Liberal Legal Internationalism: A History (and Present) of Double ...

By Mohsen al Attar on September 27, 2012

In late August 2012, Archbishop Desmond Tutu pulled out of the Discovery Invest Leadership Summit in Johannesburg to which he was scheduled to attend as an invited speaker. The prod for his 11th hour withdrawal was the likely (and eventual) participation of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair who was also slated to speak at the same event. With a mix of contrition and conscientiousness, Tutu declared his unwillingness to share the stage with an individual responsible for spearheading an invasion that ?destabilised and polarised the world a greater extent than any other conflict in history.?[i]

Hyperbole aside, the full version of Tutu?s statement stresses several points regarding the double-standards of international law that even a casual observer is surely all-too familiar with:

?On what grounds do we decide that Robert Mugabe should go the International Criminal Court, Tony Blair should join the international speakers? circuit, bin Laden should be assassinated, but Iraq should be invaded, not because it possesses weapons of mass destruction, as Mr Bush?s chief supporter, Mr Blair, confessed last week, but in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein?

?in a consistent world, those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague.? [ii]

With the key pretext for the invasion of Iraq nowhere to be found, Blair has placed much stock in the overthrow of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as a type of ex-post-facto vindication of the assault: ?Hussein?s slaughter of his political opponents, the treatment of the Marsh Arabs and the systematic torture of his people make the case for removing him morally strong.?[iii] While he does not disavow the seemingly calculated canard of weapons of mass destruction ? ?the basis of action was as stated at the time? ? Blair does again seek to highlight the prospective value of the invasion ? ?I would also point out that despite the problems, Iraq today has an economy three times or more in size?[iv] ? as cover for the disturbing state of the nation which, after a decade of UN sanctions and a protracted British-American occupation, is looking more like Mesopotamia than it did when the British last saw fit to occupy the region.

Upon closer examination, the dust-up between Tutu and Blair provides a window into competing perceptions of the purpose and practice of international law. Their contrasting viewpoints, I suggest in this brief article, are borne of the distinct trajectories international law has taken for the First and Third World respectively. They also transcend a variety of jurisprudential trends observable across the history of international law.

Pursuing Universal Morality(ies) Through International Law

With colonial ambitions as compass, burgeoning European powers set forth to conquer much of the New World. Until that point, historical mandates for conquest were drawn from the Pope who, as divine vicegerent, commanded authority over the entirety of God?s kingdom including the lands of believers and heretics alike. In the 16th century, however, a Catholic theologian and jurist of minor fame challenged the alleged universality of papal authority, restricting the Pope?s jurisdiction to Christian lands. He then set about developing a new system to mediate the colonial encounter and the novel legal problems that arose as a result: who or, more to the tone of the time, what were the Indians? Did they possess rights? Could they own land? Were they sovereign?[v]

Answers to these questions, Antony Anghie explains, laid the groundwork for jus gentium or the law of nations. Exhibiting forms of social organisation caused Vitoria to conclude that the Indians were in possession of reason, binding them to a hitherto unknown ? but all-knowing ? universal system of natural law. Like the Spaniards now engaging them, the Indians could avail themselves of the rights to travel, sojourn and proselytise, as far away as Granada if they fancied. Nor should they anticipate any obstruction from their hypothetical hosts if they made their way to Spanish shores for, in addition to a negative duty not to interfere with the avowal of these rights, both Indians and Spaniards alike were bound by a positive duty to bring non-conforming societies in line with their mutual obligations. In practice, this meant that societies who resisted either settlement or conversion were, in Vitoria?s language, subject to war, captivity, enslavement and death.[vi] The inability of the Indians to avail themselves of any of these rights and the actuality of Spanish colonial ambitions and efforts were, it seemed, of little consequence. As equal members of the law of nations, they too could do unto the Spaniards as the Spaniards were doing unto them and this possibility alone was sufficient.

Equality, however, only went so far. On the question of sovereignty ? were they Indians sovereign? ? Vitoria reverts to the doctrinal Christian supremacist starting point he began by challenging. He argued that sovereignty was dependent on two additional rights: the right to wage a just war and to acquire title. With tautological vigour, Vitoria concluded that only Christians could wage a just war ?otherwise even Turks and Saracens might wage just wars against Christians, for they think they are thus rendering God service?,[vii] paving the way for the lawful annexation of Indian lands. Within this particular manifestation of the law of nations, European political subjectivity stood as universal moral objectivity.

We observe similar effusions toward the natural law based character of international law in statements by Tutu and Blair, as well as inferences about the universal validity of European morality from the former prime minister specifically. While Tutu condemns ?[t]he immorality of the United States and Great Britain?s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, premised on the lie that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction?,[viii] Blair defends his action with equal moralistic bravado: ??[Hussein?s actions] make the case for removing him morally strong.?[ix] Nor was this the first time Blair flashed universal morality in support of his position. In 2003, appearing before the American Congress to make the case for the invasion, Blair described the ?fight? as one not for ?Western values? but ?universal values of the human spirit?.[x]

We see both men utilising notions of morality to make their respective cases. While their religious credentials may help explain this inclination ? Tutu is a retired Anglican bishop and Blair a born-again Catholic ? Vitoria?s reasoning confirms that international law has long been steeped in ethnocentric moral aspirations. To Vitoria, to the extent the Indians possessed reason, they fell within the ambit of jus gentium. However, to the extent they were not Christians and might resist becoming so, they fell outside the sovereigntist embrace and were thus deserving of untold viciousness. Two centuries later, Robert Ward, a British jurist and member of the House of Commons, while recognising an assortment of laws of nations among varied civilisations, hastened to deny to all but the European articulation the legitimacy of law.[xi] Ignorance, ignominy and barbarity among non-Europeans, he declared, was the basis of their exclusion. Drawing upon a rich tradition, Blair makes similar claims, seemingly indifferent to the many moralities opposed to both the specific action as well as the general sense of entitlement upon which the former was based. In international law, some moralities consistently appear more equal than others.

From Moral to Instrumental

Neither Tutu nor Blair ends there, however, with each drawing upon the positivist strand of international legal reasoning to further buttress their claims. Tutu, for his part, bemoans the double standards of the International Criminal Court, calling for zeal of the variety displayed toward Charles Taylor, Joseph Kony, Saif Qaddafi and sundry Africans, this time in the investigation and prosecution of Blair. Consistency is a critical characteristic of a legal framework, promoting greater compliance and deeper confidence ? or compliance through confidence ? in the relevant law(s). Indeed, from a positivist perspective, all who fall within the law?s jurisdiction are equally subject to the law?s application.

Blair, too, seems equally moved by positivist reasoning, albeit for entirely different reasons. He initially defends himself by restating his belief in the case that was made about the presence of weapons of mass destruction on Iraqi soil: ?to repeat the old canard that we lied about the intelligence is completely wrong as every single independent analysis of the evidence has shown.? While he follows with the moral argument discussed above, he returns to the allegation of his supposed deception once more: ?But the basis of action was as stated at the time.?[xii] The phrasing of this last sentence is most revealing, reiterating his belief ? at that time ? in the evidence presented (and since disproved).

From a criminal law vantage point, the burden of proof that dominates in most Western legal systems ? and by extension in the international legal regime ? is reasonable doubt. In practice, this means that a defendant need only raise reasonable doubt to defeat a charge presented against them. As is often the case in rape, perjury or fraud trials, one of the more common defences is the sincerity claim: at the time, I genuinely believed that she consented, that I was using my own credit card or that the evidence presented to the UN Security Council about mobile laboratories and Nigerian yellow cake was authentic.[xiii]

While geo-politics form the core of international legal happenings, due to the contributions of John Austin and other 19th century legal thinkers, international law is also denoted by a positivist streak.[xiv] Positivism is a clever way of eliciting buy-in in a community of equally sovereign states. This is an important distinction with national legal systems: while compliance can be compelled domestically, enforcement is clearly problematic in the international realm. The doctrine of voluntarism was conceived to sidestep this particularity, encouraging states to sign on voluntarily while committing to respecting a refusal to do so. The positivist strand has triggered the proliferation of tribunals and courts in the last decade as more and more states come to favour the consistency quality that can be drawn from ? or read into ? the majesty of The Hague and other international criminal legal institutions.

While his comrade-in-ideology, former American President George Bush Jr, may be secure ? the United States is not party to the Statute of the International Criminal Court, effectively inoculating him from its jurisdiction ? the situation for Blair is a little more precarious as the United Kingdom is a fervent supporter of the institution. Blair is fully aware that should the winds of global power shift unfavourably (read BRIC), then gaol may no longer be such an unlikely destination, hence the claim made ad nauseam that the basis of the action was as stated at the time. Of course, a quick glance at the prosecutorial practices of the ICC or of special tribunals in general reveals that since the days of Nuremberg, not a single European has ever been brought before an international court for countless violations of international law, international humanitarian law, international criminal law and the Geneva Conventions committed against the Third World during the postcolonial period. With this partiality as backdrop, I presume Blair is unlikely to interrupt his speaker schedule over Tutu?s beckoning.

What?s Good for the Gander?

A final statement by Blair can be explained through the pragmatist strand of international law that emerged during the neoliberal era.[xv] While Tutu admonishes Blair for immorality, global polarisation, suffering and loss of life, the former primer minister hits back by highlighting improvements to the Iraqi economy and increased foreign investment. In this instance, Blair is applying the pragmatist strand seeking to counter-balance, perhaps offset, the human toll with allusions to economic growth. Of course, to the Third World, the links between political and economic rights have always been self-evident but to have them made in such uncouth tones is unlikely to appease any of the wretched of the earth.[xvi]

There is little doubt that the Iraqi economy has grown between 2003 and 2012. What Blair leaves out, however, including a decade of crippling economic sanctions and a bombing campaign (shock and awe) that annihilated whatever remained of social institutions, infrastructure and industry developed during the 60s, 70s and 80s, is potentially of relevance in the accuracy and validity of his claim. There is more. Queer in its own regard, the presumptuousness and ethno-chauvinism inherent in Blair?s balancing act has unfortunate but palpable roots in international law. Whether Francisco de Vitoria, Lord Coke, Justice Marshall, Bush Jr. or Blair, James Gathii provides striking evidence of the ?genealogical similarity? between their respective pronouncements on international law.[xvii] No matter the context, each of them rationalised ?European conquest and acquisition of non-European territory and resources?, always buttressed by the self-satisfaction of a just cause.[xviii] Highly racialised and racist arguments, Gathii asserts, effectively sanctioned ?the disregard not only of private property rights, but also of the lives and dignity of [Third World] people.?[xix] Indeed, Blair tactically omits the array of free market policies implemented throughout Iraq post-invasion, all of which have sought to facilitate foreign ownership of domestic resources and prospects, suggesting that economic growth in Iraq does not necessarily indicate improved Iraqi prosperity.[xx]

Liberal Imperialism or A New Legal Order?

The way forward, I admit, is a little murky. International law today is as rife with double standards as it was nearly five centuries ago when Vitoria sought to legitimise colonial conquest. There is, Edward Said remarked, ?always appeal to power and national interest in running the affairs of lesser peoples?.[xxi] Tellingly, a similar view was expressed by Samuel Huntington, hardly a sympathiser with Third World causes, when he described ?[h]ypocrisy, double standards, and ?but nots?? as ?the price of universalist pretensions.?[xxii] While seemingly spoken with a soupcon of contrition, even a cursory read of the text from which this quote was lifted ? Clash of Civilizations ? reveals a more celebratory than remorseful character. Whether or not Blair drew any inspiration from Huntington is uncertain. What is plain as day however is the contribution of Robert Cooper, senior British diplomat and former prime ministerial adviser, to Blair?s thinking.

In the year prior to the Anglo-American coalition invaded Iraq, Cooper published an article in The Observer, a renowned British newspaper, detailing what he termed the new liberal imperialism.[xxiii] Laden with the usual self-congratulatory bluster about benevolence and lifting all boats, Cooper proceeded to celebrate with dizzying candour both the absence of equality in international law and the importance of preserving double-standards:

?The challenge to the postmodern world is to get used to the idea of double standards. Among ourselves, we operate on the basis of laws and open cooperative security. But when dealing with more old-fashioned kinds of states outside the postmodern continent of Europe, we need to revert to the rougher methods of an earlier era ? force, pre-emptive attack, deception, whatever is necessary to deal with those who still live in the nineteenth century world of every state for itself. Among ourselves, we keep the law but when we are operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the jungle.?[xxiv]

This article on double standards in international law could have saved both reader(s) and author much time had I opened and closed with Cooper?s statement for it reveals, with far greater persuasiveness than any historical data I can point to, the extent to which liberal legal internationalism is anything but liberal, legal or international. Of course, there is nothing new in Cooper?s proposal. Vitoria?s community of nations, Robert Ward?s standard of civilisation or Blair?s universal values of the human spirit establish, in the words of Brett Bowden, international law?s implication ?in a long-running universalizing Western imperial project.?[xxv] Anghie takes this point a step further ? perhaps to its logical conclusion ? proclaiming international law to be ?mired in the history of subordinating and extinguishing alien cultures.?[xxvi] While these statements may seem overly provocative and potentially anachronistic, when preceded by the pleas of both Cooper and Blair, the indictments read more modern than does international law.

What then, if any, is the way forward? I return to Edward Said, whom I quote at length (with a minor edit), for his appeal captures the essence of Third World aspirations with such eloquence and precision that it deserves to be read and re-read, as well as being wallpapered to Blair?s cell should he every find himself in gaol:

?The world today does not exist as a spectacle about which we can be either pessimistic or optimistic, about which our ?texts? can be either ingenious or boring. All such attitudes involve the deployment of power and interests. To the extent that we see [Blair] both criticizing and reproducing the imperial ideology of his time, to that extent we can characterize our own present attitudes: the projection, or the refusal, of the wish to dominate, the capacity to damn, or the energy to comprehend and engage with other societies, traditions, histories.?[xxvii]

Cooper and Blair, Europe and the United States, the IMF and the World Bank, may want the Third World to beseech their tutelage but such is not always the wish of the Third World, at least not as their wishes have been communicated through the Non-Aligned Movement, the Third World project, the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence, the New International Economic Order and sundry Third World political, legal, social, cultural and, indeed, moral movements launched over the decades. While many of these have had their epitaphs written, when considered alongside the brutally chauvinistic thoughts and actions of the First World, no other outcome was indeed possible.

And yet, despite these defeats, the Third World trudges on. The World Social Forum brings people(s) together, the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas codifies their aspirations and certain Third World nations pursue these aspirations with the resolve that prevailed during the decolonisation era. While Tutu may wish to see Blair hauled before the ICC, we should not expect First World institutions to turn on their patrons. Instead, we should move forward by drawing strength from the leadership of the Third World in its refusal to dominate or to damn and from its courage in seeking to comprehend and engage with others; whether the First World or its international legal instrument is up to such moral aims remains, history evidences, far murkier than the way forward.

?

Dr Mohsen al Attar is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Auckland. His research interests oscillate between Third World legal studies, intellectual property law and legal pedagogy, with emphasis on the development of emancipatory pedagogical methods in the practice of international legal education. For the forthcoming year (2012-2013), he has been appointed a Visiting Professor at McGill University Faculty of Law where he will be teaching two critical courses on international law entitled ?Rethinking International Law? and ?Intellectual Property Law and Its Discontents?. A compilation of his work is available at www.mohsenalattar.org.?He invites dialogue and exchange of ideas via email at m.alattar@auckland.ac.nz.?In the spirit of decolonisation efforts everywhere,?a?luta continua?

?


[v] Antony Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) at 22 [Anghie, Imperialism].

[viii] Tutu, Spurn Tony Blair, supra note 1.

[ix] Helm, Trial Over Iraq War, supra note 2.

[x] Cited in James Gathii, War, Commerce, and International Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010) at 33 [Gathii, Commerce].

[xi] Brett Bowden, ?The Colonial Origins of International law. European Expansion and the Classical Standard of Civilization? (2005) Journal of the History of International Law ?[Bowden, Colonial Origins].

[xii] Helm, Trial Over Iraq War, supra note 2.

[xiv] Antony Anghie, ?The Evolution of International Law: colonial and postcolonial realities? (2006) 27:5Third World Quarterly 739 at 740 [Anghie, The Evolution of International Law].

[xvi] See e.g. Mohsen al Attar and Ciaron Murnane, ?The Neoliberal Challenge to the Pursuit of Human Rights? in Jeffrey F. Addicott et al. (eds), Globalization, International Law, and Human Rights (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2010).

[xvii] Gathii, Commerce, supra note 25 at 33.

[xxi] Edward W. Said, Culture and Imperialism (New York: Vintage Books, 1993) at xxiii [Said, Culture and Imperialism].

[xxii] ?Hypocrisy, double standards, and ?but nots? are the price of universalist pretensions. Democracy is promoted, but not if it brings Islamic fundamentalists to power; nonproliferation is preached for Iran and Iraq, but not for Israel; free trade is the elixir of economic growth, but not for agriculture; human rights are an issue for China, but not with Saudi Arabia; aggression against oil-owning Kuwaitis is massively repulsed, but not against non-oil-owning Bosnians. Double standards in practice are the unavoidable price of universal standards of principle.?

[xxv] Bowden, Colonial Origins, supra note 11 at 23.

[xxvii] Said, Imperialism , supra note 21 at xx.

Tags: Desmond Tutu, double standards, international law, liberal imperialism, Liberal Legal Internationalism, tony blair

Source: http://www.e-ir.info/2012/09/27/liberal-legal-internationalism-a-history-and-present-of-double-standards/

a wrinkle in time benjamin netanyahu storm shelters nick lachey chevy volt christina hendricks lifelock

Strategies On How To Get A Good Deal In Commercial Real Estate ...

Commercial real estate is an easy market to break into, assuming you are savvy. Learn some basic information before attempting to buy property. Read this article to find out more about common tricks and mistakes you should avoid to become a successful investor.

Always remain calm and patient when dealing with the commercial real estate market. Do not invest into anything before thinking carefully. Going too fast could result in a loss that you could have seen coming had you stopped, researched, analyzed, evaluated, and cross-checked the potential with your desired goals. Be prepared to wait as much as a year for a suitable property to come available in your area.

Before you start out on your search for the perfect commercial property, you should be fully attuned to the specifics of your business needs. Make sure you have an idea of the type of office space that you want to work in. If you want to grow your company, buy a larger space than you think you need. This can save money later.

TIP! See to it that the price that you ask for in real estate is realistic. Many different factors can influence the real worth of your property.

Smaller Issues

If you are writing a letter of intent, take it easy. Go for agreements on the bigger problems at first, then get to the smaller issues later in the negotiations. You can make all your negotiations less tense, so you can agree on any of the smaller issues first.

You should consult with a tax expert prior to purchasing anything. Not only can your tax adviser help you determine the total cost of your potential investment, but he can provide you information about the taxes on your investment and advise you about deductions you may be entitled to. By taking your adviser?s advice, you may be able to find a location where the taxes are less.

TIP! Find out how the firm that you are thinking of working with measure results. Ask how the space needed is determined as well as the criteria they look for and their negotiation methods.

Look around at the general environment around the building. It?s up to you to clean up any damage or environmental waste associated with your property. Do you want to buy property in a area that is prone to flooding? That may not be the wisest choice. Certain agencies are available in most areas that will provide substantial information regarding the local environment, its conditions, weather patterns, and any concerns you should have as a real estate owner.

When considering an investment, one should consider the possible consequences of economic inflation within the next decade. Investors in the past were protected by a clause that was built into any agreement that adjusted for inflation using Consumer Price Index comparisons. Today, this practice is all but extinct, leaving you more vulnerable to losses caused by inflation.

Commercial transactions are more complex, involved, and time-consuming than actually buying a home. Understand, however, that the intensity and duration of the process is necessary to achieve the higher return on your investment.

TIP! If you desire commercial property for rental purposes, locate buildings that are simply yet solidly constructed. A well-built building will attract tenants quickly because tenants want a property that is solid.

Be aware that with a freshly written lease, tactics and rent considerations will be crucial to your investment?s future. You need to calculate how much income you need to allocate to your bills, and then how much profit you?ll want on top of that, before you start the search for a tenant. This will give you a foundation for meeting the goals that you set for yourself and your investment.

Commercial Real Estate

You need plenty of info before you begin your commercial real estate adventure. Hopefully this article has provided you with some of the information you will need in order to become a successful, global commercial real estate

TIP! When you are buying commercial real estate, find some opportunities that will let you buy a bigger building. Managing a slightly larger unit does really take that much more work, and doing so actually increases your profit on a per unit basis.

Source: http://www.maynaseric.com/strategies-on-how-to-get-a-good-deal-in-commercial-real-estate

toby mac blue ivy carter photos purple squirrel blade runner close encounters of the third kind norovirus beyonce and jay z baby

Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh On Building A Virtuous Business In The ...

Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh believes hard in the value of community. That might sound a little... namby-pamby. Except that it really isn't. Consider the evidence: Hsieh engineered Zappos to be synonymous with excellent customer service, engendering cult-like loyalty among customers. Then last November, Zappos sold the business to Amazon for $1.2 billion, a transaction that earned Hsieh a cool $400 million. Moral of the story? Community=kaching.

Which helps explain Hsieh's latest, seemingly crazy move: He has staked $350 million on revitalizing downtown Vegas--the seedy, largely abandoned areas of Fremont East and Arts Districts north of the Strip--and he has done so by infusing it with the fired-up fraternal spirit that made Zappos a success. Some call Hsieh?s plan visionary; others wonder aloud if it?s an ego-trip by a restlessly ambitious CEO. It might even be understood as a lavish bid to keep Zappos employees happy, at work or not.

Whatever the story, one thing is clear: Entrepreneurs could learn a lot from Hsieh's big gamble on community. We talked to Hsieh along with Kim Schaefer of the Downtown Project and Dylan Bathurst, CEO of Rumgr, a company funded by Hsieh, to find out more.

Slash your marketing budget and pour it all into customer service.

Zappos was founded in 1999 and quickly built its reputation for outstanding service. As Hsieh likes to say, Zappos is a customer service company that happens to sell shoes (and now quite a few other things).

?At Zappos, we've made company culture our No. 1 priority and have formed our entire company strategy around that,? Hsieh explains in an email. ?Culture drives brand, customer service and [ultimately] growth.? In other words, if your startup has any customer-service component at all, that?s core to your product--it?s no frill to be skimped on.

In his book Delivering Happiness, Hsieh writes a mantra (originally by Maya Angelou) that you should scrawl on the walls surrounding your customer-service team: ?People may not remember exactly what you did or what you said, but they will always remember how you made them feel.? Word-of-mouth is infinitely cheaper than traditional advertising costs, but it?s a mistake to call it free. Instead think of word-of-mouth as the culmination of well-tended investments in every customer touch-point. Invest in the right things, according to Hsieh?s thinking, and you don?t have to outpace your competitors? monster-marketing budget.

So how can this mission apply to an entire city, in this case downtown Vegas? ?Culture is to a company as community is to a city, just at a different scale,? Hsieh says. ?You need to bring together people with shared values and a desire to be part of something bigger than themselves.?

Aim for the densest part of any crowd.

Zappos announced their move into the former City Hall back in December 2010. In January 2012 Hsieh upped the ante in supporting downtown Vegas by helping to launch the Downtown Project.

?We've been primarily relying on Edward Glaeser's work in his book Triumph of the City," Hsieh says, referring to the acclaimed Harvard economist. ?Specifically, we are focused on residential density (100 residents/acre) combined with street level activity for residents to collide in (bars, cafes, restaurants, etc.) and most importantly a culture of openness, sharing, collaboration, and optimism.? This emphasis on urban density as a multiplier of human potential is all the rage among urban-planning wonks, but the hard data around cities confirms this theory.

That means startups should aim for the densest, most culturally rich spot for their office location, and build such nodes of density into their office floorplan.

Downtown Vegas has a serious density problem: it?s urbanized, with sidewalks and so forth, but it's almost a tabula rasa. ?For a number of reasons during Las Vegas? evolution, development of large-scale casino projects migrated from Downtown to the Strip, which is in unincorporated Clark County, not the City of Las Vegas,? says Kim Schaefer, the Downtown Project?s chief spokesperson. ?We?re unlike most other urban redevelopment efforts because our downtown isn?t full of dilapidated buildings; it?s full of vacant lots.?

Hsieh concurs. When asked for downtown Vegas? most pressing need, Hsieh immediately responds, ?Not enough buildings. There are a lot of empty lots in downtown Vegas and we're working on different ways to activate them as quickly as possible.? $200 million of the initial $350 million goes towards real estate acquisition and residential development, with another $50 million devoted to the kinds of street-level small businesses that boost a city?s walking score: coffee shops, yoga studios, bodegas, bars, and so on. (Another $50 million each goes to education and to funding tech startups via VegasTechFund.) Two hundred mill may or may not prove a sufficient cash infusion to jump-start density downtown; right now there aren?t enough downtown residents to justify a grocery store, according to Schaefer.

The Downtown Project aims to close the real estate gap with--wait for it--jerry-rigged shipping containers. Glamorous it?s not, but the plans call for a steep discount on Vegas? already-depressed rates for commercial square footage. ?The purpose of the shipping containers is more about lowering the obstacles to entry for some businesses, giving them an opportunity to prove their concept,? says Dylan Bathurst, CEO of Rumgr, a mobile location-based marketplace, funded partly by Hsieh, and based downtown. Bathurst is involved in numerous downtown-revitalization efforts, including organizing the ?Jelly,? a weekly networking event for Vegas tech startups.

For those who want more ambiance, a coworking space is nearing completion, while a more modestly scaled space called CoBiz opened in late May. Residential housing is sparser: it consists primarily of the Ogden, the only luxury high-rise in the
area, although additional buildings are under construction.

Put your teams in a real room together--an awesome room.

Zappos offices have become famous for their perk-bedecked offices (take a virtual tour here). Your startup?s budget may not stretch to complimentary dry-cleaning or a constant supply of free food and drink, but there are other cost-effective ways to give your employees license to infuse their working space with personality. Zappos offices are entirely open-plan; the cubicles are positively littered with personal touches. The conference rooms are similar encrusted with the teams? enthusiasms: skateboard shells plastered to the walls, a mountain bike hanging from the ceiling. It ain?t going to impress a VC who values formality ? but if it keeps the troops happily at home when they work super-late, that?s another story.

Keep learning, especially outside your discipline.

Much of Hsieh?s project rests on a belief in the creative power of accidental collisions between different-thinking folks. Those friendly collisions happen daily within Zappos unstructured offices, as they do every time a random Zappos customer gets offered the perk-filled VIP program, and they?ve fueled the company?s success. Now it?s Hsieh?s turn to apply that logic to his chosen hometown.

Partly the Downtown Project Vegas enthusiasts seem drawn to the plan because it?s well outside their professional comfort zone, a crazy locus around which many likewise dreamers are now revolving. ?I?ve been living in Las Vegas since the mid-90s,? says Schaefer. ?I?ve been witness to the boom and the bust, the incredible growth, and the despair of the downturn?.[This is] our second chance to decide what we want to be when we ?grow up?, what kind of city we want to be.? It?s a very Vegas storyline, in fact: a glorious crapshoot by amateurs, an attempt to found a cultural oasis in the middle of a desert. Whether it?ll work, or simply evaporate Hsieh?s time and money, is an open question.

Hsieh likes dissenters who are curious enough to head downtown and see what his plans are actually about. ?The doubters are generally people who don't have a full understanding of what we're doing and what's already happening,? he states. ?The Downtown Project team gives tours of what we're up to almost every day. It takes about an hour, and I'd encourage everyone to come take a tour before forming an opinion.?

video: How Tony Hsieh Pivoted Zappos Into A $1.2 Billion Amazon Acquisition

[Image: Flickr user Thomas Hawk]

Corrections: An earlier version of this article stated that Rumgr was funded by Zappos, it was funded by Hsieh; it also erroneously said that Zappos was founded in Nevada in 2005, it was founded in California in 1999.

Source: http://www.fastcompany.com/3000839/zappos-ceo-tony-hsieh-building-virtuous-business-city-sin

california earthquake california earthquake tyson chandler tyson chandler stephen hill draft tracker the pirates band of misfits

North Texas SEC Lawyer: Non-Waivable Provisions of Texas LLC Law

Is there a business law topic that doesn't benefit from the input of a quote from a 1980's movie starring Chevy Chase? ?I sure hope not!

This blog post will explore the ability of a Texas limited liability company to waive the default provisions under the Texas Limited Liability Company Law (TLLCL) (Title 3 and Title 1, as applicable, of the Texas Business Organizations Code (TBOC)). ?So we now turn to Fletch on?the importance of waivers: ? ?

Fletch: Aren't you gonna read me my rights?
Cop: You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to have your face kicked in by me. You have the right to have your balls stomped on by him.
Fletch: I think I'll waive my rights.

Generally, the members of a Texas limited liability company are free to agree to virtually any arrangement regarding the management and operation of their limited liability company. ?For example, the members may have the same or different management rights, economic (profit and loss) rights, voting rights, information rights, etc. ?This flexible nature of the limited liability company structure is part of the reason why the LLC has become the most popular choice of entity in Texas. ?But if the members fail to reach an agreement on any of these issues, or if the company agreement of the limited liability company is silent on them, the TLCL provides default provisions which will govern the LLC and its members. ?For example, absent an agreement to the contrary, a member of an LLC has no right to withdraw from the company and the other members have no right to expel him (Section 101.107 of the TBOC). ?Another default provision under the TLLCL provides that absent an agreement to the contrary, profits and losses of the LLC are allocated among the members in proportion to the agreed value of the members' respective contributions to the company (Section 101.201 of the TBOC).

Fortunately, virtually every default provision of the TLLCL can be modified by agreement of the LLC's members (Section 101.052(c) of the TBOC). ?The exceptions to that general rule (i.e., the non-waivable provisions of the TLLCL) are the following matters identified in Section 101.054 of the TBOC:

(1) ?Section 101.054 of the TBOC itself may not be waived or modified (obviously!);
(2) ?The LLC must have at least one member (Section 101.101 of the TBOC);
(3) ?A promise to contribute to the LLC must be in writing and signed to be enforceable (Section 101.151 of the TBOC);
(4) ?The LLC may not make distributions if it would cause the LLC's liabilities to exceed the value of its assets. ?Similarly, a Series LLC may not make a distribution with respect to any series if its liabilities would exceed its assets. (Sections 101.206 and 101.613 of the TBOC);
(5) ?The LLC has an obligation to maintain a list of its members and their respective ownership percentages and other books and records (Section 101.501 of the TBOC);
(6) ?If the company is a Series LLC, it must respect the integrity of each series of membership (Section?101.602(b) of the TBOC);
(7) ?Words and phrases interpreted or defined in?Chapter 1 of the TBOC (Definitions and other General Provisions) may not be waived or modified to the extent such words or phrases are used to interpret a provision or define a word or phrase contained in one of the Sections listed above or below;
(8) ?Chapter 2 of the TBOC (Purposes and Powers) may not be waived or modified, except that the following Sections of Chapter 2 may be waived or modified in the company agreement:

  • Section 2.104(c)(2)(permitting a member to challenge a guaranty by the company as not benefiting the ? company);
  • Section 2.104(c)(3)(permitting the company or its legal representative to challenge a guaranty as not benefiting the company); or?
  • Section 2.113 (limiting the company's purposes and powers);

(9) ?Chapter 3 of the TBOC (Formation and Governance), may not be waived or modified, except that Subchapter C (Governing Persons and Officers) and Subchapter E (Certificates Representing Ownership Interest) may be waived or modified in the company agreement; and
(10) ?Chapter 4 of the TBOC (Filings) may not be waived or modified;
(11) ?Chapter 5 of the TBOC (Names of Entities, Registered Agents & Registered Offices)?may not be waived or modified;
(12) ?Chapter 7 of the TBOC (Liability) may not be waived or modified;
(13) ?Chapter 10 of the TBOC (Mergers, Interest Exchanges, Conversions & Sales of Assets) may not be waived or modified;
(14) ?Chapter?11 of the TBOC (Winding Up & Termination) may not be waived or modified, except that?Section 11.056 (requiring a winding up of the company upon the company no longer having members with certain exceptions) may be waived or modified; and
(15) ?Chapter 12 of the TBOC (Administrative Powers) may not be waived or modified.

Of course, any provision listed above may be waived or modified in the company agreement if (1) the provision itself authorizes the limited liability company to waive or modify the provision in the company's governing documents, or (2) if the provision itself specifies: (A)?the person or group of persons entitled to approve a modification; or (B)?the vote or other method by which a modification is required to be approved.

A provision of the TLLCL that grants a right to a person, other than a member, manager, officer, or assignee of a membership interest in a limited liability company, may be waived or modified in the company agreement of the company only if the person consents to the waiver or modification.

Finally, Section 101.054 of the TBOC notes that the company agreement may not unreasonably restrict a person's right of access to records and information under Section 101.502 of the TBOC.

Source: http://www.northtexasseclawyer.com/2012/09/non-waivable-provisions-of-texas-llc-law.html

jesse ventura keri russell drew barrymore bill o brien portland trailblazers will kopelman casey anthony

Gaming In The Cloud Is Great News For Players, If The Industry Can ...

Yesterday, gaming giant Electronic Arts acquired Swedish gaming company ESN, which creates web- and cloud-based services for game developers. It's further proof that EA is bolstering its cloud-gaming services to keep up with its audience, which is now as used to web and mobile social games as it is traditional video games, such as EA's Fifa or Madden NFL.

Cloud gaming poses a potentially significant threat to gaming industry stalwarts because it makes the need to buy hard copies of video games obsolete. When you're streaming and playing from the cloud, you don't need to wait months or years on a lead time for the newest version of a game--it's simply expected that as developers make improvements, you'll see those updates reflected in your games much more quickly, the way frequent app updates work on your smartphone. That's generally great news for gamers as, in theory, it means new games will be the latest and greatest versions of all the time.

But it's not great news for EA-type games publishers and console makers. Naturally, EA's not alone in this game of catch-up. Sony is another big player making bets on cloud gaming. In July, Sony acquired streaming video-game maker Gaikai for $380 million to bring its gaming services to the cloud, where it's free to stream to any device, not just Sony-produced ones such as the PlayStation.

A Global Industry Analysts report projects the cloud gaming market will hit $2 billion by 2018. That may seem paltry compared to the $78.5 billion the global video game market is projected to make in revenue this year, but $2 billion is more significant when you compare it to the much tamer $8.5 billion of total revenue that's coming from mobile games on smartphones and tablets.

[Image: Flickr user x-ray delta one]

Source: http://www.fastcompany.com/3001626/gaming-cloud-great-news-players-if-industry-can-keep

paula deen birth control recall nick carter leslie carter aaron carter sister pfizer signing day 2012 football

AP-GfK Poll: Most see health law being implemented

FILE - In this March 23, 2010, file photo, participants applaud in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, March 23, 2010, as President Barack Obama, flanked by Macelas Owens of Seattle, left, and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., right, signs the health care bill. Americans may not be all that crazy about President Barack Obama?s health care law, but a new poll shows they don?t see it going away. The Associated Press-GfK poll finds that about 7 in 10 Americans think the overhaul law will go into effect fully, with some changes, ranging from minor to major alterations. Behind the president, from left are, Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin of Ill., Vice President Joe Biden, Vicki Kennedy, widow of Sen. Ted Kennedy, Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., Ryan Smith of Turlock, Calif., Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Md., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev., Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., House Majority Whip James Clyburn of S.C., and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

FILE - In this March 23, 2010, file photo, participants applaud in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, March 23, 2010, as President Barack Obama, flanked by Macelas Owens of Seattle, left, and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., right, signs the health care bill. Americans may not be all that crazy about President Barack Obama?s health care law, but a new poll shows they don?t see it going away. The Associated Press-GfK poll finds that about 7 in 10 Americans think the overhaul law will go into effect fully, with some changes, ranging from minor to major alterations. Behind the president, from left are, Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin of Ill., Vice President Joe Biden, Vicki Kennedy, widow of Sen. Ted Kennedy, Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., Ryan Smith of Turlock, Calif., Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Md., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev., Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., House Majority Whip James Clyburn of S.C., and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Chart shows answers to health care questions

(AP) ? It still divides us, but most Americans think President Barack Obama's health care law is here to stay.

More than 7 in 10 say the law will fully go into effect with some changes, ranging from minor to major alterations, a new Associated Press-GfK poll finds.

Only 12 percent expect the Affordable Care Act ? "Obamacare" to dismissive opponents ? to be repealed completely.

The law ? covering 30 million uninsured, requiring virtually every legal U.S. resident to carry health insurance and forbidding insurers from turning away the sick ? remains as contentious as the day it passed more than two years ago. There's still more than another year before its major provisions go into effect on Jan. 1, 2014.

Although the overhaul survived a Supreme Court challenge in June, the November election appears likely to settle its fate. Republican Mitt Romney vows to begin repealing it on Day One while Obama pledges to carry it out faithfully.

But the poll found that Americans are converging on the idea that the overhaul will be part of their lives, although probably not down to its last comma. They don't totally buy what either candidate is saying.

"People are sort of averaging out the candidates' positions," said Harvard School of Public Health professor Robert Blendon, who tracks polling on health care issues.

Forty-one percent said they expect the law to be fully implemented with minor changes, while 31 percent said they expect to see it take effect with major changes. Only 11 percent said they think it will be implemented as passed.

Americans also prefer that states have a strong say in carrying out the overhaul.

Sixty-three percent want states to run new health insurance markets called "exchanges." Open for business in 2014, exchanges would sign up individuals and small businesses for taxpayer-subsidized private coverage. With GOP governors still on the sidelines, the federal government may wind up operating the exchanges in half or more of the states, an outcome only 32 percent of Americans want to see, according to the poll.

Developed with researchers from Stanford University and the University of Michigan, the poll also found an enduring generation gap, with people 65 and older most likely to oppose the bill and those younger than 45 less likely to be against it.

Republicans remain overwhelmingly opposed to the overhaul and in favor of repeal. But only 21 percent said they think that will actually come about.

Romney supporter Toni Gardner, 69, a retired school system nurse from Louisville, Ky., said that until a few weeks ago she was sure her candidate fully supported repeal, as she does.

But then Romney said in an interview there are a number of things he likes in the law that he would put into practice, including making sure that people with pre-existing medical problems can get coverage. The Romney campaign quickly qualified that, but the candidate's statement still resonates.

"If Romney gets in, he'll go with parts of it," Gardner said, "and there are parts of that he won't go with."

Gardner thinks expanding coverage will cost too much and may make it harder to get an appointment with a doctor. Besides, she doesn't believe the government can handle the job. She's covered by Medicare ? a government-run health system ? but says "that wasn't a choice that I had."

At 26, Santa Monica, Calif., web developer Vyki Englert has only bare-bones health insurance coverage. Her parents, a preschool teacher and a self-employed photographer, are uninsured. Englert says she thinks the law will largely go into effect as passed. (Among 18- to 29-year-olds, 60 percent think it will be implemented with only minor changes or none at all.)

Englert says that she supports guaranteeing coverage to people with health problems and that provisions such as broader coverage for birth control will help younger women such as her.

"I kind of see a day-to-day way where this law could benefit me," she said. Englert says the health care law dovetails with a trend toward consumerism in her generation. Older Americans "don't have the context of the young people," she added. "They are looking more at the theoretical impact on the budget and the country."

Overall, the poll found Americans divided on repeal, with neither side able to claim a majority. Forty-nine percent said the health care law should be repealed completely, while 44 percent said it should be implemented as written.

The notion that the law will be implemented with changes, captured in the poll, mirrors a discussion behind the scenes in Washington, particularly among some Republicans.

"Whoever wins the election, the (health care law) is going to be modified," Mark McClellan, who ran Medicare under former President George W. Bush, said in a recent interview.

Congressional Republicans say if tax increases are on the table in budget negotiations with a re-elected Obama, changes to the health care law or delays in implementation are also fair game.

Some parts of the law already are in effect; its big push to cover the uninsured doesn't come until 2014.

Public opinion about the law itself has barely budged since 2010, soon after it passed. At the time, 30 percent supported it. That's now 32 percent. And 40 percent opposed the overhaul. That's now 36 percent.

Misconceptions about the law that reigned two years ago live on, including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's widely debunked charge that it would create "death panels" to decide on care for the elderly and disabled. In 2010, 39 percent believed the law would set up committees to review individual medical records and decide who gets care paid for by the government. Forty-one percent still hold that view, according to the poll.

The poll asked people to say whether 18 different items were in the law or not and to rate how certain they were about their answers. Just 14 percent were right most of the time and sure of it.

Still, knowledge about what the law actually does is growing. More people are aware of provisions that allow adult children to stay on their parents' coverage until age 26, impose insurance mandates on individuals and businesses, and protect those with pre-existing medical conditions.

The poll was conducted Aug. 3-13 and involved interviews with 1,334 randomly chosen adults nationwide. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

The survey was conducted online by GfK using its KnowledgePanel sample, which first chose people for the study using randomly generated telephone numbers and home addresses. Once people were selected to participate, they were interviewed online. Participants without Internet access were provided it for free.

___

AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.

___

Online:

http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2012-09-26-AP%20Poll-Health%20Care%20Overhaul/id-8455a7fe6c284d53a8cfd22fbbad86e1

houston texans NFL scores week 3 kat dennings Steve Sabol Yom Kippur 2012 detroit lions Aaron Paul

Green light given to driverless cars in California

1 hr.

California took?the fast lane to the future on Tuesday when Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law that lets self-driving cars onto public roads.

Brown rode to the signing ceremony at Google headquarters in the passenger seat of a vehicle that steered itself, a Prius modified by Google. Google co-founder Sergey Brin and State Sen. Alex Padilla, who sponsored the bill, were along for the ride. An engineer for the technology company, Chris Urmson, sat in the driver's seat, but the car drove itself.

"We're looking at science fiction becoming tomorrow's reality," Brown said just before signing the bill.

Google has been working on self-driving technology since 2010, including testing a fleet of self-driving cars along California roadways.

Google's driverless cars rely on video cameras, radar sensors, lasers and a database of information collected from manually driven cars to help navigation, according to the company.

The new law goes into effect next year and establishes safety and performance regulations for testing driverless cars, provided an operator is ready to take control if necessary.

However, it will likely take years before a fully self-driving autonomous vehicle hits the road, industry official say.

"I think the self driving car can really dramatically improve the quality of life," said Brin, who pointed to uses ranging from aiding the blind, ferrying revelers who drank too much, to simply making better use of commuting time.

He added that by driving closer together more safely than human-driven cars, self-driven cars might cut congestion.

But Google has no plans to build its own driverless cars.

"We have had great conversations with a variety of automakers," he said. "Anything we do is going to be in partnership with the industry."

The technology has been in the works since the 1950s, when General Motors showed off "dream cars" with features such as autopilot. Recently, carmakers have started incorporating into today's models some elements based on the innovations in those early vehicles, including adaptive cruise control or traffic-jam technologies that can slow the car automatically.

Carmakers developing autonomous technologies include BMW, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes, Nissan,?Toyota, Volkswagen and Volvo, as well as suppliers, technology companies and universities.

Chip company Intel created a $100 million fund in February to invest in future auto technology.

Nevada and Florida have already passed laws allowing self-driving cars.?

(c) CopyrightThomson Reuters 2012. Check for restrictions at:?http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp?


Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/futureoftech/green-light-given-driverless-cars-california-1B6101346

brandon phillips summerfest summerfest fidel castro rick santorum ozzie guillen castro comments phish

The Facebook Effect? Shutterstock Prices IPO Shares At $13-$15 To Raise $54.2M, Half The Original $115M

shutterstock_logoOnline stock photography company Shutterstock, which filed for an IPO in May, has today filed its S-1. It will be offering 4,500,000 shares,?pricing them between $13-15, the document revealed today. But while initially the company had planned to raise up to $115 million -- as noted in documents filed days before Facebook went public -- today it appeared to be singing a different tune. With shares priced at $14, "We estimate that the net proceeds to us from this offering will be approximately $54.2?million." In other words, about half of the originally intended amount.

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/b9zIivMFMbk/

heather locklear hospitalized joplin tornado extreme makeover home edition constitution day constitution day coachella 2012 dolly parton

Netflix iOS and Android apps have a remote control easter egg for PS3 owners

Netflix iOS and Android apps have a remote control easter egg for PS3 owners

Now that the revamped Netflix interface has hit phones and tablets for both Apple and Android powered hardware, the service has quietly enabled something else: second screen remote control. Currently the feature is only known to work on the PlayStation 3 with a mobile device on the same local network, once the two apps are running you can browse as normal on your phone or tablet and when you go to play a movie or TV show it asks you to choose where it will play. While the video is playing you can stop, pause or seek through it to a certain point, change the audio or subtitles, choose a different episode or even browse for something entirely different without stopping the action. We've got a few screens of the mobile apps at work in the gallery, check after the break for a quick video of it working.

Continue reading Netflix iOS and Android apps have a remote control easter egg for PS3 owners

Filed under: , , , ,

Netflix iOS and Android apps have a remote control easter egg for PS3 owners originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:23:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |   | Email this | Comments


Source: http://feeds.engadget.com/~r/weblogsinc/engadget/~3/_qR-l3j_ghc/

joseph gordon levitt katy perry russell brand mark hurd

Real Estate and Property Managers | E Coast Dist

Investment Property Management Norco Do you own property but aren?t able to give the time to offer the appropriate management for your real estate needs? The process of owning real estate can be a great business venture, but it can also be difficult and time-consuming, especially if you have other business ventures. We can provide you with appropriate resources to get the most from your property. We can collect payment, find quality tenants, and handle other essential tasks. Our procedures are fail-safe and very productive in properly operating your property. Find out how we can help you with property management when you get an estimate today. Reasonable Management Specialists

Source: http://www.eastcoastdistrict.com/?p=18658

nazi ss andrej pejic naomi watts macaulay culkin steve jobs fbi safehouse brown recluse