text:
|Previous Section
|Home Page
Mr. Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has for the relocation of the statue of Sir Walter Raleigh from Raleigh Green, Whitehall. [5950]
Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) announced on 15 November 2000 that the statue of Sir Walter Raleigh, which is currently sited in Whitehall, should be moved to a new home at the Royal Naval college, Greenwich. English Heritage, who are the statue's guardians, are managing the relocation with the intention of completing the re-siting by the autumn.
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total value of (i) Government assistance and (ii) lottery assistance since 1997 has been in cash and real terms to (a) opera companies, (b) ballet companies, (c) classical orchestras and (d) popular music groups; and if he will make a statement. [6307]
Dr. Howells: We have asked the Arts Council of England for the information requested, and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, placing copies of her letter in the Libraries of both Houses.
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what specific assistance she has given to the promotion and development of popular music initiatives; what specific schemes she has put in place to promote entry into the music industry for young artists; and if she will make a statement. [6308]
Dr. Howells: My Department's aim is to ensure a successful and thriving music industry in the UK, working in partnership with the industry and other Government Departments. The industry relies on the creativity of our
20 Jul 2001 : Column: 750W
young artists for its future success, and I want to see this young talent protected, nurtured and promoted, regardless of musical genre. My Department has no specific initiatives in relation to popular music, but supports the activities of a wide range of industry bodies in this area. In relation to the entry of young artists into the music industry, I naturally fully support the Government's new deal for musicians programme.
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total value of assistance provided by the Government to the (a) English FA bid for the 1996 European Championships, (b) UK bids for the Olympic games since 1997, (c) UK bids for the Commonwealth games since 1997, (d) English FA bid for the World Cup since 1997 and (e) Scottish FA bid for the 2008 European Championships is in (i) cash and (ii) real terms; and if she will make a statement. [6309]
Mr. Caborn: Financial assistance provided by the Government to these bids was as follows:
Administrative costs were incurred by the Department of National Heritage, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and by other Departments involved in providing non-financial support for the English Football Association's bids for the 1996 European Football Championships before 1996, and the 2006 World Cup between 1997 and 2000. These cannot be quantified.
Mr. Boris Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the effects of the foot and mouth outbreak on tourism in Henley; and if she will make a statement. [6097]
Dr. Howells: Our best estimate to date is that the loss of revenue in 200102 by the English tourist industry is likely to be around £120 million per week averaged over the eight-month tourism season. We have not attempted to apportion this overall estimate to individual regional tourist boards or individual tourism destinations, such as Henley, since the available data do not enable this to be
20 Jul 2001 : Column: 751W
done with a sufficient degree of reliability. We are currently updating this estimate in the light of the latest available data.
Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the appointment of the Chairman of the Independent Football Commission will be made. [6448]
Tessa Jowell: The Government have agreed to the request from the football authorities to appoint the first chairman of the Independent Football Commissionthe new self-regulatory body which they are establishing. The process of appointing the chairman is being conducted in the open and transparent manner that applies to public appointments. An independent public appointments advisory panel was convened to consider the applications which had been received by the Department for this post. The panel has made its recommendations to me. I am currently considering them. I therefore hope to make an announcement on the appointment shortly. I shall place a copy of any announcement I make on this issue in the Libraries of both Houses.
Mr. Colman: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will respond to the recommendations in the report on the five-year review of the Royal Parks Agency; and if she will make a statement. [6513]
Tessa Jowell: The report's main conclusion and recommendation was that responsibility for the royal parks should remain with central Government and that the Royal Parks Agency (RPA) should continue to manage them although the Department should work towards establishing the royal parks as a non-departmental public body (NDPB). The Government accept this recommendation and would like to see early progress to the change of status to NDPB. It is our intention, therefore, to establish the royal parks as an NDPB from 1 April 2002. I shall retain responsibility for the management of the royal parks but will be seeking Parliament's approval of an order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to delegate my day-to-day responsibilities to the new body. The Government have accepted all the recommendations in the report for improving the efficiency of the Royal Parks Agency. The chief executive has already achieved much in implementing these. This work will continue as part of the preparations for NDPB status. The Government accept the recommendation that the royal parks should be policed by a uniformed force. My Department and the Home Office are discussing the future relationship between the royal park constabulary and the Metropolitan police service so as to ensure the most efficient and cost-effective policing of the royal parks.
The Government believe that NDPB status, with the management of the royal parks guided by an expert and experienced board, will provide the royal parks with greater freedom and focus to continue to build on the high standard of presentation of the royal parks which has improved even further in recent years.
20 Jul 2001 : Column: 752W
Mr. Colman: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will publish the annual report and financial statements of the New Millennium Experience Company for the period ending 31 December 2000. [6514]
Dr. Howells: I have today placed copies of the New Millennium Experience Company's annual report and financial statements for the period ending 31 December 2000 in the Libraries of both Houses.
Mr. Colman: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made on the review of Sport England. [6515]
Mr. Caborn: As part of this Department's programme of quinquennial reviews of its public bodies, I am today announcing the conclusion of the first stage of the Sport England quinquennial review.
Sport England is responsible for developing and maintaining the infrastructure of sport in England, for distributing national lottery funds for sport in England and for five national sports centres. The first stage of the review concludes that the development of sport is important to both the Government's wider objectives and the public, and that Sport England should continue its unique role in the development of sport in England on behalf of the Government but at arm's length from it.
The first stage of the review has made a series of recommendations for consideration in the second stage of the review to enable Sport England to further become a responsive and high quality organisation responsible for the development of sport in England and play its part in implementing the proposals set out in the Government's plan for sport published earlier this year.
We aim to complete the second stage of the review in the autumn. Copies of the first stage report have been placed in the Libraries of the both Houses.
|Next Section
|Home Page

subset: commoncrawl


text: Motor Sales was established in the year 1955 by Late Mr. H C Gupta, a pioneer in the field of automobile retailing in India. Since its inception Motor Sales has been delivering excellence in sales and service for Tata vehicles in Uttar Pradesh. We are now focused on the Tata passenger car business with the entire range of vehicles including Indigo eCS, Indica eV2, Indica Vista D90, Club Class Manza, Nano, Sumo Gold, Safari Storme Tata Zest, Tata Bolt ,Tata Tigor ,Tata Tiago ,Tata Wizz,Tata Hexa and Tata Nexon . Our sales team is dedicated to serve and provide you with all the information and assistance required during your purchase. Read more... Test drive Price Quote Loans Service


text:
Usluga na ovoj ruti bit će uskoro dostupna.
Norway is a great place to not only enjoy nature and Northern lights but also to start a life in. If you are trying to find an easy way to ship packages or suitcases iz Francuske to Norway, you are in the right place. Eurosender partners with the most renowned shipping companies in Europe, so that your packages or suitcases can be safely delivered in Norway, while you save money and time on shipping.
Do you need to send a package to the land of fjords and trolls? With Eurosender, shipping parcels iz Francuske to Norway is a piece of cake for companies and private customers alike. We do everything for you – from choosing the best possible logistics companies for shipping your parcels to making sure that you get the best prices for the service. Our online booking system is not only extremely easy to use, but it also immediately informs you the price for the route that you choose. What is more, it always shows the best possible price, no matter if you are a regular customer or someone trying to send their first package. But shipping with Eurosender is not just a cheap and reliable option, it is also an easy and straightforward process. Place the order online and you are done! And if you find yourself in need of additional information, our friendly and responsive customer support team has all the right answers for you.
Sending a suitcase iz Francuske to Norway should not include hours of comparing different offers and possibilities. For this reason, our platform instantly shows you the best price we can give you – with insurance already included. It does not matter if you are planning an important business meeting in Oslo or eagerly awaiting a trip to the mighty fjords, sending your luggage is definitely one of the best decisions you can make before leaving for Norway. You avoid the risk of having to pay for excess luggage at the airport while being able to pinpoint the exact location for your precious belongings to be delivered. You can also be sure that shipping a suitcase with Eurosender will spare your wallet and nerves. The reason for this is simple: we negotiate the best possible rates with only the most reliable logistics companies and thus make sure that all the suitcases are delivered in a safe and timely manner.
Eurosender's pallet shipping service is the best solution for everyone who needs to send a pallet iz Francuske to Norway. We will join forces with one of our trusted partner companies and find the perfect transport solution for you. Rest assured, though, that the price will also be the most affordable one. You might wonder if it is possible to get an offer for such service. In this case, we are glad to inform you that our platform enables you to get immediate quotes for certain transport routes while our freight department can prepare a tailored offer for anyone with special requirements in no time. Extra insurance is also available at very little cost. If you are not sure about something, do not worry. Just contact our freight specialists and ask them to explain everything to you. They will be more than happy to do it.
Ako trebate poslati paket, kovčeg ili organizirati teretni prijevoz iz Francuske, mi vam možemo zajedno s našim logističkim partnerima potražiti najbolju ponudu. Kurir će preuzeti pošiljku s bilo koje lokacije u Francuskoj. Vi samo morate pripremiti paket, kovčeg ili paletu za slanje. Nakon preuzimanja pošiljku možete pratiti online.
Whether you want to explore the beautiful Oslo, hike the mountain in Bergen or visit any place in Norway, you can book affordable shipping services on Eurosender's platform. Send your packages or suitcases to Oslo, Trondheim, Tromso or any other city in Norway to enjoy the freedom of traveling without having to worry about your belongings.
Logistički partneri


text:
Global Flights Launch ViaSat Broadband Enroute Communications Network
New private network serves VIP aircraft with continuous broadband satellite coverage over high traffic routes from the U.S. to Europe, the Mediterranean, and Middle East
CARLSBAD, Calif., Oct. 24, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- A new network that offers continuous, high-speed connectivity for VIP and other high-value aircraft traveling to international locations has begun operation with multiple global flights. The exclusive, private network from ViaSat Inc. (NASDAQ: VSAT) provides higher grade service compared to other options, with guaranteed access and data rates. The airborne broadband service covers CONUS, the North Atlantic, Europe, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and parts of Eastern Africa.
(Photo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20091216/VIASATLOGO)
Applications such as email, video teleconferencing, messaging, access to government and public networks, mapping and mission planning are common to these airborne missions, but the broadband experience on the ViaSat network is similar to DSL or cable service. This dedicated network guarantees access and data rates in excess of 6 Mbps to the aircraft and 500 kbps from the aircraft using airborne antennas as small as 30 cm. Based on the new ViaSat ArcLight® 2 mobile satellite system, the new in-flight system offers unprecedented efficiency and access for critical government missions.
"Airborne satcom presents unique system requirements as the aircraft crosses geo-spatial boundaries and traverses fixed satellite beams," said Gary Johnson, director of ViaSat Airborne Networks. "These flights proved the high performance of our network with seamless transitions between multiple satellites and between the dedicated network and our worldwide commercial Yonder® network, demonstrating redundancy and failover capabilities as well."
"This is part of our vision to provide government users high-performance, high data rate networks and services for airborne routes across the globe," added Paul Baca, GM of ViaSat Global Mobile Broadband. "It augments our Yonder service, which shares Ku-band satellite capacity with general aviation, maritime, and high-speed rail applications."
ArcLight terminals are flying daily ISR missions on hundreds of U.S. Government aircraft, accumulating over 500,000 flight hours.
About ViaSat (www.viasat.com)
ViaSat delivers fast, secure communications, Internet, and network access to virtually any location for consumers, governments, enterprise, and the military. The company offers fixed and mobile satellite network services including Exede® by ViaSat, which features ViaSat-1, the world's highest capacity satellite; service to more than 1,750 mobile platforms, including Yonder® Ku-band mobile Internet; satellite broadband networking systems; and network-centric military communication systems and cyber security products for the U.S. and allied governments. ViaSat also offers communication system design and a number of complementary products and technologies. Based in Carlsbad, California, ViaSat has established a number of worldwide locations for customer service, network operations, and technology development.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements that are subject to the safe harbors created under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward looking statements include statements about mobile broadband performance, data rates, efficiency and access. ViaSat wishes to caution you that there are some factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, including but not limited to: contractual problems, product defects, manufacturing issues or delays, regulatory issues, technologies not being developed according to anticipated schedules, or that do not perform according to expectations; and increased competition and other factors affecting the communications industry generally. In addition, please refer to the risk factors contained in ViaSat's SEC filings available at www.sec.gov, including ViaSat's most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date on which they are made. ViaSat undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements for any reason.
ArcLight is a registered trademark of ViaSat Inc.
Yonder is a registered service mark of ViaSat Inc.
SOURCE ViaSat Inc.


text:
The study shows how tumor cells (green) reorganize collagen into long fibers (blue) along which tumor cells can travel to blood vessels (red) and eventually spread to the rest of the body (metastasis).
Image credit: Madeleine Oudin and Jeff Wyckoff
The study shows how tumor cells that have a particular version of the Mena protein - an invasive form called MenaINV - can remodel their cell environment to enable their passage into blood vessels and spread through the body.
In the journal Cancer Discovery, researchers from the David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge also reveal that breast cancer patients with higher levels of MenaINV have poorer survival.
Senior author Frank Gertler, a professor of biology, says if we could find a way to block MenaINV, perhaps we could stop metastasis. He adds:
"That's something that I think would be very promising, because we know that when we genetically remove MenaINV, the tumors become nonmetastatic."
For metastasis to happen, two types of change need to take place: one in the tumor cells and the other in their environment. The study reveals new insights about both of these.
Previous research has already revealed that a structure protein called fibronectin, which forms part of the extracellular matrix or scaffolding that supports cells, is found in particularly high concentrations around the edges of tumors and near blood vessels.
To be able to reach blood vessels, cancer cells move along a "gradient" of fibronectin concentration - from low to high. However, to have "traction" along this gradient, the cells themselves need a way to "grip" onto it. This is where MenaINV comes in.
'Highways for cells to migrate on'
There is a segment in the MenaINV protein - not present in the normal version - that helps it bind more strongly onto alpha-5 integrin, a receptor protein found on the surface of tumor cells and nearby support cells. This receptor also recognizes fibronectin.
When MenaINV attaches to the receptor, it boosts the binding of fibronectin to the same receptors. This has an interesting effect on fibronectin. Normally, the structure protein is a tangle of fibers, but when it binds to cell surfaces, it stretches out in long bundles.
The stretched-out fibronectin stimulates another extracellular matrix protein - collagen - to organize into stiff threads that radiate from the edges of the tumor. More aggressive tumors typically have this feature - which allows tumor cells to migrate toward blood vessels.
First author Madeleine Oudin, a post-doctoral researcher at the Koch Institute, explains:
"If you have curly, coiled collagen, that's associated with a good outcome, but if it gets realigned into these really straight long fibers, that provides highways for these cells to migrate on."
Dr. Oudin and colleagues found that cells in mice with the invasive form of Mena were better able to follow the fibronectin gradient and travel along the collagen pathways toward blood vessels.
In another part of the study, where they looked at data from breast cancer patients, the researchers found that higher levels of MenaINV and fibronectin are linked to metastasis and earlier death. No such link was found with high levels of normal Mena.
Antibodies that detect MenaINV
In previous work, Prof. Gertler's team had already developed antibodies that can detect normal and invasive Mena, and they are now preparing to test them on biopsy samples from patients.
The team hopes a test based on these antibodies could help decide if a patient's tumor is likely to spread or not, and help select the best treatment.
Another avenue that the study opens up is the development of drugs that block MenaINV as a way to stop metastasis.
Preliminary investigations suggest MenaINV plays a similar role in lung and colon cancers as in breast cancer. The team plans to look into this further and also investigate the abnormal protein's role in other types of cancer.
The researchers also want to find out how cells "choose" between the normal and the invasive form of Mena, and how other proteins in the extracellular matrix might influence cell migration.
Meanwhile, from a study that looks at the process of metastasis a bit further down the line, Medical News Today recently learned how barring exit from blood vessels may offer a way to stop breast cancer spread.


text:
The Road To School Readiness
When Basildon babies babble, play and laugh with you, you're helping them on their way to being School Ready.
Basildon children are READY!....
R is for RESILIENT, adaptable and always willing to try;
E is for ENQUIRING, curious, asking questions and exploring;
A is for ASSURED, confident in their own abilities; independent in their self-care;
D is for DETERMINED, striving to improve and showing pride at success;
Y is for YOUNG, eager to learn and full of potential.
...and when feeling safe and secure, Basildon children will....
- happily separate from their parent and carer
- express their needs and communicate their ideas
- communicate with others developing friendship groups
- try new things
- be prepared to get dirty and messy
- develop a growing awareness of the world around them and other people
- celebrate their family and those of others
- have a developing phonological awareness, enjoy being playful with sounds , rhymes and words
- begin to take turns and develop an understanding of sharing
- respect others , resources and their environment
Campaign poster: Basildon School Readiness Project - The road to school readiness A4 poster [1Mb]
Links to guidance on how make sure your little one is school ready....
What does School Ready mean? Starting school is an exciting time for children and their parents, but it can be worrying too. As parents you will want to make sure that your child starts school with the skills they need. Talk Listen Cuddle (TLC) TLC is an Essex campaign website for pre-school children and their parents, carers and families. TLC aims to help give young children the best start in life by developing through playful learning at home. Family Hubs Family Hubs offer an invaluable range of services to families with pre-school age children aged five years and under. Help for Parents, Guardians and Carers Links to a range of organisations that provide practical help, advice and support to the parents, guardians and carers of pre-school age children aged five years and under. Children's Health The children's health services listed here offer provide practical help, advice and support to families with pre-school age children aged five years and under. Basildon School Readiness Project Basildon School Readiness Project has been established to address concerns, by schools, parents and early years centres, that children are not always school ready. School Readiness - Basildon Education Partnership (BEP) Basildon Education Partnership (BEP) provides online Continuing Professional Development support for all staff involved with teaching and learning in BEP schools. School Readiness - Training and Support for Practitioners News, information and events for practitioners in the Basildon School Readiness initiative.


text:
2042 Franklin Street, Vancouver MLS®: R2243834
Attention developers - this is the one you've been waiting for! Excellent land assembly potential as this lot is being sold in conjunction with 2046 Franklin St. The two lots have a combined frontage of 49.5 ft with a 2.4 FSR. Located in one of Vancouver's fastest rising neighbourhoods, this is a perfect opportunity to get into the market before more trendy shops, breweries, and restaurants open up in the 'hood.
Taxes (2017): $4,127.08Amenities: Storage
- ClthWsh
- Dryr
- Frdg
- Stve
- Refrigerator
- Stove
Site Influences
- Central Location
- Recreation Nearby
- Shopping Nearby
Similar Listings
Listed By: Blu Realty / Macdonald Realty
Disclaimer: Listing data is based in whole or in part on data generated by the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver and Fraser Valley Real Estate Board which assumes no responsibility for its accuracy.


text:
SeaGahm Charter
The beauty of sailing is that anyone can do it. Join for an unforgettable sailing experience with SeaGahm Charter.
Programme services
For a perfect sailing event, a fast ocean racer/cruiser Baltic 43 or a catamaran Lagoon 420, both known as top of their class. There is something for everyone, experienced sailors and beginners are both quaranteed to enjoy activities onboard.
Contact Information
- firstname.lastname@example.com
- +358 400 445 929
- www.seagahm.com


text:
Steve Perisho is the librarian for New Testament
Office: #128 on the Main Level
Phone: 206-281-2417 | Email: email@example.com
Religious and Theological Abstracts - Index Area, SPU Library.
Elenchus of Biblica - The most comprehensive of the various indices to the literature of biblical studies. Lemieux Library Periodicals, Seattle University.
Index to Jewish Periodicals - A University of Washington database.
3307 3rd Ave West, Seattle WA 98119-1997
Report an Accessibility Issue
Contact | Emergency Info
Founded in 1891, Seattle Pacific University is a leading Christian university that equips people to engage the culture and change the world. Learn more
Connect With Us
© 2018 Seattle Pacific University


text:
Nicole Scherzinger is reportedly in talks to play Mary Magdalene in a new big screen adaptation of hit musical Jesus Christ Superstar.
The pop star and TV talent show judge is being lined up to play Jesus' female disciple in a re-imagining of Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's rock opera, which was made into a film in 1973.
Scherzinger has been in negotiations with Lord Webber since earlier this year (11) after falling in love with the music, according to Britain's Sun.
A source tells the publication, "Nicole is a big fan of the songs and was desperate to be involved. She can sing and dance equally well so musicals are a natural step forward."
Singer Yvonne Elliman played the part in the original film.


text:
STATE – Officials at the FEMA/State Joint Field Office announced that the Disaster Recovery Centers in New Jersey will be closed for Columbus Day, Monday, Oct. 10. They will re-open on Tuesday, Oct. 11 and resume normal hours of 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Assistance is available from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. by calling the Helpline, 1-800-621-3362.
Anyone affected by the disaster may register for assistance by calling FEMA's toll-free registration line at 1-800-621-3362 (FEMA). Those with access or functional needs and who use a TTY, call 1-800-462-7585. Video Relay Service and 711 are also available by calling 1-800-621-3362. Hours are 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily. Multilingual operators are available. Register anytime online at www.fema.gov or m.fema.gov.
Residents can find the DRC closest to them online at: http://asd.fema.gov/inter/locator/home.htm.
The deadline to register is Oct. 31.
Connect with NJTODAY.NET
Join NJTODAY.NET's free Email List to receive occasional updates delivered right to your email address!


text:
Southeast Michigan's finest and most complete furniture Restoration Company.
Guaranteed Furniture Services, Inc. is a full service furniture restoration company providing services to residential and commercial customers in Southeast Michigan for over 45 years.
Combined with our commitment to superior quality and unparalleled customer service, Guaranteed Furniture enjoys an outstanding reputation in the restoration industry.
Specializing in furniture refinishing, reupholstering and all types of furniture repair, Guaranteed Furniture is the company to call for all of your restoration needs
Who Uses Our Services?
Home and business owners, interior designers, architects, facilities managers, estate and house managers, business professionals, insurance adjusters, antique aficionados, moving companies & furniture manufacturers all trust Guaranteed Furniture with their most demanding projects.
When no one else can repair it or you want the job done right, even our competitors say "Call Guaranteed Furniture".
Please take a moment to browse our web site and learn about all of the services Guaranteed Furniture has to offer.


text:
-by Samir Kumar (Creative Strategist)
Why Simple
The advent of social media age has left people with less time and lot of information. It's impacting our lives in ways that we are still grappling with. There's noise. And there are self-created compulsions. All of us are creating, posting and consuming content: a lot of physical world social behavioral aspects are mutating in myriad ways. We are keeping ourselves awake, attached and addicted, in many cases, to our screens. It's but natural for marketers, and those in the business of branding to act swiftly and adapt even faster to reach out to our audience out there. It appeared as if there are colonies of consumers, neatly segregated, with every detail of their likes and behaviours out in the open and we could just go and feed them with the right content and engage them in a richer, more interactive environment. But no. It's not that simple. To do that is a must. But that's just the beginning. Imagine yourself at a dinner table. There are a bunch of likeminded people seated together and everybody's talking. You are one of them. How do you get noticed, stay relevant and interesting, get liked, get them to talk about you…maybe just take your name once in a while? The answer, truly, lies in having a good narrative, a good story, being interesting, come what may…but there's something that's more fundamental. And the year, 2015 could actually be a movement in that direction. It's simplicity. The problem is that the table is too large, too many people are interesting, there's too much talk and too much interaction. So the need actually is to first be simple.
And that goes all the way back to the fundamentals of branding. Identity, naming, logo, concepts, even the way to do good: every aspect of what a brand stands for will perhaps have to be seen through the prism of simplicity.
It's there, already: examples of simple
Let's look at some of the big and small developments that have been happening around in our world with some of our most iconic brands. These seem unconnected on the face of it, but let's see if there's a thread. Apple has dropped the iconic "i" naming convention. We now have Apple TV, Apple Watch and Apple Pay. Starbucks simplified its identity design to the simplest possible. Cathay Pacific just kept the wings and the swoosh in its design and dropped everything else. Ryanair, that stood for everything customer unfriendly (read posts like, "you won't get a refund, so fuck off!), has suddenly reduced the number of clicks to book a flight from 17 to five clicks! Maersk is sharing some real cool ship-in-action images on Twitter. And Google recently adopted an elementary naming approach in its extensions – Google Glass, Google Wallet and Google Play.
Simple: in naming & design
So what's at play here? Naming, for one, is really getting simple. There are no layering in the way brands are calling themselves out: it's Apple and it's TV; it's Google and it's Wallet. Ditto with design. In 2011, there was a visual joke floating around about the future evolution of Starbucks identity. And when you are sharing posts, it could be something as simple as well-shot ship-in-action images. The common thread is that, fundamentally, brands are becoming and behaving simpler. And while most of us have been talking about how the number of clicks and taps need to be lesser, give visual signals, make it easier to find the content on your website, etc…what we are moving towards, is brands becoming simpler fundamentally; and it touches every aspect of every aspect. We have already covered two important aspects of naming and logo design. As professionals and practitioners, I think that when the time will come to choose between concept-names like 'currents' or straightforward names like 'newsstand' we will choose the latter. And create more such examples. In design, we will try and explore the simplest narrative possible. And because naming and the logo design is just the tip of the iceberg, we will mostly be looking at creating some really simple narratives, too.
Tone of voice
Simplicity is reflecting in the tone of voice, too. "I'm-someone-like-you" is the new brand speak. The oral care line Hello Products has rocked the hygiene market by making toothpaste and mouthwash sound utterly friendly and inviting. And while simplicity in naming and identity will get us noticed, understood, it's the way we say 'hi', that'll really get us invited to the table. We will have to be chatting up, the way our customers do: because social means people, and brands need to be like people, to be social.
The simple approach to branding is also redefining trends in packaging. Stone Creek Coffee's popular Lab Series includes the elevation, harvest date, and name of the farmer who grew the beans. Packaging is being driven by exemplifying the meaning and values behind the brands. With label reading, facts-up-front, brand origin stories, brands are transforming their packaging to make it quick, clear, and easy for consumers to learn all they can about their products.
Brand Portfolios
Simple, is further defining the way we look at structuring our brand portfolios. P&G is scrapping 100 brands. It's a drastic shift in approach for the world's biggest advertiser, which had been focused on expansion that had seen its products cannibalise one another's sales. Now P&G can focus more on the brands that remain.
And action
And perhaps the most important aspect of driving simple, is in action. When HUL innovates a product that enables me to save buckets of water while rinsing laundry, it's an action that I relate personally to. Addressing global water crisis is an abstract idea, saving buckets is simple. So is the impact of enabling more school days through hand wash. As brands and practitioners, we will have to look at dethroning CSR from a hallowed abstract "we-save-the-word" space, and bring it down to simpler, more tangible expressions and interactions.
So, when Lana Del Ray shares simple gif images on Tumblr, Maersk shares ship's images on Twitter, Google goes elementary in naming, Stanford teaches business on Tumblr, P&G goes for leaner brand portfolio, HUL burns hand wash messages on rotis, the essential thread is of simplicity. Authentic, honest, relatable and approachable – with simplicity taking the lead in 2015.


text:
Cut tubes of calamari into 1-inch rings and cut the tentacles in half. In a large pot bring water and 2 tablespoons of salt to a boil. Carefully place the calamari in the pot. Cook the calamari until tender, about 2 minutes. Be sure not to overcook.
Strain the calamari and place in a mixing bowl. Add all of the ingredients and mix well. Add salt and pepper, to taste. Serve the calamari cold.
Check Out Our
Get a sneak-peek of the new Food Network recipe page and give us your feedback.See it Now!


text:
If you're sick of gridlock, blame the Constitution
MinnPost illustration by Jaime Anderson
One in a series of articles.
What's bothering you? And what's causing the bother?
Judging by polls (and what else do we have to go by?), a lot of things are bothering us about our politics, our government, the direction of our country, the choices we have in the coming election, the quality of the discourse, the way the campaign is conducted.
As the calendar creeps closer toward the "fiscal cliff" (also known as "taxmageddon"), let's throw out a couple of bothersome examples: Gridlock, brinksmanship, hyper-partisanship, having to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Why can't they get along or compromise or put the national interest ahead of their political squabbling?
If you are a Republican, you may also have been majorly bothered by the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the major elements of the "Obamacare" law. If you are a Democrat, you may be upset about how close the (conservative-dominated) Supreme Court came to striking down that landmark law, or you may still be upset about a different, slightly older, 5-4 Supreme Court ruling, in the Citizens United case, that created the current superPAC-ification of our already out-of-control campaign finance system. In the term that just ended, the justices declined to change their minds about that one.
If you are a Floridian or Ohioan or resident of any of the eight to 10 designated swing states (and assuming you don't own a TV or radio station), you may be bothered by the wholesale purchase of air time in your community for the endless repetition of scary-voiced half-truths designed to make you want to vote against Barack Obama or Mitt Romney in November, either of whom (depending on the ad) is a threat to your life, liberty or happiness, or least to your Medicare, and everything that's good and decent about America. If you are a resident of Minnesota or any one of 40 or so other states that have been designated as non-battlegrounds, you may feel slightly neglected, taken for granted and maybe irrelevant in the race for president.
Well, we could go on, but let's stop for now with those examples. What is causing these botherances?
We tend to attribute them to what we take to be the proximate cause, namely the most recent actions by the current actors. Perfectly reasonable.
And — because of the worshipful attitude Americans bring to the founders of the Republic and the Framers of the U.S. Constitution — we are unlikely to think about the degree to which the botherances are rooted in the rules and the system that the Framers gave us in 1787.
But, at the risk of committing sacrilege, to the extent that they are about the way our government is functioning or malfunctioning, our botherances are rooted in the system, as written by the Framers, as amended, as revised by various Supreme Court interpretations and as evolved by other slightly mysterious means.
A lot of aspects of the Constitutional system are invisible to us because we are so used to them. Since this is a presidential election year, the Electoral College system is a good example, and as this series progresses the sources and history of that strange system will be under the microscope. But I can tell you this for starters: A great many new democracies have created systems of government since 1787, and they have had the benefit of the U.S. example. They haven't adopted anything like the Electoral College system. In fact, none of the newer democracies has embraced the U.S. Constitution as the model they wanted to follow.
And many things that most Americans think are in the Constitution are not — at least not explicitly. For example, read Article III, establishing the Judicial Branch. Not a syllable of it grants the Supreme Court the power to overrule the more democratic legislative and executive branches on what laws they can pass or how to administer them. This is at least an awkward omission, considering how fundamental to our understanding of the balance of power this authority is. And this should be especially awkward to those conservatives who take the position that the federal government has no powers other than those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.
For today, let's focus on the "gridlock," which may rank at the top of the list of currently fashionable complaints.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell probably regrets having said in 2010 that his top priority is to make Barack Obama a one-term president because his statement has become the symbol for the idea that the Republicans are willing to sabotage the economy if necessary to set them up to win the 2012 election. But he's stuck with it. And it offers — at least to liberal/Democratic ears — a simple explanation for gridlock. We have gridlock because the Republicans won't compromise because they want Obama to look bad so they can win the next election.
For the moment, I'm not so interested in how true and/or fair that summary is (although much deeper poli-sci thinkers than myself subscribe to it). I want to raise a more fundamental question.
It's the most natural thing in the world for Mitch McConnell to want his party's candidate to win the next election, and to do what he can to bring that about. Don't fault him for that. Winning elections is, in a sense, why political parties exist. But McConnell is only the minority leader of the U.S. Senate. How can he, in a democratic system, bring about gridlock?
Well, the problem is that our system is built for gridlock. It creates more choke points along the path from bill to law, and empowers more groups to stop the action, than just about any other in the world.
So start with the fact that McConnell's party holds a majority in the House, and no legislation can be enacted without the support of the House. It used to be fairly common in U.S. politics for one party to hold the presidency and control both houses of Congress. Now it is relatively rare (although Obama and the Democrats had that situation in 2009-10).
If a party holds just one of those three towers of power, it's fairly easy for that party — if they choose that strategy — to see to it that nothing much happens.
There are many democracies around the world. Some of them have two houses of the legislature, like ours. In some of those, one of the houses is relatively weak (the House of Lords in Britain and the Senate in Canada leap to mind).
Choke points
But, if you want to create the maximum number of choke points, you should have two houses and require every bill to have majority support in each house.
And, in our system, even legislation that has the support of majorities of both houses plus the White House cannot become law if 41 of the 100 senators use the filibuster to block it (unless it is one of the relatively few bills that are allowed to circumvent the filibuster through the hilariously misnamed loophole called "reconciliation").
The U.S. filibuster tradition, which deserves a whole separate story of its own, is unique. University of Minnesota political scientist David Samuels, who studies comparative democratic systems around the world, says he doesn't know of anything much like it.
Then — as the Supreme Court case on the Obamacare law reminded us — even a bill that has run the gantlet of passage by both houses, overcoming or circumventing (in this case it was some of both) a filibuster in the Senate and dodging the potential for a veto by the president, can still be defeated by the least democratic branch, the Supreme Court.
Yes, I know. The Supreme Court, by a one-vote margin, did not strike down the law, although it did substantially change the law in a way that the Congressional Budget Office projects will result in about three million Americans being without health insurance who would probably have been covered if the Supreme Court had let the law stand in its entirety.
The experts on comparative democratic systems around the world who have been advising me on this series generally agree that the U.S. system grants more power for the courts to overrule the elected branches — and that the U.S. Supreme Court does so more often — than anywhere else.
Few things, if any, are more widely and secularly worshipped by Americans than our Constitution, which is the symbol, nay the apotheosis, of our system of government, which our speechifiers routinely declare to be the greatest such system ever developed by humans.
And yet, if you look around the world where many democratic systems of government now exist, ours erects more barriers to the enactment of a law than any other.
Yes, the gridlock that is bothering you is the immediate result of some fairly recent and important changes in how our political parties play the game. For most of recent history, the parties have been broad, overlapping coalitions. In the days when there were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, it made sense that there would be bipartisan coalitions for and against many things.
Now the two parties are ideologically further apart, more ideologically coherent, more disciplined, more willing to vote as a bloc, and perhaps they now strike the balance in a different place between what's best for the country and what's best for their party's chances in the next election.
But they are still playing the game within the rules.
And the rules are established in (or near, or at least under) the Constitution. If we want to understand the source of what's bothering us, we have to be willing to trace the bother to its source. In many cases, that source lies within the Constitution or, in some cases, to aspects of the system that most Americans probably think are clearly rooted in the Constitution
Well, this little screed — Or do I mean tone poem? You tell me — is the introductory installment in an ongoing series that will bravely seek to explore the connection between the news and the olds, between what's bothering us now and the system in which the botherances are, at least in many cases, rooted.
Get MinnPost's top stories in your inbox
Related Tags:
About the Author:
Comments (33)
Not that making socialism "look bad"
is necessarily a bad thing, but providing obsticles to his wholesale takeover of our nation's health care system is *exactly and precisely* the sort of use our founders intended our system of checks and balances be put to.
We've seen, time after time, when an issue is of obvious value to the overwhelming majority of Americans, legislation vitrually flies out of Washington. "Gridlock" has gotten a bad rap. In day to day circumstances, (in the absence of national crisis), in my opinion, it is in fact, a very healthy status quo for government to exist in.
I agree!
At least to the extent that a system of checks and balances was definitely a planned part of our constitutional republic. The Founders were afraid of a runaway government, and clearly preferred inaction to precipitate action.
Whether we have gone beyond their original plan with things like 'filibusteros' (pirates in the original Spanish) is another question.
Public Pressure
The most effective way of bypassing gridlock is firm public pressure. The biggest reason that Obamacare was bottled up was because the public was against it. GOP senators could stand on principle and hold it up - and know that their voters would view them favorably because of it. The same thing wasn't true on the Dem side where votes for Obamacare cost seats.
This is true across the board. The Patriot Act (which I'd kill in a minute) passed quickly because of wide public support. It has been reauthorized again and again because that support continues. If the public were to be convinced that it's a bad deal, support would erode and the votes would go away.
The reason we have so much gridlock is because we have an electorate that is deeply divided on many issues. I'm fine with waiting until some things are more truly decided, even if that means confusion and delay. I'd rather not have one party be able to ram things through because they got 51% of the vote.
Sure. Play the blame game.
I'd rather blame Mr. Black and his "liberal" media.
The difference between the
The difference between the time when the rule were written and now is the speed of communication, actions, news, consequences.
The least hobbled activities are military which has no small part of the recent debacles of the decades in which military action was substituted for policy.
"Tone Poem"
I have to say that this is the most meandering and unsatisfying post that I've read from Mr. Black. What's your point?
If I go by the title of this piece for the point, the premise is tenuous, at best. While it's true that the Constitution isn't always incredibly clear, the recent gridlock is the making of political foolishness of still-living politicians, not the failings of long-dead founders.
The founders weren't superheroes--they couldn't foresee beyond the immediate future. Besides not being able to predict how American culture would change, the founders couldn't have predicted such widespread apathy. In their day, politics was THE topic for well-educated and landed white men of society. It didn't matter that the rest of society was uneducated--they couldn't vote. And, although it was clear that the founders expected a broadening of franchise, they also expected an equally broadened access to education. They wrongly presumed that, with education and opportunity, people naturally tended toward serious consideration of politics and good government. Alas, while more people have direct access to the federal machinery, the general population hasn't bothered to take responsibility with their education, particularly in good government. Rather, the general population has resorted to letting their politicians tell them what to think.
This mess is the direct result of Americans' reliance on the political "Easy Button." We have let money determine who sits in Washington, not our votes. That's easy enough, Americans vote at a dismally low rate, while those who gain the most from corrupt politicians have the money to buy them. That is not the fault of the Constitution.
The Voice of Reason
After reading all the comments to Eric Black article your comments are closer to the main problem not stated; ignorance of the Constitution. We truly live in the age of the "Easy Button" and unenlightened mass political views of ersatz Constitutionalists.
The writers of the Constitution wrote a document that not only covered their present predicaments but one that would stand the test of time. It is a blueprint of governance that was malleable, but not easily changeable, that could be standard for posterity and rule.
To Rachel K.;
The Constitution is a blueprint for checks and balances to our system. Over 225 years have gone by and the document holds basically true to its intended intent. Changes[amendments], yes; but with long discourse and procedural ratifications. Constitutional amendments are the final statement or checks-&-balances on hard to define issues. Amendments generally fill an unsaid gap in the original documents. The "Bill of Rights" amendments support this premise of filling in shortfalls.
Now comes 2012. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry; or, Jane, Sue, or Michelle who scream that anything not to their liking is "unconstitutional" or is caused by opposing political "socialistic" viewpoints that go beyond what the "old" Constitution states are showing their inane ignorances of the document they profess to represent. The same holds true for the masses who skipped studying their social studies, civics, or political science classes concerning the Constitution. [Funny, how newly naturalized US citizens know more about the Constitution, after passing a simple knowledge test, than the very native-born citizens who espouse knowing it!]
Rachel, there are some minor points we could discuss but en total I feel the same way you do. The upcoming general election is going to be a difficult one for one and all. However, trying to do candidate research has been near impossible because of the ersatz nebulous political diatribes and the inane ignorances of the candidates who try to profess Constitutional viewpoints or statutory familiarities.
What's even crazier are the viewpoints of politicians supporting, in Minnesota's case; issues of conscience/lifestyle or "legal necessity"; amendments to the MN state constitution where statutory enactments are already in the law books! Doesn't anyone realize, regardless of the issues, the constitutional and legal ramifications to these ill-crafted MN amendments? Or, the legal minefields that will result if tweaking or modifications to the standing statutes are needed in the future? In other words, the MN Legislature, having duly elected, in the name of being "Constitutional", decided to let the electorate decide on legal procedural enactments that they were too lazy to do. "C.Y.A. or C.Y.B." [cover your political behind] seems to be the legislative course of elective duty under the guise of being Constitutional!
The same holds true for the US Congress, CYB seems to rule the governing day with special interests adding to the legislative ambiguities and ignorance. Again, under the guise of being Constitutional. The Constitution, I feel, was never intended to be a "living" document. It is a blueprint, guide, for governance for its readers to go by.
The three branches of government; the Executive, the Judicial, and the Legislative; each have their parameters in which to govern. In this "Easy Button" age of alleged knowing constitutional [systematic?] procedures, the Constitutional defined parameters are getting blurry. [ IE--recent criticisms of the US Supreme Court decisions that are being called statutory enactments by the courts.] Gridlock in any governmental process results when ignorances and radical extremism prevails.
Thus, Rachel, unless I am out in the cosmos, what you stated and how some of us feel and/or agree with you, our voices of reason seem out of place in this "Easy Button" society. Is this what the writers of the Constitution intended it to be? A disenfranchisement of the citizenry?
So far
…I vote for "tone poem" rather than "screed." I expect the series to be interesting reading, and it should generate quite a bit of commentary, as well. Many of the regulars in the comment boxes are interested in both specific policies and action on the one hand, and broader philosophical questions of governance on the other, hence Mr. Swift's and Mr. DeFor's initial reactions.
I'd toss aside Mr. Swift's casual condemnation of anything he doesn't like as "socialism," but beyond that, I think he's correct that, when the public really wants something done, it is often (though not always) done fairly expeditiously, even by a Congress that makes "do nothing" look like activity.
Mr. DeFor's comment offers some insight, I think, into what Mr. Swift is talking about. With a deeply divided public, it shouldn't be as much of a surprise as it seems to be that getting something done in Washington (and in a good many state capitals, as well) seems inordinately difficult. Part of that may well be due to the effects of political advertising (not just in campaign season, but overall), but perhaps part of it is also largely due to genuinely conflicted feelings on the part of the public. Immigration, taxes, foreign policy, and others on the national scale, and housing, property taxes, schools and other issues on a state and regional level, typically elicit genuine ambivalence on the part of a lot of people.
Not many rational people argue that, in the governmental sense, there's actually a "free lunch" in the form of a tax-free society, but how much governmental income is necessary and how it's to be spent is an argument as old as government itself among those willing to think about such things instead of simply riding their rhetoric into ideological battle.
Jim Kunstler (www.kunstler.com) argues – persuasively, I think – that we've built an unsustainable society, but there are plenty of others who'd take something fairly close to an opposite view, and unless the public at large has somehow been educated about the choices being made, and those that need to be made in the near future, it's pretty easy for us as a society to have political, economic and social expectations that aren't going to be met. Like the members of any other society, we're not very happy when our expectations turn out to be illusory, and especially so when there's little understanding of both how and why that's the case. I doubt that the Constitution is the be-all and end-all root cause of every problem we're facing, but I'm inclined to agree that there are structural issues in the society that make governing the nation more challenging in 2012 than it was in 1850, and the changes that have taken place since the Constitution was written might be more effectively dealt with if the general public were more familiar with the document.
It's the U.S. Senate Dummy!
It's the U.S. Senate that is dysfunctional. The U.S. Senate has a Constitutional obligation to pass a budget butt has not done so in over 3 years. The U.S. House has passed two budgets under Republican. l leadership since they took over the House Majority. The U.S. House also passed 27 jobs & the economy Bills that are wallowing in the U.S. Senate under Reid. Harry Reid and the Democratic controlled Senate is our problem.
If the roles were reversed
If the roles were reversed and the House was a hotbed of socialistic liberalism and the Senate was the preserve of sane Republicans, would you still be complaining about the Senate if they didn't want to pass through a very "liberal" budget?
If the roles were reversed new SUBMITTED BY NEAL ROVICK
Of course I would criticize the House for not passing a budget. In fact, I and may others did so in 2009 & 2010. That is the reason for the results from the 2010 election.
That's why the Senate exists
One intended function of the Constitution is to protect the rights of minority.
Remember that our nation was formed by European minority groups.
A basic goal of the founders was to create a federal government that would not be able to eliminate slavery. That's the point of the checks and balances system. The founders were actually successful in that; slavery had to be eliminated by the extra constitutional means of the Civil War. The sad thing is that while the particular rationale of the constitutional system is gone, {although the founders' dynamic continued long after the legal elimination of slavery, though various forms of de facto and de jure discrimination echoes of which continue to this day in among other things, the proposed voter ID amendment} we are still left with the intentionally, partially dysfunctional system they put in place.
American government doesn't work very well because the people who designed it, and put it into place didn't think it should, and they were good at their jobs.
The issue is broader than slavery
It's North vs. South.
The Southern States even then were aware that they were on the short end of the stick in terms of both population and industrial strength. Since many of the founders were Virginians, they loaded the system against Northern domination by setting up a two house system where the Senate provided a check on the House. In addition the Electoral College as originally structured (the states each had two votes, the method of choosing the electors was up to the individual states) functioned as a check on the more populous North.
The South was always full of rationalizations for their differences with the north. After all, everyone kine of knew slavery was evil so they engaged in campaigns of euphemism and misdirection. But in the end, it always came down to slavery. I don't know that the Southern legislators fully understood America's financial system. That was Hamilton's domain. They knew they didn't like banks, because farmers tend to land rich but cash poor. But other agricultural states didn't secede from the union. Minnesota for one, never left. The south wanted to balance the power of the north in Congress to protect slavery. Expanionst policy pre civil war revolved around that equation. Southern states had to be admitted in equal proportion to northern states.
familiarizing oneself with the document
and with the real issues in our society. The public was for the Patriot Act. But most people don't know its contents. And many people claim to be against the ACA, but if you press them, they admit they like most of its features. They don't understand the act in its overall consequences, and because it is complicated, they fall for some republican screeds (and they are screeds) that claim the "wholesale takeover of our health care system" by our administration. They should familiarize themselves about the law--but then, that would take away their false talking points.
It's time we took a look at our Constitution, but that won't happen in today's climate of reverence for a document few people are familiar with. And it was written with plenty of room for new interpretations. Otherwise, we would not need that apparently illegal court system to tell us what is constitutional and what is not.
I don't think you can expect a document written 225 years ago to cover all instances of political life today. Our founders among other things did not anticipate the revolutionary technological changes in our society. When they passed a law saying that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," they could have NO IDEA that a couple hundred years late, various unstable people could run around with AK47s with which to gun down politicians they don't like or bosses who fired them or university professors and students with whom they have a grudge.
Too bad we can't bring them back and ask them what they think now, what WERE their intentions back in 1787. But from my reading, they did not hold the Constitution sacred and inviolable. Wouldn't they have said so if they wanted that?
And there's question
whether the Second Amendment applies to individuals at all, since the wording is "the right of the people" -- a collective noun -- not the right of persons or of individuals.
Note that in Article 1 Section 2 the wording is "2. No person shall be a Representative...", so when the Founders wished to talk about individual rights as opposed to collective rights (maintaining a well regulated militia) they made it clear. I count 48 more instances of the word "person" in the Constitution. When the Constitution refers to individual rights it is stated clearly.
And that was the judicial consensus for over two centuries.
The book Winner Take All
The book Winner Take All Politics cites all the "choke points" where legislation can be strangled as they key to our gridlock and the extreme disparities in wealth we are now experiencing. That and the way Senators can now just threaten a filibuster without ever having to carry one out. I'd much prefer a parliamentary system. George W. Bush would never have become Prime Minister in such a system.
You'll notice that
the only people who believe that the Consitution is a living document are those who don't like what it says.
The story goes that as Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall at the close of the constitutional convention, a woman asked him, "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Mr. Franklin replied, "A republic, madam – if you can keep it."
We have gridlock not because the Republicans "want Obama to look bad," we have gridlock because they are trying to save this republic from total destruction.
We'll find out on election day if we've managed to keep it.
Living Document?
....the only people who believe that the Consitution is a living document are those who don't like what it says....
And some current Republican Constitutional amendment pushes are:
Repeal 17th amendment
Repeal 14th amendment
Prohibit government ownership of stock
Parental rights amendment
Term limits
Flag desecration
Balanced budget
Right to life
Gay marriage ban
Supermajority required for tax increases
Cap on federal spending as percent of GDP
Limit presidential right to negotiate treaties
And so on.
So who doesn't like what it says???
the Founders
The Founders deliberately created a system of checks and balances, and a type of gridlock, to keep the federal government small and less obtrusive in the lives of US citizens. And no, the Founders did not consider the Constitution sacred and inviolable. They also created a way to amend it. The problem with the people who want a "living" constitution is that they want to change the plain meaning of the constitution without going through the amendment process. The amendment process is lengthy,and the voters need to be persuaded to go along with it. It's easier for the "living" constitution advocates to have the US Supreme Court go around the voters' wishes and just dictate how things will be.
Constitutional duty to have a budget?
Mr Downing: There is no "constitutional" obligation to pass a "budget". Any such obligation is one that Congress imposes on itself, and is if recent vintage.
The conversations about constitutional reform would start from a much higher plane if those participating have a basic knowledge of what the constitution says.
The grass is always greener..
...on the parliamentary side. I'll be honest that my own first inclination is to believe that things would function much more smoothly under a parliamentary democracy, and it's true that our current ideologically-aligned parties would probably be much more effective in that system. But that whole deal comes with an entirely different set of equally mind-numbing frustrations. Ask Canadians how they feel about the fact that more than 60% of them vote for left-wing parties, and yet they end up with a Conservative majority government. It'd be rather like if we had the 1984 election outcome, but Walter Mondale ended up as President. And it happens time after time. We all seem to pine for a multi-party system here in the U.S., but be careful what you wish for.
– again – to Neal Rovick, for that interesting list of potential changes sponsored by those at the right-hand end of the political spectrum. As is often the case, Mr. Tester is hoist by his own petard.
I also thought Ms. Kahler and Ms. Martin made good points. The Constitution is unequivocally a product of its Enlightenment times, just as all of us writing about it now are products of ours. As Ms. Kahler said, politics was basically the main point of conversation between and among wealthy white males when the document was written, and I think she's quite correct that, while they anticipated an expansion of the franchise, they also anticipated that widespread education would tend its recipients toward serious consideration of political matters. Instead, people get degrees in marketing, and cocktail party conversations dwell on consumer goods and sports results. We can't help but be influenced, sometimes profoundly, by the social and political attitudes of the period in which we live and the people who've influenced us.
That said, far too many people in recent decades have adopted an ideology, and once adopted, cling to it as if it were the last lifeboat on the Titanic. Letting money and "morality" substitute for thought defeats the purpose of both the founders and meaningful political discussion. As Ms. Kahler suggests, it is not the fault of the Constitution that the proportion of American citizens who even bother to vote is so dismal. Those who aren't paying attention have basically abdicated their duty as citizens, and that abdication, so far as I can tell, doesn't hew to a particular political party line, or even a particular age group.
I agree with Ms. Martin that even the extraordinary group of men that gathered for the constitutional convention could not have foreseen the kinds of changes, technological and otherwise, that we'd be dealing with more than two centuries later. No matter which of the multiple sides of the 2nd Amendment you might find yourself on, there's no denying that it was written in an era of flintlock, single-shot weapons. While they're still around as interesting curios and museum pieces, and I've even built a couple myself for use at the range, the muzzle-loader is orders of magnitude removed from modern assault weapons. Times and circumstances change.
Constitution at Fault?
Just ask, does the government today have the constitutional authority to do what it is doing?
Far too many look to the government for entitlements which is putting us in an all against all gridlock.
Doom ensues.
It's Worse Than You Think
Black refers to the recent analysis of the present 'gridlock' by Mann and Ornstein. These authors, in their recent book It's Worse Than You Think, don't blame the Constitution, but blame the mismatch between (I) our present governing system (Constitution and practices such as filibuster, senatorial holds on appointments and bills, other precedents, and the like) and (II) one party, the Republican Party, having become an extremist parliamentary-style party.
Our present governing system (and it's not all in the Constitution) makes governing possible only if the separated powers (House, Senate, President, judiciary) work together. Parliamentary-style parties don't work together; one rules at a time, the other is in permanent campaign mode working for the day when it rules. Extremists of every kind, time and place are not socialized to the society's norms; they're all about disruption; they have their own facts.
Combine I and II and you get our kind of gridlock/dysfunction.
It'll be interesting to see if Black's analysis improves on Mann and Ornstein's.
Doom ensues??
....to save this republic from total destruction...(Mr. Tester)
What fevered apocalyptic visions !!!
What really endangers democracy in America is the belief that certain people's ideas and interpretations are the only permissible ideas and interpretations.
There's a name for that type of government and it certainly isn't a democracy (or a republic).
I'm sorry that the loss of your candidate's campaign will cause you pain, but the fact will be that a majority of voters will have rejected that vision of where America should go.
And then what will people like Mr. Tester do?
That is exactly when you lose or hold on to democracy.
Exactly how do you envision
Exactly how do you envision the loss of democracy because of debt coming about? There are a lot of financially tattered democracies out there so what will happen with the US?
China sending the repo man?
Either it gets paid or it doesn't.
If we pay, we can borrow cheaply in the future. If we don't pay, borrowing in the future gets more expensive. There is no repo man. A lot of people will experience financial damage, but "too big to fail" works even better for governments than for banks.
But let me know on how you see it working out.
Remember that more democracies were dismantled through demagoguery than debt.
Constitution as scritpure
One huge problem we have is the fact that Republicans want to treat the constitution like it's religious scripture. If you look at the debate they offer (doom ensues) you see it looks more like an argument about dogma than any kind of legal argument about interpretation. The problem with treating the constitution like it's scripture of course is that it creates a false dichotomy between those who claim to be following the constitution and those who aren't; rather than seeking a resolution within the constitutional framework. This is why you see these constant declarations from Republicans regarding what the constitution says rather than attempts to reconcile different interpretations.
The scripture model does a lot of other weird things to our public discourse. For instance you this weird deification of the framers, claims that they're judgement needs to supersede ours as it they were infallible deities. The reflexive derision of "living document" approaches to the constitution is another scripturally driven response. Scriptural interpretations cannot be changed, they must rigid. Religions have fought wars for hundreds of years over minor differences in interpretation, they don't reconcile they divide and split off. Notice the recent Republican suggestions that some states would be better off going their own way (seceding) rather than reconciling with the Federal Government. This is a direct result of treating the constitution like dogma instead of a framework for resolution and reconciliation.
Getting back to Mr. Black's observation I think it clear that the framers of the constitution did not consider themselves to be infallible, therefore it makes no sense for us to deify them and attribute infallibility. The clearly created a framework with the built in capacity for amendment. They did not assume the country and it's challenges would never change, on the contrary they assumed such change was inevitable and deliberately gave future generations the ability reshape the constitution accordingly. Furthermore, most of the framers were enlightened and educated men of their time. This men believed in the capacity of human intellect for discovery and problem solving. Unlike contemporary conservatives they trusted human intelligence, and used it to create a liberal democracy. The idea that they would endorse the suspension of reason and logic in favor of a dogmatic approach to governance is ridiculous.
No Arguement
The constitution is clearly meant for change as the people see fit. The means of doing so is by amendment. A whole lot of amendments never made it to the vote, but the government is doing it anyway.
Imperfect Union series
If you're sick of gridlock, blame the Constitution
Congress vs. Parliament (three parts)
• U.S. or parliamentary system? One is nearly gridlock-proof — and it ain't ours
• Some appealing features of a parliamentary system
• The dangers of government that doesn't get things done
Our two-party system (two parts)
• Why the same two parties dominate our two-party system
• Imagining some other ways to run elections
Electoral College (six parts)
• Our Electoral College system is weird — and not in a good way
• 10 reasons why the Electoral College is a problem
• Why the Constitution's Framers didn't want us to directly elect the president
• Picking a president: dangers — and weird outcomes — of the Electoral College
• In defense of the Electoral College system … and some responses
• How to work around the Electoral College — without amending the Constitution
Constitution is unconstitutional (one part)
• Do you know that the Constitution is unconstitutional?
Judicial branch (six parts)
• Some constitutional myths about the Supreme Court
• The Supreme Court's early years: When censorship was constitutional?
• Why should the unelected Supreme Court get the final say about our laws?
• How the Supreme Court has come to play a policymaking role
• Something changed: Picking a Supreme Court justice is now a partisan battle
• Some ideas to limit the 'supremacy' of the U.S. Supreme Court
Congressional gridlock (two parts)
• No amendment allowed: A constitutional problem we're stuck with
• Don't blame the U.S. Constitution for the filibuster
Changing the Constitution (five parts)
• Constitution nearly impossible to amend: Is the bar too high?
• Constitutional amendments so far: Most have been for the better
• Fixing our system: Would another constitutional convention do the trick?
• Bottom line: Here's the biggest problem with the Constitution
• For better or worse, an old, flawed and hard-to-amend Constitution binds us
Recent Stories
Most Commented
58 comments
38 comments
22 comments
13 comments
11 comments


text:
This is a bit complicated, but hold on to your hat, because for some clients, it could be incredibly important.
The IRS recently proposed regulations that could adversely affect estate planning for many wealthy clients. Advisers need to understand the broad strokes of what this change is, which clients it might affect and why those clients need to act fast to get planning in place before the end of the year.
Once the proposed regulations become effective, which could be around year end, clients' right to claim discounts might be substantially reduced or eliminated, thus curtailing your tax and asset protection planning flexibility.
Valuation discounts have been at the heart of many estate plans, so let's look at an example.
Your clients have an $18 million estate and face a large estate tax. Their estate includes a family business valued at $12 million.
The husband, John, gifts 40% of the business to a trust, and his wife, Jane, gifts 35% of the business to another trust, to grow the value out of their estates. The gross value of the two gifts is $9 million [(35% + 40%) x $12 million].
Those gifts would use up $9 million of their gift and estate tax exemptions ($5,450,000 each this year). But under the law before the new regulations become effective, these non-controlling 40% and 35% interests in the family business are worth less than the pro-rata value of the underlying business.
The real economic logic behind discounts is this: A minority 35% shareholder can't force a sale or redemption of its interest. If your client owned 35% of a manufacturing corporation, the 65% shareholder could control when dividends would be paid, whether the corporation could be sold, and other critical factors. (Caveat: unless the shareholders agreement included express provisions to the contrary).
Thus, the true economic value to the 35% client is reduced to reflect these real-world difficulties of selling a non-controlling interest, and the inability to force a distribution. So if the corporation was worth $10 million, the 35% interest would be worth something less than the $3.5 million pro-rata interest. How much less is a question of facts and analysis for an appraiser.
If the various valuation discounts total 40%, then the value of the business given to the trusts would be appraised, net of discounts, at $5.4 million. The discount has reduced their estates by $3.6 million from these gifts.
Discounts can also be critical to an estate plan working as planned. A simplified example glossing over some of the tax planning nuances can highlight the vital nature of discounts.
A single client, Mary, owns a business worth $60 million. She wants to reduce future estate tax costs and plans to sell two $25 million interests to two separate trusts.
The trusts will give a note to Mary to consummate the purchase. The IRS specifies minimum interest rates that must be charged on transactions.
Assume the current rate is 2%. Cash flow from the business is $950,000.
Quote"Once the proposed regulations become effective, which could be around year end, clients' right to claim discounts might be substantially reduced or eliminated, thus curtailing your tax and asset protection planning flexibility."
If each trust issues a $25 million note to Mary to buy stock, the interest would be $1 million ($25 million x 2 x 2%). But the trusts combined would only receive $791,667 of cash flow [$950,000 total cash flow x ($25+25/$60)].
If, however, valuation discounts were available, the two $25 million interests might be valued, net of a 40% discount, at $30 million [($25 + $25) x (1-40%)]. At the discounted value, the trusts would have to pay interest on notes used to buy the stock of $600,000 [$30 million x 2%].
The $791,667 of cash flow the trusts would receive would exceed the cash flow necessary to service the debt. This illustrates how without discounts it may be feasible for a wealthy client to transfer business interests in a sale transaction.
However, once the new regulations become effective, and if they restrict discounts as severely as the proposal suggests, many estate planning transactions would simply not be feasible.
Some wealthy clients looking to minimize gift and estate taxes can benefit from discounts, and as illustrated above, in some instances, the discounts will be essential for planning to succeed. The size of the estate, the nature of the assets and other factors will all be relevant to determining whether discounts are irrelevant, important or essential to the plan.
Other categories of clients may also benefit from discounts. A client concerned about protecting a family business from the risks of future divorce or protecting assets from lawsuits or malpractice suits may need discounts to help leverage more assets into trusts without triggering a gift tax.
While the buzz about the discount restrictions is growing, there is another very important piece to the story. If Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is elected, the party's platform includes the reduction of the gift and estate tax exemption to $3.5 million, eliminating the inflation adjustment of the exemption, a $1 million gift exemption and a 45% maximum gift and estate tax rate (the current rate is 40%). The Democratic estate tax proposals may also include may of the planning restrictions that President Barack Obama has proposed for years.
These include restricting or eliminating grantor retained annuity trusts, note sale transactions and other techniques used to shift significant wealth. Although it is impossible to ascertain their probability, these should be considered in determining what planning to undertake.
It really appears that a significant restriction on valuation discounts is imminent. But it also might be that other even more damaging clouds are on the planning horizon.
If advisers or their clients see any merit to these concerns, perhaps the year end planning to capture discounts should be broader to address these future planning risks as well.
Quote"Advisers should contact wealthy clients who might be affected and encourage those clients to consult with their planning team on an urgent basis."
But there is a flip side to the above scenario that also should be considered. If Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump captures the White House, that GOP's platform calls for the elimination of the estate tax.
How might wealthy clients address the above planning risks while reflecting the possibility that any planning done might prove irrelevant? The one-word answer is flexibility.
There are many planning techniques that can maximize clients' access to funds given away. This approach to planning can allow clients to take action to protect themselves against the loss of discounts and potentially harsher tax laws, and not unduly restrict them should opposite legislative results occur.
Many advisers and clients might remember the mad rush to plan in late 2012 on the fear that the gift, estate and generation skipping transfer tax exemption might have been reduced in 2013 to $1 million from $5 million. After many incurred significant costs those tax restrictions never happened.
The potential restrictions on valuation discounts seems more likely to happen, but there is no certainty. The real issue, is can clients afford to wait?
If a client waits to see what happens, it might be too late to plan. Perhaps this year, like 2012, will be a case of better safe than sorry.
Advisers should contact wealthy clients who might be affected and encourage those clients to consult with their planning team on an urgent basis.
Register or login for access to this item and much more
All Financial Planning content is archived after seven days.
Community members receive:
- All recent and archived articles
- Conference offers and updates
- A full menu of enewsletter options
- Web seminars, white papers, ebooks
Already have an account? Log In
Don't have an account? Register for Free Unlimited Access


text:
When women make the decision to get an abortion it is often a stressful one. The abnormal levels of stress could have on effect on the menstrual cycle, causing changes in the monthly period after the abortion.
In some cases, it will take several months for women to have their normal menstrual cycle after abortion, while others see a return fairly quickly.
In essence, the menstrual cycle will be reset effectively by an abortion, which means that your next period should return in about four weeks.
Abortion – General Information
An abortion is when pregnancy is ended at an extremely early stage. The growth of the fetus is little at this time, but pregnancy hormones will be rampant in the body.
In addition, the body will signal different organs to start preparing for the pregnancy. In the event that the fetus is not showing normal growth, the body will expel it naturally or a doctor can terminate the pregnancy clinically.
This sudden loss of pregnancy is going to confuse the body and cause the hormones to go out of whack. It will take some time for your body to resume its state before pregnancy.
If a trained medical practitioner performs an abortion in appropriate conditions the potential complications will be less severe and the recovery time is going to be shorter.
When an abortion is done in the earliest weeks of pregnancy you can experience much less bodily risks both during and after as well as benefit from a quicker recovery.
Bear in mind that an early abortion will not impair your fertility or result in complications later in pregnancies, whether it's a surgical or medical one. However, pregnancies after the second-trimester will slightly increase the risk for unplanned abortion.
More About What Happens To Menstrual Cycle after Abortion
If your pregnancy is terminated during the first trimester, your period should return in four to twelve weeks after an abortion.
The first period might be lighter than your normal one and might not last for the regular time or be normal after a surgical abortion.
You are advised to consult your doctor if this first period is considerably longer or heavier than normal.
If you had a medical abortion, meaning that it was induced by medicine, you might have heavier periods than normal in the first cycle after terminating a pregnancy.
You could ovulate right after the termination. However, this time can vary for different women and depends on how far the pregnancy was when the abortion happened.
During this period, your body's first priority will be to expel all of the remnants from the lost pregnancy. This includes fetal tissue in addition to other debris from your uterus, and it's characterized by heavy bleeding.
You could consider this your first period after abortion. It might happen within days or weeks. The fetal tissue can be cleared out surgically if you had a medical abortion.
In this instance, you might not experience the heavy bleeding. Your normal period might be delayed for a few weeks as your body waits for the hormones to set in.
After a medical abortion, an irregular period might be less painful and heavier than your normal one.
Like most women, you could fully recover from an abortion in a few days if you are taking the necessary medication or doing a surgical procedure.
You are advised to contact a medical professional if cramps or heavy bleeding continues for over twenty-four hours following an abortion. A fever can be a sign that you are having a complication with the recovery.
It is important to mention that some women have problems with their menstrual cycle for as much as two years following an abortion.
The time that your period lasts, as well as the amount of bleeding and cramping, might change for several months from one cycle to the next.
Some women have reported that they experience pregnancy symptoms such as back pain, fatigue, and swollen breasts during the time when their periods occur for several months after an abortion.
Aside from this, you could experience more pain, clotting and premenstrual syndrome symptoms during the first periods after abortion.
Getting Pregnant After Abortion
Even though your period may not come for several weeks or two months after abortion it is possible for the body to start ovulation right after a pregnancy is terminated.
This means that you could get pregnant right away, even though you are still having some light bleeding. The chance of pregnancy is even higher once the hormones attain their pre-pregnancy condition.
That's why it's important to use contraceptives following abortion if you don't want to get pregnant right away.
Your body will need time to deal with the loss of a pregnancy so another one is not desirable until at least a few months when it is strong enough for you to carry a baby to a full term.
Just ensure that you consult a doctor if anything seems abnormal with your menstrual cycle after abortion.
Pregnancy Test After Abortion
When you're taking a pregnancy test after abortion it's advised to wait at least 4 weeks following your treatment.
Taking it sooner might result in a false positive as the hCH (human chorionic gonadotropin) hormone might still be present.
Do you have a question about your menstrual cycle, pregnancy, abortion or any other related topic? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions page.


text:
Laura Birkman
Board Member
Laura is an experienced policy professional working at the intersection of the public, private, and not-for-profit sectors. Currently, she is working as senior consultant at Ecorys, one of the oldest research consultancy firms in Europe (est. 1929), where she is responsible for the acquisition, management and implementation of projects in the field of security policy, with a particular focus on disaster risk and crisis management. In addition to her professional duties, she is a Full Associate with DIEM Group, a social enterprise, expert network, and primary research group focused on remedying fragmentation and lack of impact in emergency management. She is also a member of the UN Security Council Affairs Division (SCAD) roster of experts. Prior to consulting, Laura worked for the Dutch government as a senior trade policy officer, diplomat (Russia), and negotiator (EU and UN). In 2012, Laura completed a two-year MPA at the Harvard Kennedy School with a Fulbright scholarship. She also holds an Exec MA in International and European Relations & Management from the University of Amsterdam (2001) and a Joint MA (Honours) in International Relations and Philosophy from the University of St. Andrews (2000).
LinkedIn: nl.linkedin.com/in/LBirkman
Carlos Blanco
Co-Founder and Board Member
Carlos Blanco is a scholar, writer, and associate professor of Philosophy at Universidad Pontificia de Comillas, Spain. In 2015 he was elected to the World Academy of Art and Science. His areas of interest include Philosophy of Mind, Epistemology, and Egyptology. He has published fifteen books, including Leibniz (2009), Why Resurrection? (2011), Philosophy and Salvation (2012), and La belleza del conocimiento (2015). In 1997, at 11 years of age, he became the youngest member of the Spanish Association of Egyptology, and in 1998 he was considered by different international media as the youngest Egyptologist in the world. He has been interviewed for El País, La Vanguardia, Telecinco, TVE1, CNN, Azul Televisión (Argentina), Al-Rai (Egypt), Radio Caracol (Colombia), and Univisión (Miami), and he has lectured in countries across the world including Egypt, Russia, Mexico and the United States. He has also been a Visiting Fellow at Harvard's Committee for the Study of Religion (2009-2011). Carlos holds two Ph.Ds., in Theology and Philosophy, as well as a Master's Degree in Chemistry.
Website: www.carlosblanco.es
LinkedIn: http://es.linkedin.com/pub/carlos-blanco/11/81a/57
Hamouda Chekir
Board Member
Hamouda is a French Tunisian investment banker and economist. He is currently an executive director in the Government Advisory Group of Lazard in Paris. In this context, Hamouda has intervened on a variety of assignments related to financial crisis prevention and resolution with a focus on sovereign debt restructuring. Hamouda has been notably involved in the Greek sovereign debt reduction in 2012 as well as several other debt restructurings initiatives in emerging and developing countries (Ecuador, Cote d'Ivoire, Gabon…..). Over the last 3 years, Hamouda has also been very active in the Middle East and Noth Africa where he accompanied several governments in the design and implementation of macro-fiscal and funding strategies. Aside from his sovereign advisory activities, Hamouda has been actively involved in several research initiatives related to the political economy of transformation of the Arab World. He has authored and co-authored several research and policy publications related to the topic as well as opinion pieces. Hamouda is a graduate of the MPA-ID program at the Harvard Kennedy School where he was an Arthur Sachs Fellow. He holds a Ms in economics from the Paris School of Economics and a Bachelor Degree in Applied Mathematics from the Ecole Nationale de la Statistique Et de L'Administration Economique.
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hamouda-chekir-9987a86
Marcin Kilanowski
Board Member
Marcin is an Assistant Professor at Nicolas Copernicus University. After completing his undergraduate, graduate and doctoral studies in philosophy and law at Nicolas Copernicus University, Utrecht University, Oxford University, and Harvard Law School, he was a visiting researcher and visiting scholar at John F. Kennedy Institute for North American Studies at Freie Universität Berlin, the Institute for Social Research at Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Mine, the Department of Philosophy at Harvard University, and Science-Po's Ecole de Droit in Paris. Marcin has also worked as a member of The Prime Minister of Poland Working Group on Corporate Social Responsibility. He is a founder and Director of the think-tank Institute of Legal and Political Research and a member of editorial board of Res Publica Nova. He is the author of a book, "Toward Freedom as Responsibility" (2013), dozens of scientific papers and articles published in Poland and abroad and an opinion contributor for various media outlets. He teaches on matters of jurisprudence, public law and global governance.
LinkedIn: http://pl.linkedin.com/pub/marcin-kilanowski/43/a25/aa9
Antoine Levy
Board Member
Antoine is a graduate student in economics, with an interest in sovereign debt and international capital flows. From September 2016, he will pursue a PhD at MIT, where he was awarded a presidential fellowship. He studied economics at Ecole Normale Supérieure, and business at HEC Paris, after having been ranked first in the admission contests of both French institutions. He had several experiences in economic research (at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development or the French Cercle des Economistes) and in teaching, notably at Sciences-Po and Paris-Sciences-Lettres. He also worked for a year at the sovereign advisory practice of Lazard, advising emerging markets sovereign clients on macroeconomic and international finance issues. He authored opinion pieces in leading French newspapers and was the co-founder of a reflexion network, Société et Démocratie. Antoine also had professional experiences as a speechwriter and political analyst at the French Embassy in Israel; as a research assistant in economics; and as a news correspondent for a French economic website. He also holds an MA from the Paris School of Economics, an M. Sc. from HEC Paris, and a BA in economics summa cum laude from Paris Sorbonne-University, and studied at UC Berkeley.
LinkedIn: https://fr.linkedin.com/in/antoine-levy-3b999b63
Twitter: @LevyAntoine
Maxime Parmentier
Board Member
Maxime is Head of sourcing strategy and supply chain at the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the largest financing institution in global health. Maxime joined the organization as chief of staff to the CFO to support one of the most critical global health transformations in finance and global sourcing of medicine. He then was appointed to found, build and lead a venture featuring the world largest global health e-marketplace accessible to 140 countries and transacting USD 3 bn of commodities value. Maxime has a hybrid career in private and public organizations as intra or entrepreneur. Prior to the Global Fund, he was manager at McKinsey where he served for 5 years clients in the energy, mining and oil and gas industry to support their sustainability agenda. Maxime also worked at the UN Security Council and for technology startups active in mobile big data. Maxime holds a Master in Management and Engineering from the Université Catholique de Louvain, a Master in International Management from the CEMS and a Master in International Economic Policy from Columbia University where he taught monetary policy theory. Maxime is currently involved in several ventures, social impact initiatives and think tanks, including the roll-out of Social Impact Bonds in Europe and Big Data for Development. He is a Belgian American Foundation fellow under the Hoover Scholarship.
LinkedIn: https://ch.linkedin.com/in/maxime-parmentier-8592603
Twitter: @ParmMax
Alexandre Perez
President and Co-Founder
Alexandre Perez is president and co-founder of The Altius Society. His interests include technology development, venture capital investing, and international political economy. He has been a private equity investment executive at Kohlberg Kravis Roberts in London, investment-banking associate at Goldman Sachs New York in the Financial Institutions Group, and strategy consultant at McKinsey Europe and Brazil. From 2009 to 2012, Alexandre attended the Stanford Graduate School of Business, where he earned his MBA, and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, where he graduated with a Master in Public Administration. He also holds an MSc and BSc in Industrial Engineering from the University of Valladolid. He finished his engineering studies summa cum laude in 2006 and earned the National Prize by the Spanish Minister of Education awarded to the top-3 engineering graduates in the country. He also holds the degree of Piano Professor, with training in the Salamanca and Valladolid Music Conservatories. He has been awarded the Carolina and Rafael del Pino Foundations, Caja Madrid and Fulbright scholarships. Additionally he has published policy and opinion pieces on publications such as the Financial Times and the New York Times.
LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/alexandre-perez-casares/5/a2/434
Twitter: @XandrePerez