Validating Work and Human Rights

One of the most difficult concepts when working is to try to validate the effect of one's work. We often try to speak in terms of equity and fairness and this argument sometimes feels like it falls short. One of the business lessons that I have learned is the concept of identifying an opportunity and getting in first (1st-mover advantage). This results in market domination by the primary entrant, which at times may give the primary entrant the need to lead autocratically, sometimes resulting in problems associated with a certain amount of lack of leverage. One person in church on Sunday spoke about his right to analyze and criticize something, which is important in a world where many suffer an inability to do so based on pre-conceived notions. The issue of use of technology to validate work is interesting because the physical effort is not what our parents say when they think about 'work'. We often hear old folks talking about the need to 'shovel that walkway' as a means of teaching good old discipline. 'I used to walk in 4 feet of snow to get to school, after having de-iced my father's car and scraping out the gutters on the roof'. Things are easier now because of technology and innovation. The inequity between those who have access to resources such as computers and telephony devices can be prohibitive. The choice such resources to have them should be available under meritocratic circumstances. 'Work' under the guise of risk and quality are sometimes difficult to measure under the best of assessments.


My thoughts of folk with many children is the need to subdue a place so that they work can be done for a collective feeling of comfort. I say this carefully, as I have also been told that people have many children because they have sex without protection (for religious or non-religious reasons). Some were never taught family planning and have to adjust for their needs. The presence of a large number of persons has made the presence of technology contentious, as it has been said to cut jobs. The adjustment of population to technology seems like an interesting concept to study. The change in the range of population between 5 billion and 9 billion by 2050 could be affected by the advent of technology. There is also the issue of responsibility when it comes to technology, but this can't always be perfect. This is a major challenge that youth in the 21 century face. How do you use technology to achieve work, and what are the laws governing this? Do I just want my website to get a certain number of hits and then say I have worked, or is this a service that people actually need?


It is a digital world and we had better get going. A government minister spoke about the world changing to digital and her thoughts were featured in an editorial which sought to speak on the issues of the digital switchover to high definition channels (HDTV), the purchase and regulation of equipment and appliances, the disposal of old equipment and appliances and the effect on the environment.
Link (http://tinyurl.com/d8eccvw)


One famous delivery services company has been accused of discriminating against job seekers including men and women of Hispanic, Asian, African-American, Caucasian and Native American 'ethnic' background. They have decided to settle with the Labor Department in order to avoid costly litigation fees but having allegedly discriminated against 21,000 qualified personnel for 1,703 positions and entry-level work handling packages at 23 facilities in 15 states. The $3 million dollar settlement was agreed based on technology, where statistical analysis was done of computer and seemed to prove that qualified applicants were possibly not considered based on their race. Link (http://tinyurl.com/d7jvxxk)


I was reading an article published by a Saudi princess who appeared to give great thought to her people. She spoke on a number of issues pertaining to human rights.

1) The importance of civil law where all men and women are treated on the same footing before the law. Basic human rights are protected regardless of sex, status or sect. An adaptation of law not so strictly western, but one that inculcates our religious principles.

2)Stopping abusive divorce laws. The manipulation of them in favour of the men is something she actively speaks out against. (In some western cultures, they are heavily skewed towards the women).

3) Stripping of what she calls inherently abusive ideologies that are ingrained in the education system based on possible misinterpretation of her religion sometimes decrees as the absolute position of a woman in that culture. Particularly, she does not want her people to so shield themselves that they then lack innovative-ness and a spirit of contribution. The focus on texts in her faith that are focused on origins that are deemed to be uncertain rather than other books seems to be of great importance to her.

4) Adequate social services are to be provided to women who seek refuge, especially in the case where her aggressors are more powerful and sometimes abusive. She wishes that for those kind of women, the shame that comes with seeking refuge would not be so great because of the circumstances.

5) Address the issue of non-chaperoned freedom of movement where the presence of pirates in times past prevented the woman's freedom of movement.

6) Considering the right of the woman to drive but only when there has been sufficient education and promulgation of laws to prevent potential abuse of women drivers.

Link (http://tinyurl.com/7f9z99n)

The country that I was born in has a way of allowing folk to voice issues, hopefully under the guise of sincerity and transparency. The existence of talk radio, as monotonous and non-contributory as it has been sometimes branded to be, has always led me to believe that there is an avenue for issues to be resolved. There is a room of thought that there should be a balance between transparency and privacy because of the train of thought that everyone can't handle everything. I am usually up for transparency because everyone won't understand all the information that is placed before them.

I read an article about the importance of water as a basic human right, particularly in regions such as the border between south Lebanon and Israel where three tributaries form a great source of contention between the people. The installing of a pump in one (the Hasbani) nearly caused civil war. Lebanon gets 1% instead of 15% under conditions of equity. It must be important for cultures to co-exist peacefully, but the basic right to life is often an important step in assuring that peace. UN World Water Day passed on 22nd March 2012 and an article discussed the importance of water simply as the human need for 2-4 litres per day, the use of 1,500 litres of water per kg of wheat produced and 15,000 litres of water per kg of beef produced. Clearly, the need for water for human, plant and animal consumption are contributory reasons why water is so crucial to the economy of a state and especially that of one where access is limited.

Link (http://tinyurl.com/cp9dczy) & Link (http://tinyurl.com/642yzev)

Doctors in the United States often face malpractice suits which force them to subject patients to a number of tests, up to 45 diagnostic tests in some cases. Recently, they have decided to call for an end to so much testing. The issue is contentious because insurers want to ensure that they are not scammed out of money through numerous settlements, because doctors are wary because they are in the middle of powerful insurers and because the issue of obeying the Hippocratic oath which speaks about the patients right to life and also earning money, and a patient who hopefully just wants to maximize their health to be able to increase the quality of their life.

Link (http://tinyurl.com/7y8ef49) & Link (http://tinyurl.com/7az4vg4)

The balance for human rights is difficult in a world of good and evil. Who gets to decide who is good and not good? The premise of basic human rights seems to come from the premise of dedication to God rather than one's own beliefs and that although human beings look, sound and believe differently they all have purpose and place on an Earth that has given way to their existence. One of the people that makes me proud is the Attorney General from California who has been pushing for laws which govern technology including those of online dating sites, privacy laws and copyright laws. This does not apply to everyone as only 35% of 7 billion people have access to the internet up from 18% of the 6.5 billion people in 2006.

Link (http://tinyurl.com/79u3ohw)

http://tinyurl.com/cevkj3n