#personal finances! suffrage! the right to own property! | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

friendship-korea-japan · 4 years

Text

7.13. Independence Association

Question 7: Modernization of Korea and its obstruction › 13. Independence Association

Click here for table of contents

7.13. Independence Association

There is the following description on the Independence Association in an article entitled “Let us build a nation state by evoking people” on page 178 of “Trying to build a modern state”, History Textbook of Korea.

[ While Korea got out of Japanese interference to a certain extent thanks to King Gojong’s refuge at the Russian Legation, the usurpation of rights by superpowers, including Russia, intensified.

[…]

In 1896, the government invited Seo Jae-pil, who had been in exile in the United States following the Gapsin Coup, to promote reform as the counselor of the Privy Council (중추원). The enlightenment-oriented intellectuals, including Seo Jae-pil, Nam Gung-eok and Yi Sang-jae, believed that the reform would not succeed without the people’s support and they thus led a movement to evoke the people. They first established the Tongnip Sinmun (The Independent) journal written in Hangul letters, emphasized the importance of the autonomy and independence of the state and propagated modern democratic ideas. Then, with the goal of building an autonomous independent state, they founded the Independence Association, benefiting from the participation of governmental officials.

[…]

As people’s power and the awareness of civic rights grew through the promotion of the movement for autonomy and national rights, the Independent Association led the movement for civic rights and freedom, hoping to ensure personal freedom, property rights and the freedom of speech, the press, assembly and association. In addition, they actively promoted suffrage and national reform movements, so that the national assembly would be established and public opinion would be reflected in national politics.

The Independent Association held the Private-Public Joint Council, (관민공동회) which united the members of People’s Joint Association (만민공동회) and the ministers of the government, adopted the Six Articles of the Charter consisting of the protection of national sovereignty, the guarantee of civic rights, and political reforms, which were approved by King Gojong.

[…]

The conservative forces, critical of such a move, worked out a plot to make believe that the Independent Association was trying to abolish the royal rule and turn the country into a republic. As a result, King Gojong arrested the leaders of the Independent Association and ordered its dissolution. Citizens of Seoul fiercely resisted this move by holding a session of People’s Joint Association and demanding the rehabilitation of the Independent Association and the release of the arrested members. However, the government attacked the People’s Joint Association by mobilizing the Imperial Association and proceeded to the forced dissolution of the former by mobilizing the army and police forces. ]

For reference, below is the quotation of the passages on the content of the Six Articles of the Charter which seems important, from page 181, “Research Activities 3”, History Textbook of Korea.

[1. The autocratic royal authority shall be strengthened through public-private cooperation without depending on foreign countries.

2. Contracts and treaties with other countries on concessions shall be signed and enforced jointly among the ministers concerned and the President of the Privy Council.

3. The national finance shall be entirely controlled by Jidobu, and the budget and balance sheets shall be released to the public.

4. Judgment against serious criminals shall always be made in court proceedings.

5. Imperial appointees shall be nominated among those approved by the majority of the members of Uijeonbu.

6. The Ordinance* shall always be enforced.

*The “Ordinance“ here refers to the Fourteen Clauses of the Great Charter.]

We can see that the Six Articles of the Charter were important as the foundation of the modernization of Korea. History Textbook of Korea states that the Six Articles of the Charter were “approved by King Gojong”. In other words, they were adopted as the official policy of Korea. Nevertheless, King Gojong again believed the false charges by the conservatives composed of the Yangban and bureaucrats, arrested the important people who should have been protected for Korea, and dissolved their organization. Those who were arrested had resolved the Six Articles of the Charter, adopted by King Gojong, and they should have assumed the future of Korea.

Article 1 of the Six Articles of Charter stated that “the autocratic royal authority should be strengthened through public-private cooperation without depending on foreign countries”. It was likely that they wanted Korea to overcome dependence on Russia.

Article 2 was meant to prevent King Gojong from arbitrarily selling various concessions to Russia, and to activate the oversight function by the ministers in charge and the President of the Privy Council.

Article 3 was included to hinder the limitless use of national treasury by the royal family by releasing the information on the budget and the balance sheets to the public.

Article 4 was intended to prevent important leaders, such as Kim Ok-gyun and Kim Hong-jip, from being assassinated or massacred at the King’s whim.

Article 5 was adopted to prevent imperial appointees from being nominated as a result of the trade of posts and ranks by the king, the royal family members or the Yangban.

Article 6 demanded the full enforcement of the reform through the Fourteen Clauses of the Great Charter intended by the Kim Hong-jip administration, which had been interrupted.

All of the Six Articles of the Charter were against the will of the conservative forces, including King Gojong and people of the Yangban class who were responsible for exploitation and embezzlement. That was probably why the Independence Association was dissolved and its leaders were arrested. Then, the pro-Russian Korean government and the king again blocked the construction process of a modern Korean state by dissolving the Independence Association that they had established on their own initiative.

The “sense of crisis” felt by the conservatives was not focused on Korea as a state but the fear that their privilege might be lost. The move was feared by people who would lose privileges of exploitation, embezzlement, post trading and bribery if property rights and freedom of speech, assembly and press were fully granted to the people. More concretely, they were the Korean Confucians who were obsessed with the Wijeongcheoksa idea, the king, the royal family members and the aristocratic Yangban officials.

This was the third time that Koreans themselves crushed moves for the modernization of Korea and the construction of a system that would not be despised by other countries.

Among the members of the Yangban class, only a small minority was aware that Korea should become a modern state, while the Yangban belonging to the ruling class, who lived in rural areas, accounting for nearly half of the population, seemed to be moving against reform and modernization in order to protect their own interests.

#joseon era #south korea #history of korea #about south korea #korea-japan

0 notes

courtneytincher · 5 years

Text

A Reckoning over Hong Kong Is Coming and It Will Take China's Economy with It

The situation in Hong Kong is disconcerting for China’s government: what started as a protest in opposition to a controversial extradition bill has morphed into nothing less than an outright revolt against the city’s indirect rule by mainland authorities. The “one country two systems” compact seems dead to demonstrators on the street who are showing up in the hundreds of thousands. These protesters are rattling Beijing by signaling a commitment to continue their activities until their demands are met—one of which is the implementation of universal suffrage. One can hardly imagine a greater nightmare scenario for the Communist Party apparatchiks in the mainland.Yet such a possibility does exist. While much has been made of the political dimension and the implications of the protests, the economic dimension has gone under-reported. This is rather curious, since nothing else could be more pressing for China.A local uprising, born out of fear that Hong Kong is losing its highly-valued political independence, is something that could be contained—and perhaps even reversed if significant concessions are made. At worst, the current uprising could be crushed, akin to how the Soviet Union suppressed the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. This would result in much worldwide condemnation and a sizable drop in international prestige, but for Beijing that would be an acceptable price to pay if it meant putting down a direct and highly-visible public challenge to its authority. Ensuring political survival is the primary concern of any regime after all.If Hong Kong’s uprising is born out of discontent with the current economic situation, however, that is another matter entirely.Modern day China is built on economic growth. It is no accident that, under President Xi Jinping, the term “Chinese Dream” has entered the political lexicon. This promise of prosperity, along with a rejuvenation in national pride, is the main source of legitimacy for the Chinese Community Party. Furthermore, if it cannot deliver on these, then, like the late Soviet Union, it won’t be long before people begin to express their dissatisfaction. From there, it is a short jump to taking to the streets in protest, and, eventually, revolt. If so, then Hong Kong might just be a prelude for what is to come.A Tale of Two CitiesBut isn’t Hong Kong an incredibly prosperous city? A global hub of international business and finance that invokes feelings of envy in the hearts of other nations? A shining example of what leaders of developing countries should aspire to build?Maybe not quite as one would believe.Consider as an example the city’s most pressing and ever-present problem: housing. With a mountainous territory, habitable land in Hong Kong is always at a premium. According to a report from the Economist Intelligence Unit, Hong Kong is tied with Paris and Singapore as the world’s most expensive city to live in. Yet while property prices have more than tripled in less than a decade—to the point where the average price for a flat is around $1.2 million—salaries have not kept up. In fact, last year saw a rise of only 1.9 percent after accounting for inflation. Yet almost half of the city’s rental units cost more than $2,550 a month, which is ludicrous since that is 122 percent of the local average salary. As a result, home ownership is but a distant fantasy for most of the city’s inhabitants.The public housing situation also demonstrates how bad things are. Around 44.7 percent of the city’s inhabitants—a whopping 3.3 million people—are living in public housing. The Hong Kong Housing Authority’s own statistics reveal that, as of the end of June, there were about 256,100 applications for a subsidized apartment with an average wait time of 5.4 years. Additionally, the availability of public housing is restricted: the cutoff threshold to apply for a one-person apartment, for example, is a monthly salary of HK$11,830 (around $1,500 a month, or $18,000 a year) and a maximum net assets of HK$257,000 (around $32,760). If the threshold were raised to include a broader range of the city’s poor, the number of people in need of housing would likely be much higher. This is not surprising, given that, according to government statistics, around 20 percent of the population is living below the poverty line (before accounting for cash transfers and other aid provided social safety net programs). While waiting for public housing, households must live in infamously tiny apartments, including those with squalid conditions.Hong Kong’s government has been slow to address this need. It has already admitted it will fail to meet its target of building 280,000 new apartments by 2027 by 43,000 units. The government also refuses to raise the public housing threshold, as that would further strain the city’s resources.At the same time though, it is evident that the government isn’t doing everything it could be to fix the situation. Only 7 percent of the city’s land is set aside for housing, for example, while 60 percent is country parks or other green areas. While this might please the senses and bring a smile to the environmentally conscious, critics are right to point out that this situation doesn’t make sense given the depth of the housing crisis. Worse, it is clear that oftentimes government policy favors elite interests over the needs of poor residents. One instance of this is the 2018 proposal to redevelop a large 425-acre golf course into new apartment units that could house 37,000 individuals. In February of this year, the government announced that it would redevelop only a fifth of that land—never mind the fact that the golf club that owns the property only pays 3 percent of the actual market rental value, runs a deficit, and services fewer than 2,700 members. Non-members can use this prestigious golf club on most days, but that entails paying $140 to play an 18-hole round—outside the price range of most people in Hong Kong. Naturally, this means that the club’s membership is composed of the city’s wealthy elite: corporate memberships go for $2 million, while individual memberships go for around $64,000 plus monthly dues. Increasingly, these are made up of wealthy Chinese mainlanders who have moved into Hong Kong in recent years.From the perspective of the protesters, some of these mainland Chinese immigrants are arguably a part of the problem. In integrating with the rest of China, Hong Kong opened the door to investment from the mainland. This mainland money poured into Hong Kong’s real estate market in quantities that were sometimes in defiance of Beijing’s capital controls—an indicator that this money may have originated from corrupt practices. Knight Frank, a consultancy, estimated that mainland Chinese money is responsible for buying 20 percent of the luxury condo units in Hong Kong in 2016 alone. Even Xi Jinping’s own family is involved in this: a 2012 report from Bloomberg revealed that his extended family own multiple properties across the city, including a (then) $31.5 million villa overlooking Repulse Bay.Hong Kong has numerous other socioeconomic issues on its hands: the city’s pension fund doesn’t provide enough for retirees to survive, unemployment insurance doesn’t exist, and the health system is in dire need of fixing. All of these are long-standing issues that have gone unaddressed, and have likely help fueled the discontent towards Hong Kong’s current Beijing-approved government. But worst of all for China’s Communist Party, this uprising seems to have happened at the most inopportune time possible: in the midst of a brutal trade war with the United States.Casualties of the Trade WarWhile Beijing may wish to downplay the damage that the current trade war with the United States is inflicting, the truth is that the situation is starting to look grim for China. Some signs indicate that China may already be feeling the early symptoms of an economic slowdown: official growth has fallen to its slowest pace in decades, and the unofficial numbers may be worse. Exports are decreasing, household debt is skyrocketing and supply chains are being moved out of the country. The country’s much-cherished prosperity and resulting political stability may be under threat. A broader global economic slowdown would make the situation worse.This is where Hong Kong has long played a critical role in China’s economy. The city’s special status and powerful financial sector made it the perfect interface to connect mainland China’s relatively capital closed markets with the rest of the world’s free-flowing capital markets. In a certain sense, the city is both the first line of defense and the natural entry point into the Chinese financial system.However, this only works so long as Hong Kong is seen as a reliable center for international finance and business. The ongoing protests, along with the broader U.S.-China trade war, might effectively put an end to Hong Kong’s prized position.In response to the protesters, Beijing is pressuring multinational companies to keep their employees from partaking in the demonstrations or else face the consequences—namely, exclusion from participating in mainland China’s highly-lucrative markets. The world’s top four accounting firms, for example, are being pushed to dismiss employees who are in support of the protesters. Moving forward, how can anyone be sure that these companies won’t also toe the line if Beijing asks them to unquestionably support the financials of favored companies? Can any company really feel secure operating in Hong Kong knowing they may face significant public and private pressure to fulfill any requests made by state officials, even if they violate normal standards? Can the Hong Kong legal system, based upon the British common-law model, be relied upon to be impartial if Beijing undermines it to push its own preferences? Questions like these are what drives sensible firms to shift operations to another city (Singapore is the current favorite). These changes are also causing businesses to stop resorting to Hong Kong’s legal system and to instead open up bank accounts elsewhere. Investors are already pulling their money out from the city’s capital control-free financial markets.Then there is the secret cornerstone to Hong Kong’s success: the Hong Kong dollar’s peg to the U.S. dollar since 1973. This peg, actually a trading band between HK$7.75 and HK$7.85, has helped keep the city’s economy stable over the past few decades—especially during times of crisis. If the band is ever at risk of breaking, then the city’s de facto central bank (the Hong Kong Monetary Authority or HKMA) has a mandate to either buy or sell U.S. dollars as needed in order to protect the peg. Even today, despite the current state of relations between the United States and China, the peg is maintained.The trade war may change that. The HKMA has already spent billions of dollars this year alone defending the peg. While the Authority still has sufficient financial reserves to defend the peg for a while, if a significant economic downturn occurs then the peg might break. If it does, then confidence in the Hong Kong dollar will plummet, and with it, the city’s reputation as a safe harbor from regional economic instability. Sensing this, the Trump administration has tied the Hong Kong protests to ongoing trade talks with Beijing. There is a chance that the administration could use the situation as leverage by threatening to remove recognition of Hong Kong’s special status. If that were to occur, then the peg would certainly would break, as the HKMA would no longer be able to acquire U.S. dollars.In short, Hong Kong helps insulates mainland China from global economic turmoil. If its economy goes down, then the mainland will be exposed—including many prominent and influential Chinese companies that are based out of Hong Kong.Future UncertainIn the end, what will happen to Hong Kong?At the moment, the prognosis is rather grim. The “one country two systems” model does genuinely appear to be dead, and with it, Hong Kong’s lofty position as a reliable international hub of business and finance. The economy will likely enter a prolonged recession, made worse if multinational businesses no longer have faith in the city’s ability to guarantee a neutral legal and political environment.Socially, the city is divided like never before, with polling by the University of Hong Kong’s Public Opinion Programme and the Hong Kong Public Research Institute showing that respondents, particularly young people, increasingly see themselves distinctly as “Hong Kongers” rather than “Chinese.” Efforts at promoting a single Chinese identity seem to have failed.Politically, the status quo is untenable. The size and persistence of the protest movement indicates that a significant portion of the population is not happy living under Beijing’s indirect rule. Yet calls for outright independence, though a small minority among protesters, have grown louder. Most protesters would prefer to preserve the “one country, two systems” model. Whether that is possible though is up for debate.Hong Kong’s protesters could have been appeased earlier on, but after a number of crackdowns and missteps by the city’s government, that possibility seems faint. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that the protesters themselves can win outright—the city’s government will not concede to demands, especially for universal suffrage, without setting a troubling precedent. Hong Kong is at a stalemate, and all the while, the economy is deteriorating. If spirals out of control, then even the mainland’s delicate economic situation will be at risk.This reality is why Beijing has not cracked down on Hong Kong’s protests yet: it knows that if the situation isn’t handled properly, then painful consequences would quickly follow. The current hope is that the protesters will burn out over time, allowing for a resumption of business as usual. Yet a restoration of the status quo may not be fully possible. Hong Kong’s position as a trustworthy location to conduct business has been harmed, perhaps irreparably. Regardless of what happens to the current protests, it is clear that the city’s population is at odds with its government and is increasingly seeing itself as a culturally distinct force. Beijing might be able to pacify Hong Kong in the short term, but all signs point toward a future day of reckoning.Carlos Roa is the senior editor of the National Interest.Image: Reuters

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

August 29, 2019 at 07:09PM via IFTTT

#Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

0 notes

christineamccalla · 5 years

Text

Attrition vs Contract Law: The Yields vs Effective Interests Of Gift Returns; Public Policies; Conflict of Interests; or, Communal Conflict of Interest, by McCalla, Christine Ann, MBA, MS, CBME, CAHR, CBDE, CTW, CPA

Friedman (2011) argued the law does not punish all “departures from a high standard of moral conduct”; some “departures” must “find their dessert before that social tribunal erected by public sentiment”. Such is the road of judicial, judiciary, and legislative systems and their attributes including Grant Agreements; Banks and Banking; Business Credit and Assistance; Commerce and Foreign Trade; Foreign Relations and Intercourse; Commercial Practices; Banking and Banking Industry; Bankruptcy; Commodity and Securities Exchanges; Foreign Relations; Judicial Administration; Money and Finance: Treasury; Education; Parks, Forests, and Public Property; Public Contracts and Property Management; Public Health; Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights; Public Printing and Documents and, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, where the freedom of the contract is supported by artefacts such as character attributes of ethics; agency problems; public policy; public good; and Patriotism, Rites, Ceremonies, and Observances result in acquiesce with the US Constitution’s Preamble, We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Furthermore, in exercising the freedom of contract; the right to assent; and right to consent, must take precedence. Ignorance is not bliss in terms of contract management or contract law.

A receivership of nations is an agency set forth as a means of contract created as a crisis aversion tool with the intention of economic; fiscal; and, monetary policies and balancing act regarding economies. These policies included and impacted the statutes and laws of Banks and Banking; Foreign Relations and Intercourse; Grant Agreements; Business Credit and Assistance; Commerce and Foreign Trade; Commercial Practices; Banking and Banking Industry; Bankruptcy; Commodity and Securities Exchanges; Foreign Relations; Judicial Administration; Foreign Relations and Intercourse; Money and Finance: Treasury; Education; Parks, Forests, and Public Property; Public Contracts and Property Management; Public Health; Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights; Public Printing and Documents; and, Federal Acquisition Regulations System.

Subsequent economic, fiscal, and monetary tools policies were created by McCalla, Christine Ann including an Ascension of Governance and by writ, writ of mutual exclusion and mutual exclusivity, executed successfully. As such, Wikipedia’s balance of payment strategy which occurs when a nation is unable to pay for essential imports or service and its external debt repayments, was avoided, and resolved successfully with solutions for the immediate; short term; medium range; and long term ranges. Charity goes nowhere in the face of encroachments, and fraud present in the form of murder; denials of the inherent rights to life; and allowable grant costs dispensed as personnel, fringe, and indirect costs for the purpose of assassinations and murders are resultingly just that.

Friedman’s (2011) pure contract is abstract relations, with a doctrine blind to details of subject and person. When the creator and originator of said contract is assassinated and murdered for the sole purpose of the rewards, substantial grant agreements, then??? Friedman’s (2011) theoretical model of liberal economics occur in which parties are treated as individual economic units, enjoyable with complete mobility and freedom of decision; assignable claims; and all rights valued in monetary and economic claims. The difference in this case, this theoretical model is also transferable by ownership as well. This theorem challenges Freedman’s (2011) classical doctrine of consideration which rejects the notion that any price fixed freely by two parties might be condemned in law as unfair and inadequate, as only the market measures value based on the evidence of what a willing seller pays a willing buyer. Freedman’s (2011) laws of contract argues for some generalized types of economic damages ignoring personal elements including embarrassment or humiliation.

Laws cannot be self-imposing upon each other. What is the responsiveness if the damages are for personal elements, embarrassment or humiliation, arising from public policies violation; creation of suffrage such as chronic unemployment and homelessness; imposed execution through chronic homelessness; and other human rights violations? To that, the Right to Petition shall assert itself,

Writ of injunction and estoppel of use of contracts and grant agreements written as, contract laws; Grant Agreements; Banks and Banking; Business Credit and Assistance; Commerce and Foreign Trade; Commercial Practices; Commodity and Securities Exchanges; Foreign Relations; Judicial Administration; Foreign Relations and Intercourse; Money and Finance: Treasury; Education; Parks, Forests, and Public Property; Public Contracts and Property Management; Public Health; Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights; Public Printing and documents; Public Lands; Public buildings; Public Works; Public Property; Public Revenues; and, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, in which said instruments have not been received or reviewed by the primary recipient McCalla, Christine Ann, and for which substantial detriment and jeopardy has arisen violating public policies resulting in her denial of basic human rights; execution through chronic homelessness; and, untold public humiliation and embarrassment wherein said recipient should have had the astuteness of common knowledge, and of self, not to participate in said endeavors as mentioned by a UN director, set eternally, transferable and attached, et al.

Furthermore, undue influence and undue advantages have become burdensome violating all statutes and laws of good faith burdens and obligations of good faith in which said primary recipient is the subject of scorn; scourge; ridicule; spat on continuously while sitting on benches in public; ridiculed by known houses of prostitutions and their contents; as well as used for and as the creation and implementation tools of crime waves; holocausts; and mass impoverishments including of self. For lack of better terms, the law has been assailed by illiterate and ignorant power brokers with the terms of leveraging the murder of McCalla, Christine Ann, and all variations thereof receiver of nations and primary recipient to these international aid instruments who over the course of five (5) years were never granted the opportunity to agree or disagree, comply or violate contract laws, nor payments. The newest attempt lies in the granting, assigning, and gifting of the numerous houses of prostitutions, the opportunities at Presidential Gubernatorial Entrant and Congresswoman Maryland Defunct, Gubernatorial, a position held by McCalla, Christine Ann and all variations thereof, citing McCalla is homeless what difference does it make, set eternally, transferable and attached, et al. The Gubernatorial roles were earned in the contexts of seeking international aid en masse under the risk of own name and as principal and sole proprietor, resulting in the detriment of death by means of execution through chronic homelessness; impoverishments; and rape.

Friedman (2011) argued contract law as essentially a series of rules inductively arrived at through generalizing appellate court cases; these cases typically arise out of bargains in the marketplace or behavior which can be analogized to marketplace behavior; economic and social forces must, therefore, have played a major, probably decisive, role in determining the character and content of contract law. Five (5) years of working unpaid results in human rights and human trafficking violations, to which reparations and attritions are needed. Attrition is the best practice of rewarding the contracting party for effort in addition to the contract consideration. Not rewarding the murderers of McCalla, Christine Ann and all variations thereof the opportunities at disposable incomes; employment; upward mobility; and, the opportunity at benefiting financially from the proceeds of her death and demise is one attrition. Increasing equity shares as a risk-mitigating Strategic Business Plan seems a reasonable attrition.

This deprivation strategy results in Freedman’s (2011) consideration, a prerequisite of contract law and subsequently legally enforceable contract, where a contract to be enforced ought to be an exchange; a two-sided agreement; with something contributed by both sides. This differs substantially from Freedman’s (2011) promise to gift or plain gift, in which the donor receives nothing in return. In the terms of the consideration, another important element to be addressed is proof of loss. Define the reparation of homelessness; chronic unemployment; forced homelessness; mass rapes; murder; and holocaust accompanying the terms of said contract law. Public policy, consideration, or, proof of loss??? Is restatement in favor of victim and primary recipient of worth and in what value??? Expanding further, is this social justice or contract law??? And as a framework, is this Patriotism, Rites, Ceremonies, and Observances; individual equities or dignities; feudal laws; or pressure of public opinion, (Freedman, 2011)? This is also the case of bad blood, a little quarrel getting bigger, then the collapse of the whole arrangement, (Freedman, 2011). Tying Arrangements or Accounts Receivables?

As for the assassin’s contract of the promise to pay for a murder which does not necessarily deny the contract holders of the right to collect as Freedman (2011) describes cases in which the persons responsible for the deaths of others, being able to participate in the proceeds of the victim. Public policy or contract law??? The law can be counter-productive to itself, or is it a matter of ignoring all aspects of the contract prior to the period of bargaining, and subsequent to the writing of the contract in which the written word (explicitly) trumps the spoken word (implicit).

Friedman (2011) argued the core of the rule of business law as this: when negotiations have resulted in a written agreement, which seems to cover the whole subject-matter of the bargaining, the court will treat that agreement as embodying the whole agreement of the parties; and it will not pay attention to evidence, oral or written, of what went on in the prior period of bargaining, if that evidence contradicts the written agreement. Great Depression anyone???

OECD (nd) describes conflict of interests within the public sector, as particularly important due to its ability to undermine the fundamental integrity (funds, resources, assets, and powers) of officials; decisions; agencies; and governments; when a public official has private-capacity interests which could improperly influence the performance of their official duties and responsibilities; that public sector ethics is confusing as interest is at times earned from officials supporting or likely to benefit from personal gain; and, conflict of interest is often actual abuse of public office for private advantages, corruption.

OECD (nd) discusses the role of the public officials as exercising state powers and performing functions lawfully, affecting the rights and interests of private citizens. With counterproductive optimization, is this a conflict of interest or need for ethical recourse??? If the public officials withhold several years of revenues generated by private citizens, Man At Nation McCalla, Christine Ann and all variations thereof, for the purpose of undue influence and applying communal conflict of interest including mass prostitution; mass rape; chronic homelessness; chronic unemployment; and the generation of chronic ill health including terminal stages of cancer with the impending outcomes intended to be execution by impoverishments and homelessness to apply Friedman’s (2011) benefit from murder proceeds??? If the communal conflict of interest extends to violation of OECD’s (nd) organizational transparency and accountability mechanisms is this a public policy violation or contract law reparation??? After all, public humiliation and embarrassment is included.

OECD’s (nd) blind trust which is an assignment or delegation of responsibility genuinely independent of influence to the world at large, and deemed as adequate, where a person is given complete and independent control of the official’s interest / asset. If the receiver of said assignment is the gangerie population for this unpaid service, is this public trust; conflict of interest; or communal conflict of interest??? If the official’s interests / assets are judicial, judiciary, and legislative statutory infrastructure to pay Man At Nation, McCalla, Christine Ann and variations thereof. Is the congregation of felons comprising of public official and gangerie population communal conflict of interest; violation of the public trust; or, plain murder??? How are the related personnel, fringe, and overhead quantified in terms of Grant Agreements; Public Printing and Documents; and, Federal Acquisition Regulations laws and statutes??? Unallowable costs; national bankruptcy; or, murder???

Regarding the attrition, how is it quantified? Remember Freedman’s (2011) promise to gift or plain gift, in which the donor receives nothing in return??? This is the gangerie population’s public official’s public trust where the gangerie’s service is a gift. Simultaneously, while Freedman’s (2011) consideration, a prerequisite of contract law and subsequently legally enforceable contract, where a contract to be enforced ought to be an exchange; a two-sided agreement; with something contributed by both sides. Should gangerie be unable to perform he must surrender his attributes to the public official - an enforceable act!!! Additionally, Gangerie must surrender his attributes upon demand by the public official, and in which case a conflict of interest exists should the public official delay or decide to defer in any process during acceptance. Again, enforceable. Breach of public trust or gift of service, where is the conflict of interest should the gangerie population en masse decide this service is undesiring; human trafficking; or human rights violation??? Undue influence anyone???

Given the stakes intended, return of the primary grant recipient to society and normalcy as well as financial stability, mirth is the least productive elements one can consider. Friedman (2011) argued the law does not punish all “departures from a high standard of moral conduct”; some “departures” must “find their dessert before that social tribunal erected by public sentiment”. That has been proven in OECD’s (nd) blind trust; public trust; and conflict of interest - communal or other.

Author’s Review

Friedman (2011) author of Contract Law in America: A Social and Economic Case Study, presented jurisprudence and jurisdictional prudence in his text, wherein the law ascended from blind justice, to society accelerance of livelihood itself as is business law in its objective context. Friedman (2011) described the conceivable, but unnegotiable due to character attribute and need for mediation, including public policies and its numerous applications to internal revenue; internal revenue code; and, commerce, trade, and industry.

References

Friedman, L. (2011). Contract law in America: a social and economic case study. Quid Pro Books.

OECD. Managing Conflict of Interest in the Public Sector A Toolkit: A Toolkit

0 notes

morrisbrokaw · 6 years

Text

This is What a Feminist Looks Like

Hi. My name is Monique. I’m 5’3” with black hair and hazel eyes. I’m a bit of a sensitive soul and stubborn as a mule. I have three chickens, two dogs, and a loving, wonderful husband. Together we share finances and own a home. I struggle with body dysmorphia and am a survivor of sexual assault. I like feeling good about looking strong and I have a solid (and ever-growing) shoe collection. I double majored in English and Women’s and Gender Studies in college… and I’m also a Feminist. But does all of this—my marriage, homeownership, and personal facts—make me any less of a Feminist?

Nope. No, it does not.

According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of Feminism is as follows: “The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes” or “Organized activity on the behalf of women’s rights and interests”

So let’s backtrack for a minute. Imagine a time where civil rights, much less women’s rights, were non-existent. There was no personal or political realm as it pertained to women and people of color. There were simply possessive marital relationships and the enslavement of human beings: men of privilege had all the power.

During this period, the Abolitionist movement garnered strength and eventually the climate would reach a tipping point. By the early 1800s, many northern states had outlawed slavery, aiding the movement’s tenacity and objective. Sadly, such a measure would not absolve the states of inequity as the Civil War would be soon to follow.

Meanwhile, women were still the property of their husbands and thus lacking any kind of say or influence—regardless of their race, social status, or political involvement. Prominent female voices within the Abolitionist movement, like the Grimké sisters and Lucretia Mott, recognized the inextricable link between their efforts as anti-slavery activists and their own lack of power as women. By the 1840s, the women’s equality conversation pivoted to larger platforms, gaining speed and a title—the Women’s Rights Movement. Much of the movement’s early emphasis centered around women’s suffrage and in 1920, Congress passed the Nineteenth Amendment, which finally gave women the right to vote. It took just shy of 100 years for women to get the right to vote. And nearly 100 years-and-many-changes-later, we’re still fighting for equality in some way, shape, or form.

This lengthy backstory is to say that the Abolitionist movement laid the foundation for the Women’s Rights Movement, which in turn set the stage for the Feminism we know today. A movement’s history, or in this case Herstory, reminds us about the growth, progression, conflict, resolution, and re-emergence of systemic issues. Because Feminism has not always been called Feminism. It has gone by many names or no name at all, is sometimes (though usually) dependent on the political initiative or climate at hand. But the end goal remains the same: equal rights for all women.

Somewhere along the way, the word Feminist took on a multiplicity of meanings largely rooted in misconceptions, assumptions, or stereotypes. These apply both internally (within the movement) and outside of it, too. Meaning, that in order to be a Feminist you must epitomize a description or role assignment. Or, when someone hears that you are a Feminist, they immediately make assumptions about you. But why—why are there stipulations or qualifications? Because, can’t anyone be a Feminist if they believe in equality for women and thus advocate for equal rights?

Admittedly, that’s a rhetorical question because two things: 1. yes, anyone can be a Feminist if they believe in equal rights between the sexes and 2. I know definitively that these kinds of conditionals and stereotypes are isolating for those within and outside a movement. And not just isolating between two people—they can tear a movement apart. While studying Women’s and Gender Studies in college, I watched misbeliefs and alienations unfold in classrooms and safe spaces alike—ones that even mimicked the very Herstory we were learning about. It created hostile riffs between individuals and groups of people. In some cases, you even had Feminist-pitted-against-Feminist: that in order to be a “worthy” Feminist, you had to fulfill a series of requirements.

Even within various campus Feminists groups, I observed and participated in bickering centered around what made someone a true Feminist. I found it difficult to make progressive strides towards equality when we couldn’t even establish equal footing amongst ourselves. And the most maddening part? I was watching Herstory repeat itself: it wasn’t the first time that the Women’s Rights Movement was divided.

In 1869, the early Women’s Rights Movement was divided into two sections: one lead by Lucy Stone and the other pioneered by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Eventually, the two would become unified in their efforts, but it certainly wasn’t overnight. Or, take Susan Brownmiller’s In Our Time: A Memoir of a Revolution as an example. Brownmiller offers a first-hand editorial perspective and walks you through the second wave of Feminism—from Betty Friedan with the National Organization of Women to the juxtaposing Shulamith Firestone with the New York Radical Women. Between the pages, you’ll find a riveting, honest, and even humorous account of the experiences, backlash, and schisms within the movement. It’s a pretty great read on the whole, so I highly recommend it. The first time I read this book was early on in my collegiate studies—I was young and filled with a fury, ready to take on The Man. But despite the book’s monumental impact, I totally failed to take note of how important it was to keep stereotypes in perspective.

Full disclosure: for a long time I subscribed to the notion that in order to be a legitimate Feminist, one had to emulate a certain set of beliefs. So I held myself to some wild expectations. Such as: 1. A “real” Feminist does not indulge in capitalist tendencies (e.g. shoe shopping) 2. A “real” Feminist does not get married (at all) 3. A “real” Feminist does not subscribe to popular culture (e.g. one does not listen to Taylor Swift) 4. A “real” Feminist does not use feminine products like tampons 5. A “real” Feminist remains angry and resentful of the fact that they are oppressed… and the list goes on. But that list for me would change. A lot. Because, what happens when you age, grow, and adapt? You change (most of the time). I distinctly remember the day that I realized I had grown out of my old standards—I believe the words I asked myself were “Am I still a Feminist if I don’t use my Diva Cup? Am I still a Feminist even though I got married to a cisgender male? And… when did I stop being so angry and self-righteous?”

Because I can be whoever I am and still be an advocate for equal rights at the same time. I didn’t need to prove myself to anyone: I was and still am a Feminist no matter what. In truth, I believe that Feminism ought to remain multi-faceted and dual-natured no matter what subset, category, or personal point of view my (or your) Feminism falls under. As Feminists, we (in the shadow and somewhat limited perspective of the movement’s founders) need to continue to adapt, grow, and react to the new sets of obstacles, systemic challenges, and privileges that we encounter. In other words, rather than let tropes or stereotypes dictate and divide us, we can embrace our differences and continue working toward the greater good of the movement. Otherwise, we run the risk of growing stagnant and get in the way of our own end goal, which is to achieve equality.

So…..at the end of the day, this is what a Feminist looks like. It looks like me, you, and my cisgender partner, too.

Image via

Monique Seitz-Davis is a writer, crazy plant lady, and snack aficionado based out of Salt Lake City, Utah. She runs uphill for fun and believes in magic.

The post This is What a Feminist Looks Like appeared first on Wit & Delight.

This is What a Feminist Looks Like published first on https://workbootsandshoes.tumblr.com/

0 notes

uniteordie-usa · 7 years

Text

Revolution in Russia 3: 1904-1914 Repression, Revolt and False Promises. | First World War Hidden History

http://uniteordiemedia.com/revolution-in-russia-3-1904-1914-repression-revolt-and-false-promises-first-world-war-hidden-history/ Revolution in Russia 3: 1904-1914 Repression, Revolt and False Promises. | First World War Hidden History While the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks wrestled with each other for control of a revolution in Russian society, events intervened. In February 1904, just six months after the Brussels/London RSDLP conference ended in the infamous Bolshevik v Menshevik split, Russia was inveigled into a disastrous...

While the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks wrestled with each other for control of a revolution in Russian society, events intervened. In February 1904, just six months after the Brussels/London RSDLP conference ended in the infamous Bolshevik v Menshevik split, Russia was inveigled into a disastrous war with Japan in the Far East. Its roots are to be found in the Machiavellian machinations of the British foreign office, the Secret Elite, including King Edward VII, Sir Ernest Cassel, and Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb bank on Wall Street. [1] Outraged by the horrendous anti-Jewish pogroms in Russia, Schiff made it a point of honour to help finance Japan in its war against Russia.

To the surprise and delight of the Imperial Japanese government, he volunteered to underwrite half of the ten million pound loan they raised in New York and London. He knew that the Japanese fleet had been built in British shipyards and their latest naval technology outgunned and outpaced the antiquated Czarist navy. Victory was not in doubt. This first of five major Kuhn, Loeb loans to Japan was approved by the Secret Elite’s main agent, King Edward VII at a luncheon with Schiff and Sir Ernest Cassel. In Germany, under-secretary of State Arthur Zimmerman endorsed the move and authorised Max Warburg to negotiate with Japan. [2] The Rothschilds had to tread carefully. While an international consortium of largely British-owned banking houses ensured that around half of Japan’s war debt was financed through bonds sold in London and New York, the Rothschild held massive investments in Russia, not lest in the Baku oilfields. Manipulators at the heart of the Secret Elite, like Lord Esher, facilitated meetings held on the Rothschild premises to enable the Japanese financial envoy, Takahashi Korekiyo, raise their war chest. [3]

As the Russo-Japanese War lurched from one disaster to another, political unrest in Russia deepened. In the infamous ‘Bloody Sunday’ atrocity of 22 January 1905, troops fired on a huge, but orderly, crowd of workers marching to the Winter Palace behind the charismatic Russian priest Father Georgii Gapon. Their intention was to present a petition to the Czar calling for universal suffrage. Around 1,000 peaceful marchers and onlookers were killed. Nicholas II had left the city the night before and did not give the order to fire personally, but he lost the respect of many Russians. 1905 was disrupted with direct action from workers’ demonstrations, strikes and rebellion by sections of the army and navy. The crew of the battleship Potemkin mutinied, killing the captain and several officers.

Striking workers formed ‘Soviets’, councils of delegates from workers committees, who could coordinate action. They sprang up in major towns and cities, including St Petersburg, where Trotsky, then twenty-three-years-old, played a major role. He had returned illegally from the safety of Finland under a false name and in the guise of a successful entrepreneur. Trotsky immediately wrote proclamations for distribution in factories and posted these throughout the city. In October 1905 a local strike by print workers flared into a national protest. Gangs of armed right-wing extremists were encouraged by the police to hold counter-demonstrations under the banners of ‘Holy Russia’ and ‘God save the Czar’. In response to the violence, the factory workers armed themselves. A showdown was inevitable.

In December, the Izmailovsky Regiment in St Petersburg was ordered to arrest the entire executive committee of the Soviet in the capital. In sympathy, the Moscow Soviet declared a strike and thousands of Muscovites took to the streets in protest. Cossacks sent to break up the Moscow demonstrations, twice refused orders to charge, and sympathised with the strikers. The crack Semenovsky Guards were less sympathetic, cornering protestors in Presnya, a workers’ district in the city, before shelling the area for three days. Many hundreds were killed including eighty-six children. [4] 1905 had started with the Bloody Sunday massacre and ended with the Presnya massacre. Czarist forces, including the secret and much feared Okhrana secret police, prevailed. Later that year, Trotsky and 13 other members of the St Petersburg Soviet were arrested for political scheming and spent thirteen months as prisoners in the city gaol awaiting trial. In January 1907 each was given a life sentence of exile in a small Siberian village above the Arctic Circle, 600 miles from the nearest railway station. Trotsky escaped on his journey into exile and trekked for hundreds of miles through the Urals before making his way to Finland from where, after an extremely frosty meeting with Lenin, he went on to Stockholm and then Vienna.

Nicholas II ruthlessly persecuted the insurrectionists yet introduced measures of reform, including some basic civil liberties and the creation of a State Assembly, the Duma. It was similar to a parliamentary-type elected body but, much like the British parliament in the early nineteenth century, only male property owners and taxpayers were represented. The Czar retained power over State Ministers, who answered to him, not the Duma. If he was dissatisfied with the representative body not could be dissolved at will and fresh elections held.

Unrest continued. Prime Minister and committed monarchist, Pytor Stolypin, survived an attempt on his life in August 1906 when a bomb ripped his dacha (villa) apart while he was hosting a party. Twenty-eight of his guests were killed and many injured, including his two children. In June 1907, Stolypin dissolved the Second Duma, and restricted the franchise by sacking a number of liberals and replacing them with more conservatives and monarchists. In a further attempt to counter the revolutionaries, he enforced a police crackdown on public demonstrations. On a more liberal note, Stolypin introduced agrarian reforms which helped provide opportunities for many peasants desperate for land. Once noticeable consequence was a huge year-on-year increases in food production. Sir George Buchanan, British Ambassador at St Petersburg, noted that though he failed to destroy the seeds of unrest which continued to germinate underground, Stolypin rescued Russia from anarchy and chaos. His agrarian policy surpassed all expectations, and at the time of his death nearly 19,000,000 acres of farmland had been allotted to individual peasant proprietors, by the land committees. [5]

Peasant emancipation and the consequent increase in food production were abhorrent to the Bolsheviks. They intended to bring all land under state control and implement cooperative food production. Trotsky had called the peasantry ‘a vast reservoir of potential revolutionaries’, and ‘accepted the indispensable importance of a peasant rising as an auxiliary to the main task of the proletariat’. [6] The goal was revolution and government controlled by the proletariat, that is, the working class who sold their labour for a wage, but did not own the means of production….

Read More: firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/2017/09/26/revolution-in-russia-3-1904-1914-repression-revolt-and-false-promises/

#Bolsheviks #Mensheviks #Russian Revolution

0 notes