1991 novel, How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents, illuminated what it’s like to be a Latina immigrant in the U.S. Her second novel, In the Time of the Butterflies, detailed the death of the Mirabal sisters during the Trujillo dictatorship in the DR. Her contribution to Latin American literature brought on future Dominican-American writers like Angie Cruz and Junot Diaz.
Alicia Alonso
How She Changed the World: The Cuban prima ballerina and choreographer changed the Cuban ballet, despite being afflicted with an eye defect that left her partially blind at the age of nineteen. She became famous for her portrayals of Giselle and the ballet version of Carmen in New York and Havana, where she founded the Ballet Nacional de Cuba and continues to direct to this day.
Maria Teresa Kumar
How She Changed the World: Growing up in a bicultural household propelled this Colombiana to change the world by getting out the Latino vote in the U.S. as the president and CEO of Voto Latino. She revolutionized the non-partisan organization when she joined shortly after Rosario Dawson founded it in 2004, developing the first voter registration via text message in 2006 and grown Voto Latino into a leading social media and online community.
How She Changed the World: Being the third female justice and the first Latino to sit on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States is no small accomplishment for the New York City native. Other than her inspirational work as a Latina in the legal work, Sotomayor published her memoir, My Beloved World, earlier this year, which recounts her early life of growing up in housing projects in New York and the challenges she overcame.
Dolores Huerta
How She Changed the World: Along with Cesar Chavez, Huerta co-founded the National Farmworkers Association, which eventually became the United Farm Workers (UFW), in order to unite farmers into a union that fights to protect their rights. She is a labor leader and civil rights activist who has also advocated for immigrants’ and women’s rights, earning her the Eleanor Roosevelt Award for Human Rights and Presidential Medal of Freedom. She's still fighting for justice via her Dolores Huerta Foundation, run by one of her eleven kids. Carlos Santana recently produced a documentary about her amazing life, directed by Peter Bratt.
Roots: Venezuelan
How She Changed the World: The elegant business woman made a name for herself as a fashion designer who has dressed everyone from countless celebrities to many First Ladies, including Jackie O (Jacqueline Onassis) and current First Lady Michelle Obama. Known for the clothes’ impeccable, worldly style without being fussy, Herrera earned the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Council of Fashion Designers of America in 2008—but even that hasn’t stopped her and she is still designing beautiful clothes, accessories and even fragrances.
Roots: Guatemalan
How She Changed the World: She is an activist who has dedicated her life to helping the world recognize the plight of Guatemala’s indigenous peoples during and after the Guatemalan Civil War. She has promoted indigenous rights in the country, ran for President of Guatemala in 2007 and 2011 and even received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2991 and the Price of Asturias Award in 1998. Her fight for the people of Guatemala has forever inspired recognition of indigenous rights in South America.
Maria Felix
Age: Died in 2002 at age 88
How She Changed the World: Known as “Maria de los Angeles Felix”, she is considered the most iconic leading lady of the Golden Age of Mexican cinema. She often played tough film characters and won three Ariel Awards for Enamorada, Rio Escondido and Dona Diabla. She forever changed the world of cinema.
Vilma Martinez (civil rights attorney)
How She Changed the World: The Mexican-American civil rights attorney was the first woman appointed to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Argentina. She was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009 but has been a diplomat since President Jimmy Carnet appointed Martinez to her first position in the U.S. Diplomatic Corps in 1977.
Linda Chavez-Thompson (labor leader)
How She Changed the World: The Mexican-American woman is a union leader who was formerly the vice-president of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations from 1995 until 2007, working on behalf of the fifty-six national and international unions to represent more than 11 million workers. Since her retirement, she ran to be the Lieutenant Governor of Texas and was the vice chair to the Democratic National Committee.
Michelle Bachelet (Chilean)
Roots: Chilean
How She Changed the World: An inspiration to all, Bachelet was the first female president of Chile, serving from 2006 until 2010 and from 2014 until now. The former pediatrician is also incredibly educated, speaking her native Spanish, as well as English, German, Portuguese and French.
Dilma Rousseff (Brazil’s First Female President)
Roots: Brazilian
How She Changed the World: The former president of Brazil also happens to be the first woman to hold the office. She served as the Chief of Staff to the President of Brazil from 2005 until 2010, and then assumed the role of President in January 2011. Her distinguished honors include receiving the Woodrow Wilson Public Service Award and being named one of Forbes’ most powerful women in the world.
Soledad O’Brien
How She Changed the World: The Cuban-American broadcast journalist made waves as the anchor of CNN’s morning news program Starting Point and American Morning. Today she is recognized as one of the top journalists who fights for social change, has won an Emmy award for co-hosting The Know Zone and a Goodermote Humanitarian Award for her reporting of Hurricane Katrina and the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. She continues to strive for excellence in reporting as she starts Starfish Media Group, which will allow her to continue to confront difficult topics and tell underreported topics.
How She Changed the World: Although she had been acting in her native Mexican, it was Hayek’s move to Hollywood in 1991 that earned her worldwide recognition as a Mexican-American actress, director and producer. She is best known for her role as Frida Kahlo in 2002 film Frida, for which she received numerous nominations and awards. She is also an advocate for increasing awareness on violence against women and discrimination against immigrants. She has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee supporting the reauthoring of the Violence Against Women Act and is a board member of V-Day, a charity aimed at ending violence against women and girls. Most recently, the gorgeous mom of one bravely shared her #MeToo story about sexual assault.
Name: Victoria Soto
Age: Died in 2012 at the age of 27
How She Changed the World: This courageous teacher was hailed as a heroine after she died protecting her young students during the Newton, CT shootings on December 14, 2012. She demonstrated tremendous strength when she hid her students in a closet and told the shooter that they were in the gym. She was killed protecting them, after the shooter didn’t believe her and she shielded her room from the bullets with her own body. President Barack Obama awarded Soto the Presidential Citizens Medal, describing her as a selfless and courageous woman who “inspire[s] us all to look for opportunities to better serve our communities and our country.”
Name: Concepcion Picciotto
Roots: Spanish
How She Changed the World: Her name isn’t well known but she is one hard-to-forget inspiring Latina. The Spaniard-American woman commonly known as “Conchita” has been living in Lafayette square in Washington, D.C., since August 1, 1981. That’s when she set up a peace camp across from the White House in order to protest nuclear arms. She is known for carrying out the longest continuous act of political protest in the U.S. and has been featured in Michael Moore’s 2004 documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.
Name: Eva Longoria
How She Changed the World: Known as one of the highest paid actresses in television history, the Desperate Housewives star made a cool $13 million for her seductive role as Gaby Solis. However, that was only the beginning for Longoria. She has developed into a powerful figure behind-the-scenes as an executive producer of the ALMA Awards as well as Devious Maids and Telenovela. Her philanthropic work with PADRES Contra el Cancer has also helped millions of families affected by the illness. The newly married Longoria is a huge political activist championing equal pay and diverisity in Hollywood among other causes. Her and hubby Pepe Baston are welcoming their first child these year.
Alicia Dickerson Montemayor (Latina activist)
How She Changed the World: The Mexican-American activist from Laredo, Texas, was one of the first truly inspirational Latina women. She crossed a lot of barriers for women, becoming the first woman elected to national office (that wasn’t created for a woman specifically) as vice president general of the League of United Latin American Citizens and also the first woman associate editor of the LULAC newspaper. She encouraged girls and women to join the Latin American activism movement and is designated as a Women’s History Honoree by the National Women’s History Project.
Jovita Idár (journalist)
Age: Died at age 60 in 1946
How She Changed the World: The Mexican-American journalist, who was born in Texas, was a major figure to worked to advance the civil rights of Mexican-Americans. She wrote for a newspaper called La Cronica where, under a pseudonym, she exposed the poor living conditions of Mexican-American workers and supported the Mexican revolution, which started in 1910. She also served as the first president of the League of Mexican Women, which was founded in 1911 to offer free education to Mexican children in Laredo, Texas. She continued writing to advocate for the issues being faced by Mexican-Americans in that time.
The Mirabal Sisters
Age: Particia was 36, Maria was 34 and Antonia was 25 when they were killed
How They Changed the World: Patricia, Belgica, Maria and Antonia (commonly known as Patrisia, Dede, Minerva and Maria Teresa) became involved in the political movement against dictator Trujillo. They formed the group Movement of the Fourteenth of June in order to oppose his regime, but they were incarcerated and tortured on several occasions, resulting in the deaths of Patricia, Minerva and Maria Teresa. Their amazing courage and persistence in the face of endless opposition remains an inspiration to many. The day of their deaths, November 25th, is now official the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.
Name: Frida Kahlo
How She Changed the World: Although her artwork wasn’t well known until the 1970’s, Kahlo was always considered an important figure in folk art. Many of her works were self-portraits that captured her pain and anguish from surviving a bus accident and her rocky romantic relationship with artist Diego Rivera. With each brush stroke, her vibrant style and cultural depiction has inspired countless Latinas ever since.
Name: Claudia de la Cruz
How She Changed the World: As the founder of Da Urban Butterflies (DUB), Cruz is dedicated to youth outreach for Latinas in the Washington Heights area in New York City. The group, which has been around for 8 years, helps empower young women between the ages of 18 to 30 with sex education and career workshops. “Here you find yourself in a space where they are telling you yes, you are worth something. We care about you and you can create the world you want. That is really empowering,” said Cruz about her organization.
Name: Isabel Allende
How She Changed the World: As “the world's most widely read Spanish-language author," Allende has captivated readers for decades thanks to her mythical storylines and gripping narratives in classics like, The House of Spirits and City of Beasts. She helped transform the non-fiction literary landscape and has won countless of awards for her works.
Name: Arisa Batista Cunningham
Roots: Panamanian
How She Changed the World: Arisa runs the boardroom as the VP of global diversity for Johnson & Johnson. She helps come up with strategic planning for franchises worth a total of $24 billion. Since earning her MBA from Ohio University, Arisa has made it a point to increase diversity in the workplace and has won the J&J Equal Opportunity Award.
Name: Ellen Ochoa
How She Changed the World: As if being the first Latina astronaut isn’t enough, she’s also the co-inventor of three patents related to optical inspection systems. She received her doctorate in electrical engineering from Stanford University and is currently the director of the Johnson Space Center. Talk about reaching for the stars!
Name: Rosario Dawson
Roots: Puerto Rican and Cuban
How She Changed the World: This actress has never been content with just being a Hollywood superstar. The co-founder of Voto Latino has inspired and empowered a new generation to hit the polls in a major way. Rosario is just as passionate about other issues concerning our community. She has shown support for arrested undocumented immigrants, and raised awareness for the Purple Purse Campaign, which aimed to donate over $250,000 to the YWCA for their domestic violence survivors and women in need.
Name: Jennifer Lopez
How She Changed the World: J.Lo may not have completed her degree at Baruch University, but she’s still considered one of their top alumni with a total annual net worth of $52 million in 2012 alone. Jenny From The Block hit the jackpot from her humble beginnings in the Bronx and gives back to her community as a spokesperson for the Boys & Girls Clubs of America and the founder of Lopez Family Foundation, her nonprofit organization which helps provide medical care to women and children across the globe. Her signature curves also helped transform Hollywood’s standards of beauty. And nearing 50, J Lo looks hotter than ever, and with a Vegas residency and TV projects, this proud Boricua ain't slowing down anytime soon!
Name: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
How She Changed the World: In 1989, Ros-Lehtinen became the first Cuban American and Latina elected to Congress. She gave the first Republican response to the State of the Union Address in Spanish in 2011 then again in 2014. In 2011 she became the first Republican member of the U.S. Congress to co-sponser the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. In 2012 she became the first Republican in the House to support same-sex marriage.
Name: Geisha Williams
How She Changed the World: Geisha Williams fled Cuba when she was younger in hopes of a better life. Her dreams were achieved last year in 2017, when on March 1st, she became the first Latina to lead a Fortune 500 company. During her tenure at PG&E, the company has become a leader in gaining energy from renewable sources. She was also featured in Forbes Most Powerful Latinas of 2017.
Inspiring Latinas
Latina Heroes
10 Inspiring Latinas Working Toward a Cause
12 Inspiring Latinas Who Conquered Cancer
12 Inspiring Latinas Under 25
Meet Our 39 Inspiring Latinas of 2012!
|
cc/2021-04/en_head_0044.json.gz/line42
|
__label__wiki
| 0.898726
| 0.898726
|
Did you know you can download our entire database for free?
Georgia Caselaw:
Georgia Code: Browse
(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources
This site exists because of donors like you.
Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw
YORK v. MILLER.
(168 Ga. App. 849)
(310 SE2d 577)
POPE, Judge.
Action on debt. DeKalb State Court. Before Judge Carlisle.
Appellant Ronald James York filed suit pro se in the State Court of DeKalb County against appellee Harold A. Miller, III alleging Miller owed York $50 as a result of an alleged agreement to refund a portion of a retainer fee. No jury demand was filed of record. Miller denied liability and counterclaimed for quantum meruit. The case was originally called for trial on July 27, 1982 and was dismissed for want of prosecution when York did not appear. This order was later set aside when it was learned that the clerk had failed to give notice of the trial to York. In its order to set aside, the court set a new trial date and stated that the case would be before a jury. On February 16, 1983 the case was tried before the court without a jury, and judgment was entered on March 4, 1983. The court found for Miller on the main claim, and in favor of York on the counterclaim. The sole enumeration of error is that the case was tried before the court rather than before a jury.
"The right of trial by jury as declared by the Constitution of the state or as given by a statute of the state shall be preserved to the parties inviolate." OCGA 9-11-38 (Code Ann. 81A-138). "Cases heard on contract where an issuable defense is filed require trial by jury unless waived. [Cits.]" Redding v. Commonwealth of America, 143 Ga. App. 215, 216 (237 SE2d 689) (1977). "The parties or their attorneys of record, by written stipulation filed with the court or by an oral stipulation made in open court and entered in the record, may consent to trial by the court sitting without a jury." OCGA 9-11-39 (a) (Code Ann. 81A-139). In exceptional circumstances a party may waive his right to jury trial by his actions. See Servisco, Inc. v. R. B. M. of Atlanta, 147 Ga. App. 671 (250 SE2d 10) (1978) (a party who participated in a non-jury trial without demanding a jury until subsequent to the entry of an adverse judgment on the merits was held to have waived the right to a jury trial).
The record before us indicates that York had a right to a jury trial in this contract case. The issue presented is whether York waived this right, either expressly or by his actions. No stipulation to trial by the court pursuant to OCGA 9-11-39 (Code Ann. 81A-139) is contained in the record now before us. Unfortunately, we cannot determine independently from the record here whether or not York waived his right to a jury by his actions at trial because the trial was not reported and no transcript or stipulation of the proceedings below has been filed with this appeal. "There is a presumption, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, that a public official, including a trial judge, performed faithfully and lawfully the duties devolving upon him by law. [Cit.] And, an appeal with enumerations of error dependent upon consideration of evidence heard by the trial court, will -- absent a transcript, be affirmed. [Cit.]" Curry v. State, 148 Ga. App. 59 (251 SE2d 86) (1978). It is the duty of the party asserting error to show it by the record. Attwell v. Heritage Bank Mt. Pleasant, 161 Ga. App. 193 (2) (291 SE2d 28) (1982). See also OCGA 5-6-41 (Code Ann. 6-805). Assertions of evidence in briefs or enumerations of error cannot satisfy this duty. Holzmeister v. State, 156 Ga. App. 94 (1) (274 SE2d 109) (1980). Therefore, we must conclude that the trial court correctly heard the case at bar without the intervention of a jury.
Torin D. Togut, for appellee.
Ronald J. York, pro se.
Citing Cases:
ARNOLD v. BRUNDIDGE BANKING COMPANY. (209 Ga. App. 278) (433 SE2d 388) (1993)
MCCLASKEY v. JIFFY LUBE, INC. et al. (197 Ga. App. 537) (398 SE2d 825) (1990)
EVANS v. GREEN et al. (194 Ga. App. 394) (391 SE2d 11) (1990)
U. S. XPRESS, INC. v. W. TIMOTHY ASKEW & COMPANY. (194 Ga. App. 730) (391 SE2d 707) (1990)
SOUTHERN MEDICAL CORPORATION v. WILLIS. (194 Ga. App. 773) (391 SE2d 803) (1990)
DENNY et al. v. NUTT. (189 Ga. App. 387) (375 SE2d 878) (1988)
RICHMOND LEASING COMPANY, INC. v. FIRST UNION BANK OF AUGUSTA. (188 Ga. App. 843) (374 SE2d 746) (1988)
WILLIAMS v. THE STATE. (187 Ga. App. 859) (371 SE2d 673) (1988)
BENTLEY-KESSINGER, INC. v. JONES et al. (186 Ga. App. 466) (367 SE2d 317) (1988)
HUDSON v. THE STATE. (185 Ga. App. 508) (364 SE2d 635) (1988)
GOSS et al. v. BAYER. (184 Ga. App. 730) (362 SE2d 768) (1987)
EDWARD McGILL, INC. v. WISE. (181 Ga. App. 486) (352 SE2d 809) (1987)
BELLAMY v. EDWARDS et al. (181 Ga. App. 887) (354 SE2d 434) (1987)
HOWARD et al. v. ESTATE OF JULIUS HOWARD. (176 Ga. App. 86) (335 SE2d 171) (1985)
Thursday May 21 20:30 EDT
Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004 Lawskills.com
|
cc/2021-04/en_head_0044.json.gz/line43
|
__label__wiki
| 0.899831
| 0.899831
|
Your Beacon to Jazz on the Internet since 1996
« Victor Wooten – The Music Lesson Soundtrack
Esperanza Spalding – Wins Grammy For Best New Artist »
Joyce Cooling
by Mark Ruffin
When Dave Love first heard the San Francisco band Person To Person, he knew they were right for his contemporary jazz record company, Heads Up International. When he saw a picture of the band, he had other ideas.
“I called them immediately,” Love said from his Seattle office. “I told them if they dropped the band name and feature the woman on guitar,
they’d have a deal.” “I guess sex sells,” responded that woman, Joyce Cooling. “That
was a real hard decision, but on no one else’s part but mine. My partner, Jay Wagner, and the band were very cool with whatever worked. I’ve always considered myself a team player. I shine best in a team. I don’t like pick-up bands. This is a band. That’s how I’m most comfortable and that’s how I like it. So it was hard on me.”
After relenting, Cooling had a one on one with Love and he gave her the sexist pitch. “I made it real clear to Dave that that sex thing wasn’t going to work. I love music, that is what propels me. That’s what has to come first, anything else doesn’t work.”
Sex worked for Heads Up in 1996 with saxophonist Pamela Williams. Her “Saxtress” album was one of the biggest contemporary jazz albums that year. Love said up to a quarter of the consumers he surveyed, who bought that album, did so strictly on the basis of the very sexy pose on the cover. “You have to do what is right for you,” Cooling said of Williams’ image. “You’ve gotta be yourself and if a request from someone is not that big a deal, and it’s okay with you, do it. That’s all right. I’m not here to judge anyone.”
“It was pretty dressed up on the inside too,” Love said referring to Patti Labelle, Tina Marie and other guest stars on Pamela Williams’ album. “Joyce is the real deal. You can hear in her soloing that she is familiar with the jazz guitar tradition. This music will sell itself, although it doesn’t hurt that on the cover she’s looks like
Sandra Bullock.” “I wish we could exchange paychecks,” the guitarist said laughing.
Cooling appears on the album in a plain shirt and jeans holding her instrument. She jokingly called the cover “Sandra Goes Guitar,” and said she doesn’t get the comparison very often in public, but it does happen. Along with the good looks, she has a very outgoing personality, the voice of a radio announcer sings on two tracks on the album, But, she wants none of that, including the guitar playing to overshadow compositions, even when it comes to marketing the music.
“I have to present the music first, that’s what I’m all about,” she said. “Hopefully people will close their eyes and take the music in, and it won’t matter if it’s coming from male, female, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, black, white or Latin. Let the music move you. “I don’t consider myself a glamour girl, never have,” she continued as self-effacing as possible.. “I was one of those feminine kind of tomboys when I was young, and today, before I’d buy a new outfit, I’d buy 50 cd’s and a new piece of equipment.”
Californians have known about Cooling, her long time partner, keyboardist Jay Wagner since the early 90’s when Person To Person’s first album “Cameo” was a staple on both the Urban and Contemporary jazz stations in both San Francisco and L.A. However, she was born and bred in the New York City metropolitan area.
She doesn’t remember her life without music. Her mother was a music teacher who loved classical and Brazilian music. Various relatives were involved in a variety of musical genres. Cooling insists that it that environment and the diversity of New York City, especially the Latin bands and great be-bop guitarists that shaped her musically.
But as it is with many guitarists, it was Wes Montgomery that changed her life. “It was a spiritual musical experience,” she remembered ” I was doing the dishes, rubber gloves and all. I had a Wes record on and this cut came on “If You Could See Me Now.” When he solos and gets to the bridge, he plays the simplest most beautiful melodic line to date that I’ve ever heard. It almost brought tears to my eyes. I took off the
gloves and picked up the guitar.”
Her fondest memories of New York include checking the salsa scene and hearing Latin giants like pianist Hilton Ruiz and working one of the many supper clubs and having legendary drummer Max Roach come in with bassist Charlie Haden. She also had a brush with greatness after moving to San Francisco and hooking up with Jay Wagner. “We were playing a festival where we opened up for Stan Getz and he
really liked us. He said ‘hey look you guys, I’m putting on this concert called “Stan Getz & Friends” out at Stanford. I’d like for you
guys to come out and play and we’ll play on a few tunes.’ “So we went over to Stan’s house and we rehearsed some tunes with him and we did the gig.”
The music she makes today is decidedly more pop-ish than be-bop and Cooling makes no apologies for that. She said she writes “as artistic as possible without sacrificing the type of melodies many listeners can enjoy. I write tunes that are both musical and commercial.” That’s the kind of talk Dave Love, pardon the pun, loves. He pointed out that for five weeks, Cooling held the number one position at the three major magazines that measure jazz radio airplay and was nominated for several year-end awards.
“These women need to be heard,” Love said. “And I need all the bullets in my gun when I’m ready to fire and I’m loaded for Pam’s next release in March. It’s called “Eight Days of Ecstasy,” and wait till you see the cover.”
More on the web about Joyce Cooling at
<?php require($DOCUMENT_ROOT . "_footer.htm"); ??>
BlackUSA Daily History
John James Neimore
Annie Onieta Plummer
Liberia Established by Freed Slaves
Briton Hammon
Matthias de Sousa
Andrew Jackson Young, Jr.
Lily Ann Granderson (aka Milla Granson)
Roland Burris
Gus Savage
Carol Moseley-Braun
Ralph Harold Metcalfe
Harold Washington
Cardiss Collins
Copyright © JazzUSA Online. All Rights Reserved Worldwide.
|
cc/2021-04/en_head_0044.json.gz/line46
|
__label__wiki
| 0.63824
| 0.63824
|
Home Business Mayor bullish on Louisville’s momentum, sees economic, cultural renaissance continuing into 2020
Mayor bullish on Louisville’s momentum, sees economic, cultural renaissance continuing into 2020
By RickRedding -
FROM THE MAYOR’S OFFICE:
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (December 23, 2019) – From the renaming of Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport to multi-million dollar investments at Ford and UPS, to a greater focus on growing tech talent, Mayor Greg Fischer today outlined the city’s many achievements in 2019 and looked ahead to progress and momentum continuing into 2020.
“As we begin a new decade, it’s a great time to review our city’s progress and to look ahead. This is something we do regularly at Metro Government, where we believe in learning from the past, living in the present and preparing for the future,” said the Mayor. “That approach, along with years of hard work and a long list of community partners, has helped produce an incredible economic and cultural renaissance in Louisville.”
Since 2011, Louisville has added 83,000 new jobs and 3,000 new businesses, with more than $14 billion dollars of investment flowing into the city since 2014 alone. Nearly $1 billion of that investment is happening in west Louisville, an area of historic disinvestment that the city and its partners are working to reverse. 2019 marked the city’s 9th consecutive year of job growth since 2010, the bottom of the Great Recession and the city’s unemployment rate averaged 3.9 percent for the year.
In briefings with local media, the Mayor outlined some highlights from 2019, including:
Helping lead the conversation around the future of work:
We’ve enjoyed a continued unbroken stretch of tech job growth.
Microsoft announced that Louisville will become a regional hub for artificial intelligence, Internet of Things, and data science for the technology giant.
JP Morgan Chase’s AdvancingCities initiative awarded Louisville a $3 million grant for digital inclusion and economic resilience initiatives in low-income neighborhoods.
The city launched LouTechWorks, a major initiative to boost Louisville’s efforts to rapidly expand its tech talent pipeline.
CBRE named Louisville an “up-and-coming tech talent market.”
The continued tourism boom:
Thanks in part to Bourbonism – the act of enjoying Louisville’s unique local food and bourbon scene – the city welcomed more than 16.4 million annual visitors, representing $534 million total economic impact.
The city’s airport is now officially Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport, part of efforts to build tourism around Louisville’s most famous citizen.
American Airlines launched nonstop services between Los Angeles International Airport and Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport in April.
The Kentucky International Convention Center hosted more than 130 groups, generating more than $92 million in estimated economic impact
More than 289,000 people attended Trifesta, the outdoor music festivals Hometown Rising, Bourbon & Beyond and Louder Than Life held at the Kentucky exposition Center over three weekends in September.
Michter’s Fort Nelson Distillery became the latest bourbon attraction to open on historic Main Street, bringing the total of bourbon attractions to nine.
Kentucky Performing Arts opened Old Forester’s Paristown Hall, a $12 million, music/entertainment venue that can accommodate as many as 2,000 patrons.
Additional economic highlights:
UPS Worldport confirmed its commitment to Louisville with a $750 million investment that will result in 1,000 new jobs.
Ford announced a $550 million investment in its two Louisville plants in preparation for a new Escape and Lincoln Corsair.
Business owners Mike and Medora Safai transformed the old Axton Candy and Tobacco Warehouse into the bustling $1.6 million Logan Street Market, a 27,000-square-foot urban market in Shelby Park.
Construction began on the first new Beecher Terrace building, which will house low-income seniors, and is scheduled for completion in September 2020.
The Northeast Regional Library opened in June and has since checked out more than 319,000 items (highest in the system), served more than 116,000 visitors (2nd highest in the system behind the Main Library), and seen more than 8,000 children and 2,000 adults attend library programs and events.
Dare to Care partnered with Kroger to open the new Zero Hunger Mobile Market, part of an ongoing city effort to address food insecurity, and with support from the city and the Novak Family Foundation, Dare to Care broke ground on its new Community Kitchen in Parkland— tripling the size of its current facility.
Colonial Gardens opened in south Louisville with Union 15 and El Taco Luchador; two more restaurants coming soon.
The $28 million Republic Bank Foundation YMCA opened at 18th and Broadway, focused on strengthening community and improving health. It will be supported through partnerships with Norton Healthcare, Republic Bank & Trust, ProRehab Physical Therapy, and Family and Children’s Place.
Louisville Metro Animal Services opened its new shelter at 3516 Newburg Road.
Mayor Fischer said he was especially pleased to see Louisville in April become one of only four cities to receive What Works Cities Gold Certification — a national standard of excellence in innovative and efficient city governance.
“At a time of tight budgets and increasing need for the services we provide, this is a significant affirmation of our systems, our commitment to excellence, and the work that Louisville Metro Government employees are doing every single day,” he said.
In 2019, the city also took steps toward becoming a city of even greater equity and compassion, launching Lean Into Louisville, a community initiative to confront the history of all forms of discrimination, including the Synergy Project, designed to strengthen relationships between police and residents, and increase collaboration grounded in trust and legitimacy.
Russell: A Place of Promise received several grants to further its work of regeneration without displacement in Russell, ensuring that the people who built the soul of the neighborhood are a part of its redevelopment.
Also in 2019, Louisville celebrated 20 years of its Fairness Ordinance, launched the city’s first LGBTQ chamber of commerce, Civitas, and for a fifth year in a row, received a perfect 100 on the Human Rights Campaign Municipal Equality Scorecard.
Continuing its record-breaking streak, the Mayor’s Give A Day Week of Service, in partnership with Metro United Way, broke its own world record with more than 235,000 volunteers and acts of service. And with city support, Evolve 502 continued building toward a system of wrap-around supports for all children and families and a promise scholarship.
When asked about the city’s looming budget challenges due to the growing pension costs, the Mayor said, “Though our economy is growing, the FY19 and FY20 budgets reflected challenges due to rapidly increasing pension costs, and the FY21 budget will as well. Going forward, we will work with state leaders and Metro Council to establish new streams of revenue to help us not only provide public safety and basic services to our residents, but also to focus even more attention on such complex issues as affordable housing, climate change and homelessness.”
The Mayor noted that he’s looking forward to more exciting announcements in 2020, including the opening of the first phase of the Louisville Urban League’s Norton Sports Health Athletics & Complex in the Russell neighborhood and the opening of Lynn Family Stadium in Butchertown, which will serve as the centerpiece of the $200 million stadium district, as well as home to Louisville City FC and Louisville’s National Women’s Soccer League team, Proof Louisville FC.
The Mayor also reminded residents of the upcoming 2020 Census, noting that participation is critical to ensuring the city receives the federal funding it needs and deserves. Learn more about the Census 2020 Complete Count at https://louisvilleky.gov/government/resilience-and-community-services/census-2020-complete-count.
Mayor Greg Fischer
Previous articleIt’s Paula’s Top Ten Rusty Guests of 2019, Plus Singer Victoria Hiegel and Photog Bill Brymer
Next articleParistown’s Fete de Noel will Stay Open through Jan. 12
RickRedding
|
cc/2021-04/en_head_0044.json.gz/line48
|
__label__cc
| 0.525303
| 0.474697
|
Home >> April 2016 Edition >> Optimal Space Protection
Optimal Space Protection
By Rebecca Cowen-Hirsch, Senior Vice President, Government Strategy & Policy, US Government, Inmarsat
When it comes to providing satellite services to customers, we are fierce competitors. When it comes to the Commercial Integration Cell (CIC), we are close collaborators.
By “we,” I am referring to the six satellite services companies—DigitalGlobe, Eutelsat, Inmarsat, Intelsat, Iridium Satellite Communications and SES Government Solution—that have signed six Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) and joined together as part of the CIC.
On June 1, 2015, the Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC) launched the CIC pilot program to explore a partnership between the Department of Defense (DoD) and the satellite industry. Through the ensuing expanded cooperation and synergies, JSpOC is seeking greater space situational awareness while improving the command and control capacity of US Strategic Command’s Joint Functional Component Command for Space (JFCC Space).
According to US Navy Commander David Samara, the former deputy director of strategy and plans at JFCC Space, “The CIC will allow for rapid identification, diagnosis and resolution of on-orbit anomalies while also increasing the overall resilience of US government satellite operations."
Lieutenant General Jay Raymond, former Commander of JFCC Space and the 14th Air Force (Air Forces Strategic), said that JSpOC tracks 23,000 objects in orbit and that number will increase as new technologies, such as the Space Fence, come online. He described the CIC pilot as “the next step in our ongoing efforts to partner with like-minded space-faring entities to promote the peaceful and responsible use of space” through the enhanced integration of industry capabilities into day-to-day space operations.
With the private sector embedded into relevant exercises and training sessions, the CIC promises to usher in major advancements in the reporting, tracking and resolving of events that compromise satellite communications. (Lieutenant General David J. Buck, JFCC Space and 14th Air Force commander, also advocates for the benefits of the CIC—he has recently approved a Concept of Employment for the CIC as all parties move forward under the CRADAs.)
DoD leadership originally conceived of this idea during the September 2014 Schriever War Game, during which Lieutenant General Raymond had access to a CIC within the exercise’s operations center. Options made available via commercial resources were found to boost efficiencies and fidelity throughout the entire space situational awareness enterprise, which then paved the way for discussions about an expanded deployment of CIC.
Since the pilot program’s launch, industry partners have lent their insights into commercial best practices in order to help JSpOC optimize data sharing and decision-making related to space situational awareness, interference events, indications/warning and contingency operations, thereby leading the way for a superior state of crisis preparedness. As governed by CRADAs, the CIC has used existing IT support and working facilities on the JSpOC floor.
General John Hyten, commander of Air Force Space Command, has repeatedly cited the US National Space Policy of June 2010 as a prime driver of this very level of partnership. The policy states that “a robust and competitive commercial space sector is vital to continued progress in space” to “increase assurance and resilience of mission-essential functions … against disruption, degradation and destruction, whether from environmental, mechanical, electronic or hostile causes.”
Budget Allocations Prove Promising
The CIC is one of several initiatives being highlighted by the US Air Force since the White House approved $5 billion worth of funding from fiscal 2016-2020 for “space protection” measures.
“Space capabilities are vital to US national security and the ability to understand emerging threats, project power globally, support diplomatic efforts, and enable global economic prosperity,” according to a White House report that was prepared in support of the fiscal 2017 budget entitled Meeting Our Greatest Challenges: National Security and Global Leadership. "[The budget] supports a variety of measures to help assure the use of space in the face of increasing threats to US national security space systems. In addition, it supports the development of capabilities to defend and enhance the resilience of these space systems. These capabilities help deter and defeat interference with, and attacks on, US space systems.”
As part of the CIC, Inmarsat has worked with leaders on the JSpOC floor literally every day. During highly productive focus group sessions, we have directed our attention to two key technology and data sharing areas intended to introduce improved processes and commercial/government integration: conjunction assessment and electromagnetic interference and resolution.
In the modern age of both a crowded space environment and the potential for hostile nations to target the nation's orbital assets, conjunction assessment has emerged as crucial—a single collision or attack can destroy a satellite. This destruction impacts not only the missions supported by the satellite, but also threatens other satellites with the remaining debris. Thus, a single incident could derail much needed progress for many, many years.
“We must reinforce the peaceful use of space while ensuring continued space operations through partnerships and resiliency,” said Admiral Cecil D. Haney, USSTRATCOM commander. “The US continues to partner with responsible nations, international organizations and commercial firms to promote responsible, peaceful and safe use of space. We also strive to maximize the advantages provided by improved space capabilities while reducing vulnerabilities; and seek to prevent, deter, defeat and operate through attacks on our space capabilities."
This is why the sharing of best practices with the Department of Defense (DoD) is imperative for the industry. These conversations have been a rich and even an eye-opening exchange of ideas—an unprecedented, cohesive effort between the government and the industry’s leading companies.
With regard to the latter, competitive interests are put aside each time the team walks inside JSpOC’s doors. The purpose is unified and all are committed to ideals that benefit the nation; the troops on the ground, in the air and at sea; and, lastly but still significantly, all of the commercial interests in space.
At Inmarsat, recognized is the tremendous value in being good stewards of the space domain. The company shares the same space with many other operators. Thanks to the CIC, all can work together to protect that space.
inmarsatgov.com
Rebecca M. Cowen-Hirsch is Inmarsat’s Senior Vice President for Government Strategy and Policy in the United States Government Business Unit, based in Washington, D.C.
|
cc/2021-04/en_head_0044.json.gz/line50
|
__label__cc
| 0.695039
| 0.304961
|
Home Press ReleasesLatest Press Releases/Speeches Foreign Secretary receives Media Delegation from Bangladesh
Latest Press Releases/Speeches Foreign Secretary receives Media Delegation from Bangladesh
April 10, 2017| Press Releases| Testing User
(2017-04-10) A group of ten senior journalists from leading media houses of Bangladesh called on the Foreign Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs today.
During the interaction, the Foreign Secretary highlighted that Pakistan and Bangladesh are bound in a fraternal relationship. She emphasized the importance of strengthening bilateral relations in the fields of trade, education, culture and enhancing people to people contacts. She referred to the special links between the people of the two countries that are based on a common history, culture, religion and values.
The delegation reciprocated warm sentiments that the people of Bangladesh have towards Pakistan. They thanked the Foreign Secretary for the hospitality accorded to them
The media delegation is presently on a week-long visit to Pakistan where they are scheduled to interact with senior officials, think tanks and media.
Islamabad.
Foreign Minister holds extensive talks with Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan
2nd Trilateral Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of Turkey 13 January 2021
Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi holds extensive talks with Turkish counterpart
Curtain Raiser : Pakistan, Turkey and Azerbaijan to hold the 2nd Trilateral Meeting
Curtain Raiser : Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Jeyhun Bayramov to visit Pakistan
|
cc/2021-04/en_head_0044.json.gz/line52
|
__label__cc
| 0.644643
| 0.355357
|
for Careers
about UHS
Exchange (US Dollar)
Change (%) (%)
Data as of Dec 21, 2020 2:41 AM EST
Minimum 15 minutes delay
Investor Menu
First Call Estimates
Code of Business Conduct and Corporate Standards
UHS Code of Conduct and Ethics
UHS Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers
Inside Information and Trading of Company Stock
Nominating and Governance Committee Charter
UHS Audit Committee Charter
Financial Tear Sheet
One of the nation’s largest and most respected providers of hospital and healthcare services, Universal Health Services, Inc. has built an impressive record of achievement and performance. Growing steadily since our inception into an esteemed Fortune 500 corporation, our annual revenues were $11.4 billion for 2019. In 2020, UHS was again recognized as one of the World’s Most Admired Companies by Fortune; in 2019, ranked #293 on the Fortune 500; and in 2017, listed #275 in Forbes inaugural ranking of America’s Top 500 Public Companies.
Our operating philosophy is as effective today as it was 40 years ago, enabling us to provide high-quality care to our patients and their loved ones. Our strategy includes building or acquiring hospitals in rapidly growing markets, investing in the people and equipment needed to allow each facility to thrive, and becoming the leading healthcare provider in each community we serve.
Headquartered in King of Prussia, PA, UHS has 90,000 employees and through its subsidiaries operates 26 acute care hospitals, 328 behavioral health facilities, 42 outpatient facilities and ambulatory care access points, an insurance offering, a physician network and various related services located in 37 U.S. states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the United Kingdom. It acts as the advisor to Universal Health Realty Income Trust, a real estate investment trust (NYSE:UHT). For additional information on the Company, visit our web site: http://www.uhsinc.com.
Jan 11, 2021 at 10:50 AM EST
Universal Health Services at 39th Annual JP Morgan Healthcare Conference
Nov 19, 2020 at 10:50 AM EST
Universal Health Services at 2020 Wolfe Research Healthcare Conference
Universal Health Services at 2020 Stephens Annual Investment Conference
Nov 10, 2020 at 5:00 PM EST
Universal Health Services at 29th Annual Credit Suisse Healthcare Conference
Oct 30, 2020 at 10:00 AM EDT
Q3 2020 Universal Health Services Earnings Conference Call
Summary ToggleUniversal Health Services, Inc. To Present At The 39th Annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference
Summary ToggleUniversal Health Services, Inc. To Present At Three Upcoming Healthcare Conferences In November
Summary ToggleUniversal Health Services, Inc. Reports 2020 Third Quarter Financial Results
Alan B. Miller
Marc D. Miller
Steve G. Filton
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Marvin G. Pember
Executive Vice President and President Acute Care Division
Executive Vice President and President Behavioral Health Division
Charles F. Boyle
Senior Vice President and Controller
Geraldine Johnson Geckle
Matthew D. Klein
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
Michael S. Nelson
Senior Vice President, Strategic Services
Victor J. Radina
Senior Vice President, Corporate Development
Cheryl K. Ramagano
Senior Vice President and Treasurer
Analyst Estimates & Ratings
Mean Recommendation:
ARC Compliance
UHS is a registered trademark of UHS of Delaware, Inc., the management company for Universal Health Services, Inc. and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Universal Health Services. Universal Health Services, Inc. is a holding company and operates through its subsidiaries including its management company, UHS of Delaware, Inc. All healthcare and management operations are conducted by subsidiaries of Universal Health Services, Inc. To the extent any reference to "UHS" or "UHS facilities" on this website including any statements, articles or other publications contained herein relates to our healthcare or management operations it is referring to Universal Health Services' subsidiaries including UHS of Delaware. Further, the terms "we," "us," "our" or "the company" in such context similarly refer to the operations of Universal Health Services' subsidiaries including UHS of Delaware. Any employment referenced in this website is not with Universal Health Services, Inc. but solely with one of its subsidiaries including UHS of Delaware, Inc.
© 2021 Universal Health Services Inc. All Rights Reserved.
|
cc/2021-04/en_head_0044.json.gz/line56
|
__label__wiki
| 0.530795
| 0.530795
|
English Version: "Never Forget: Views on Peace and Justice Within Conflict-Affected Communities in Northern Iraq"
This survey offers a snapshot of the perceptions and attitudes about peace and justice within communities affected by the conflict with the...
الترجمة العربية (Arabic Version): "Never Forget: Views on Peace and Justice Within Conflict-Affected Communities in Northern Iraq"
Gabrielle Cahill
Sweet Hope Mapatano
Ariana Marnicio
Civil-Military Coordination in Humanitarian Protection
Podcast URL:
http://atha.se/webcast/civil-military-coordination-humanitarian-protection
Especially in complex humanitarian emergencies, effective civil-military coordination can be crucial to maintaining humanitarian access, protecting civilians, and managing the security of aid workers. After all, military forces often play a lead role in response to natural disasters or conflicts. Yet “civ-mil” coordination poses a number of challenges, particularly in terms of preserving the neutrality, impartiality and independence of humanitarian operations while operating alongside militaries.
This podcast will explore legal and operational challenges associated with civil-military engagement in Pakistan, which puts the challenges of civ-mil engagement in stark relief. There, armed conflict, instability and natural disasters have combined in recent years to produce a series of complex humanitarian crises and the large-scale displacement. With the military controlling access and aid distribution to significant areas of the country as part of counter-insurgency operations, humanitarian operations have depended on close coordination with military forces. In the process, however, humanitarian agencies have struggled to secure access to vulnerable populations while maintaining adherence to the humanitarian principles. With their neutrality, impartiality and independence frequently called into question by anti-government forces, aid workers have come under frequent attack in Pakistan; at least 90 have been killed in the country since 2001.
Humanitarian Negotiation Series: The Role of Laws and Norms
|
cc/2021-04/en_head_0044.json.gz/line63
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
No dataset card yet
- Downloads last month
- 14