When a generic couple who were legally married finds themselves in deep financial trouble, they might seek bankruptcy protection. And they might be absolutely right to do so. While filing bankruptcy is a serious step that requires careful consideration and a solid understanding of the ramifications that might follow, it is a legal option that all American's have available to them. Or maybe not.
Adding some specific names and descriptions to the generic example can complicate the issue, significantly.
The question at the core of this issue isn't bankruptcy, it's marriage. There is no standard agreement in the United States at this point as to what specifically constitutes a marriage. The issue is being openly debated in the public forum, and in the courts. That quandary leaves some American's in a difficult position. They legitimately do not know if a legal protection offered to their neighbors is extended to them, too.
In June, twenty of the twenty-four judges sitting on the largest consumer bankruptcy court in the United States sided with a gay couple, Carlos Morales and Gene Balas, who had filed for bankruptcy protection and in the process found themselves running afoul of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Although Morales and Balas were legally married in California in 2008, they found they were not able to avail themselves of the full range of legal protections another, more conventional, two-gender couple might enjoy.
The question of what is, and what it not a marriage will continue to be an issue in our country for some time. And while that may not seem to be an argument that has an impact on all of our lives, it truly does. Our system of law will one day have to decide on a workable definition of what a marriage truly is, and settle on a method of dealing with the issue at the federal level, while states disagree on the point. For a mobile society like ours, that question, and the potential answers that spring up as a result, could very well impact each and every one of us at some point in our lives.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
The high cost of interpersonal strife
At some point we all hit a bump in the road of life. For some of us that snag is a personal and private matter that we would prefer to keep that way. For others it is fodder for newspapers and entertainment programming. No matter what your status or level of fame, it hurts. It can be costly, too.
The two most obvious examples of this currently might be the recently announced split between singing sensations Jennifer Lopez and her husband of seven years, Marc Anthony; and the apparently growing turmoil over the wealth and property amassed by Hungarian born actress, Zsa Zsa Gabor over the course of her long, high-profile career.
The emotional pain of divorce, prolonged illness, and death can take a toll on any of us. In fact, the odds are good that each of us will fall prey to these sorrowful situations at some time in our lives. We may pay the monetary price along the way, too. As these two stories show in unique and differing ways, transition in any form has its price, both emotional and financial. There is at least one lesson for us to learn from these events as they unfold. More than likely we can learn more than just a single lesson that is pertinent to our own lives.
Hopefully the lesson you take away is a good one, that serves you well in the future.
The two most obvious examples of this currently might be the recently announced split between singing sensations Jennifer Lopez and her husband of seven years, Marc Anthony; and the apparently growing turmoil over the wealth and property amassed by Hungarian born actress, Zsa Zsa Gabor over the course of her long, high-profile career.
The emotional pain of divorce, prolonged illness, and death can take a toll on any of us. In fact, the odds are good that each of us will fall prey to these sorrowful situations at some time in our lives. We may pay the monetary price along the way, too. As these two stories show in unique and differing ways, transition in any form has its price, both emotional and financial. There is at least one lesson for us to learn from these events as they unfold. More than likely we can learn more than just a single lesson that is pertinent to our own lives.
Hopefully the lesson you take away is a good one, that serves you well in the future.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Is this light's out?
Thomas Edison may have famously invented the incandescent light bulb, but that leading indicator of the industrial age is on its way out – or is it? In the pitched battle over energy use, the United States Congress has been wrestling with a law that was signed by President Bush in 2007 without much fanfare, but that otherwise innocuous law seems to have become of much greater interest lately.
At issue is the future of the incandescent light bulb. Under the current law 100 watt incandescents will be barred from the production floor by New Year's Day 2012. They'll still be in stores until the supply runs out. But that's it. No more hundred watt incandescents will be made for sale in the U.S.
Lower wattage incandescents will remain in production, but they'll be phased out over a two-year period. It won't be long now until American's will be reading by the warm glow of a cool running compact florescent bulb, or an LED lamp, or a hot and power hungry halogen, or a hot and note quite as power hungry halogen. Incandescents, the old standby that we all grew up with in our homes, will be out of the picture, however. Unless you hoard them now, while the store shelves are well stocked with them.
Or maybe not. As with anything that once existed and is being phased out by law, there is opposition. And while incandescent bulbs are famous for throwing off lots of light in exchange for a fair amount of heat, the debate that is raging in public these days is heavy on the heat, and lacking on the light. Misunderstandings of the law abound.
I certainly have no answer to the questions that rage around dinner tables and over water-coolers about which bulb is best, or even whether the cessation of most incandescent bulbs is a good thing or a bad thing. The theory of the law was to encourage the use of more energy efficient lighting sources. Although there are certainly those who will make more efficient choices when they change our their lamps, or their bulbs – there are others who will go the other way and select higher energy lights for their homes and offices.
People are people, where ever you go.
What will happen in the end? Who knows. Texas has introduced legislation that says incandescents made and sold within the borders of the state don't fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and so they believe they can continue to manufacture the big bulbs. Perhaps that initiative will gain steam. Perhaps not. Maybe other states will join in with a similar perspective. Then again, maybe this is much ado about nothing. It remains to be seen. No matter which direction it goes, you have to admit, it's an interesting show.
Who would have ever thought that it would be the lightbulb itself that was in the spotlight, center stage?
At issue is the future of the incandescent light bulb. Under the current law 100 watt incandescents will be barred from the production floor by New Year's Day 2012. They'll still be in stores until the supply runs out. But that's it. No more hundred watt incandescents will be made for sale in the U.S.
Lower wattage incandescents will remain in production, but they'll be phased out over a two-year period. It won't be long now until American's will be reading by the warm glow of a cool running compact florescent bulb, or an LED lamp, or a hot and power hungry halogen, or a hot and note quite as power hungry halogen. Incandescents, the old standby that we all grew up with in our homes, will be out of the picture, however. Unless you hoard them now, while the store shelves are well stocked with them.
Or maybe not. As with anything that once existed and is being phased out by law, there is opposition. And while incandescent bulbs are famous for throwing off lots of light in exchange for a fair amount of heat, the debate that is raging in public these days is heavy on the heat, and lacking on the light. Misunderstandings of the law abound.
I certainly have no answer to the questions that rage around dinner tables and over water-coolers about which bulb is best, or even whether the cessation of most incandescent bulbs is a good thing or a bad thing. The theory of the law was to encourage the use of more energy efficient lighting sources. Although there are certainly those who will make more efficient choices when they change our their lamps, or their bulbs – there are others who will go the other way and select higher energy lights for their homes and offices.
People are people, where ever you go.
What will happen in the end? Who knows. Texas has introduced legislation that says incandescents made and sold within the borders of the state don't fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and so they believe they can continue to manufacture the big bulbs. Perhaps that initiative will gain steam. Perhaps not. Maybe other states will join in with a similar perspective. Then again, maybe this is much ado about nothing. It remains to be seen. No matter which direction it goes, you have to admit, it's an interesting show.
Who would have ever thought that it would be the lightbulb itself that was in the spotlight, center stage?
Monday, July 11, 2011
Top 10 Icebreakers offer guide for blogging
Another subject that I wanted to bring to your attention is a recently published book recommended by one of my colleagues. It helps with the starting points for getting and keeping good relationships. My goal as a legal counsel is to connect as well as to deliver good legal counsel. I thought you would find these “icebreakers” to be helpful suggestions.
Debra Fine, author of The Fine Art of Small Talk offers a lot of helpful advice on networking and connecting with people while networking. In her book she includes a list of her top 10 icebreakers. She suggests using them at any occasion where you have few established relationships. We’ve all been at those types of events – school meetings, business events, fundraisers, cocktail parties, dinners, and conferences/conventions where you need to start a conversation with people you don’t know well or those “strangers” you would like to meet.
Top Ten Icebreakers
1. What is your connection to this event?
2. What keeps you busy outside of work?
3. Tell me about the organizations you are involved with.
4. How did you come up with this idea?
5. What got you interested in … ?
6. What do you attribute your success to?
7. Describe some of the challenges of your profession.
8. Describe your most important work experience ….
9. Bring me up to date.
10. Tell me about your family.
According to Fine, the theme to these ten icebreakers is that they are personal, but not too personal. “Your goal is to build a business relationship,” she says, “while still getting to know more about a customer or potential customer. If you are talking to an existing customer, they probably already know you are good at what you do, so you just want them to see you on a more human level.” Thinking about this –when you establish that comfortable connection on the human level, they are more likely to refer you to a friend or associate.
The other thing to note about these icebreaker guidelines is that they give the new person control to decide just how much information they are willing to share and where they want to set the parameters of the conversation. On your part, your job is to help the other person feel comfortable with you as a person. You never want to overwhelm them with complex topics. You never want to slip into insider jargon. And you never want to put your audience on the spot regarding religion or politics.
Many of our friends and acquaintances could be more effective using these 10 icebreakers, so I encourage you to forward this link to them. Let’s all communicate more effectively. And you are invited to contact me, so we can get better acquainted.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Austerity pains in the Golden State
Imagine living in a town where the budget is so tight, and the future looks so bleak, that the only solution the city leaders can think of is to outsource municipal jobs that are normally held by city employees. Welcome to the way it is in Costa Mesa, California. Life really is tough all over.
In March the city issued layoff notices to almost half the city's workforce. Many of those imperiled workers are represented by the Costa Mesa City Employees Association, which is in turn represented by the Orange County Employees Association – two union groups that have petitioned the courts to put a stop to the plan.
Judge Tam Nomoto Schumann is on the bench, and she has issued a preliminary injunction in the case, preventing the city from implementing its plans. She allowed the city until Friday to file objections, prior to the judge issuing her ruling.
At issue is whether the city has followed the proper processes when laying off workers, as well as the question of whether the workers being targeted for layoff can be legally laid off for the reasons given.
The Daily Pilot, a daily newspaper focusing on Costa Mesa, quotes City Attorney Tom Duarte from a press release, “This ruling doesn't affect the city's ability to research outsourcing possibilities and, if it's prudent, to outsource city jobs down the road.”
Clearly there is trouble brewing. No matter which side of the issue you're on, you're focused on the substance of the legal arguments, the process as it moves along, and ultimately – the judge's ruling. No matter which way it goes, it is a virtual guarantee that this issue will remain at the forefront of the minds of those hundreds of employees, and their families. City officials will have their hands full either way, too. They either have a fiscal problem, a public relations problem, or both. And no matter what they do, they are going to have at least one very sticky problem to work out.
Things truly are tough all over. This Costa Mesa case is a good reminder that the answers to difficult questions can be a whole lot harder to come to grips with than they might at first appear, especially if the people on the other side of the equation aren't in agreement with the solution you come up with.
It is good to remember that if the solution to one problem depends on a new problem being created for someone else – you may not have truly found the solution you were looking for. The people of Costa Mesa are certainly learning that lesson right now – regardless of whether they work for the city or not.
We'll be curious how the judge rules in this case. I'm sure you will be, too. Feel free to leave a comment if you have a thought, or hear the news before we do.
In March the city issued layoff notices to almost half the city's workforce. Many of those imperiled workers are represented by the Costa Mesa City Employees Association, which is in turn represented by the Orange County Employees Association – two union groups that have petitioned the courts to put a stop to the plan.
Judge Tam Nomoto Schumann is on the bench, and she has issued a preliminary injunction in the case, preventing the city from implementing its plans. She allowed the city until Friday to file objections, prior to the judge issuing her ruling.
At issue is whether the city has followed the proper processes when laying off workers, as well as the question of whether the workers being targeted for layoff can be legally laid off for the reasons given.
The Daily Pilot, a daily newspaper focusing on Costa Mesa, quotes City Attorney Tom Duarte from a press release, “This ruling doesn't affect the city's ability to research outsourcing possibilities and, if it's prudent, to outsource city jobs down the road.”
Clearly there is trouble brewing. No matter which side of the issue you're on, you're focused on the substance of the legal arguments, the process as it moves along, and ultimately – the judge's ruling. No matter which way it goes, it is a virtual guarantee that this issue will remain at the forefront of the minds of those hundreds of employees, and their families. City officials will have their hands full either way, too. They either have a fiscal problem, a public relations problem, or both. And no matter what they do, they are going to have at least one very sticky problem to work out.
Things truly are tough all over. This Costa Mesa case is a good reminder that the answers to difficult questions can be a whole lot harder to come to grips with than they might at first appear, especially if the people on the other side of the equation aren't in agreement with the solution you come up with.
It is good to remember that if the solution to one problem depends on a new problem being created for someone else – you may not have truly found the solution you were looking for. The people of Costa Mesa are certainly learning that lesson right now – regardless of whether they work for the city or not.
We'll be curious how the judge rules in this case. I'm sure you will be, too. Feel free to leave a comment if you have a thought, or hear the news before we do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
