Hasta La Gadget!

It may look like a Prius that’s been vomited on by Mad Max, but the vehicle you see in the clip below is probably Tesla’s long-delayed Model X SUV. You see, when companies begin stress-testing vehicles, they dress them down with a dodgy paint job and…

It was reported in Roll Call “Compared to What? The Improbable Journey of Barney Frank,” a pull-no-punches peek into Frank’s personal and professional lives, began making the festival rounds last year, opening first at Tribeca before migrating West.”

Then Last week they reported “Sheila Canavan and Michael Chandler, the documentarians who filmed former Rep. Barney Frank throughout the Massachusetts Democrat’s final year in Congress, have launched an online fundraising effort to help spread their still-in-need-of-fine-tuning project nationwide.”

It is clear this film is a work of passion for the filmmakers. Chandler quoted Barney as his motivation for making the documentary, “As Barney Frank puts it, ‘There are things that a civilized society needs that we can only do if we do them together.” The film also explores how Frank overcame the challenges of being closeted to become a leading voice for LGBT rights. “For me,” Frank says in the film, “it’s been a disparity between a very satisfying public career and a private life in turmoil.” Through his story, Canavan and Chandler delve deeply into the meaning and sacrifice of a life devoted to public service.

Those fortunate to know Barney understand what his commitment to public service did to his private life. It is a story of so many in the LGBT community who live hidden lives; the constant fear of people finding out who you really are and how that could stop you from building a career. Barney went through all this as a public figure. It is one reason why so many in the LGBT community and our allies believe this important film needs to be seen by as many people as possible.

Barney Frank is an icon in the LGBT community but not everyone recognizes he was also considered the smartest member of Congress during his many years there. He had an uncanny ability to focus on issues of importance and become the most knowledgeable person in the Congress on them. He has a rapier wit. He can take down opponents with a one liner and can laugh at himself as well.

As so many others I came ‘out’ during Barney’s time in Congress. His very public coming out and speaking out for the community led to my becoming an LGBT activist. He was fearless and at times took the slings and arrows of his own community as he fought for our civil and human rights. Barney’s 2007 speech on the floor of the House of Representatives which led to their passing ENDA brought tears to my eyes and to those of so many Americans.

So it is vital for all of us to help make the dream of a wider audience for this film a reality. The documentarians need $85,000 which with the help of the LGBT community and the millions of lives Barney touched shouldn’t be hard to raise. To help them and as a thank-you to Barney just go to the Indiegogo campaign site, which will be live through February 26th, and make as big a donation as you can afford to allow Michael and Sheila to cover the cost of moving this film beyond the festival circuit.

According to Roll Call “Canavan and Chandler are so sure we will all respond they are already looking forward to showing the movie far and wide, mapping out plans to dovetail with Frank’s forthcoming book tour by plotting screenings in Boston, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and, of course, the District of Columbia.” The current plan is to show the film in the District the week of March 20th.

Please join me in making this possible. Barney Frank has dedicated his life to making our lives better. He fought for the rights of the LGBT community; he fought to redress the wrongs visited upon the Japanese American community during World War II; he fought to make the banks and Wall Street more responsive to the people; he has spent his life making a difference and we need to share his work and his life as broadly as possible to inspire others to the kind of selfless public service Barney Frank’s life continues to represent.

I just returned from Davos, Switzerland, where the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum is held each year. Leaders from business, government, and civil society all gather here to engage each other, make connections, and, hopefully, make progress on the mission statement of the WEF: “Committed to Improving the State of the World.”

I reflected on that mission statement last year in my remarks to all the attendees at the event’s closing session. I said the deeper meaning of leadership is sacrifice and not just skills — and that the most included people on the planet who were sitting in that famous Congress Hall will be morally evaluated by their relationship to the most excluded, who, of course, are never in that grand auditorium. Many individual leaders in attendance wanted to discuss that challenge further, and those conversations continued this year.

One session this year that drew many people off site was called “Struggle for Survival” — an intense simulation of how 3 billion people in our world actually live each day. Half of the global population exists on less than $2 per day. Run by the Crossroads Foundation, Struggle for Survival was a much more emotional experience than the rest of the sessions at Davos.

My wife, Joy, and I participated in this simulation, and the people running it told us that several CEOs seemed quite affected by the very powerful dramatization of real-world injustice and poverty. It took people out of their heads into stunning revelations of how the excluded really live, prompting feelings of guilt, pain, anger, empathy, and compassion — and then a call to commitment.

Overbooked sessions on mindfulness and meditation got people speaking much more personally than just professionally about the physical and moral costs of overwork and stress — the norm for the wealthy and successful. “Busyness is the badge of honor,” one participant lamented.

The Global Action Values Council, on which I sit, convened interactive sessions each morning on ethics and values called “Stop to Think,” with topics like “What is Ethical Leadership?” “Who Matters?,” and “Consume or Conserve?” Our morning conversations drew many “values leaders,” like Mohammad Yunus, the founder of the Grameen Bank, Helen Clark, Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and Boqiang Lin, Director of the China Center for Energy Economics Research (CCEER).The morning conversation went deeper and deeper, indicating how hungry many participants at Davos are for a new values conversation.

There are always many criticisms of Davos: It’s a very elite group of the world’s most influential leaders gathering each year in a beautiful ski resort in the Swiss Alps. Here are some of the most influential and wealthiest people in the world riding the waves of money and power. What is clear is that they are riding the waves, but they are not really in control of them — even though some would like to be. There was a feeling in the gathering this year of being out of control with so many alarming things going on in our world — dangerous forces on the rise; real climatic, pandemic, and economic threats; failing and falling states, with cultural and ideological clashes that scare everybody. Paris had just happened.

Some Davos participants described the atmosphere this year as “gloomy” and “fearful.” Those who control the world seemed to feel, and be, out of control and unsure how to deal with growing and frightening global instabilities and the violence that keeps emerging. Terrorism and blatant inexcusable barbarism arise out of grievances and injustices that nobody wants to confront or seem to know how to address. In theological language, sin begets sin and we don’t seem to know how to deal with that.

I returned home to a snowstorm hitting the American northeast, where so much of the power of this country resides. Again, people seemed to feel out of control. Everyone was trying to “predict” the nature and consequences of the coming storm but without much confidence. One weather forecaster I heard said, “With all our technology and sophistication, only Mother Nature is in control here and the rest of us are just waiting to see what happens.”

When I first flipped on the cable news shows after coming home from Davos, I saw CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC all covering the same thing — the upcoming snowstorm. It was nice, refreshing, and so much better than all the constant politicking of every event that they are usually engaged in. And the great moral message of the snow coverage was — be careful and take care of each other, especially the most vulnerable.

What a wonderful values statement — not just for snowstorms but for everyday life. Because we know who is really in control, and it’s not us — not even the wealthy and powerful among us, who often live under the illusion of control. What a resting place we can find in God when we remember that truth. And I was just very happy to be home with my two boys for a snow-delayed school day in Washington, D.C.!

Jim Wallis is president of Sojourners. His book, The (Un)Common Good: How the Gospel Brings Hope to a World Divided, the updated and revised paperback version of On God’s Side, is available now.

It’s not quite the android uprising Bill Gates and Elon Musk are afraid of, but it’s domination of another sort, with shipments of smartphones running Google’s OS topping one billion in 2014. The global milestone came as smartphone sales overall grew year-on-year, according to Strategy Analytics, with Android propelling its overall market share to more than 81-percent. For Google, it’s … Continue reading

Although the legal profession is largely self-regulated, Rules of Professional Conduct exist to protect the public. For example, the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide in pertinent part as follows: “The legal profession’s relative autonomy carries with it special responsibilities of self-government. The profession has a responsibility to assure that its regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar. Every lawyer is responsible for observance of the Rules of Professional Conduct. A lawyer should also aid in securing their observance by other lawyers. Neglect of these responsibilities compromises the independence of the profession and the public interest which it serves.” Please note that this is merely a Model Rule, and that each state has its own Rules of Professional Conduct. Regardless, such rules exist “to protect the public and to promote respect and confidence in the legal profession,” as set forth in the California Rules of Professional Conduct.”

However, it appears as though the legal community does quite the opposite, when interpersonal relationships are involved. In fact, I am reminded of the tobacco industry’s “decades of deceit and actions that cost millions of lives,” in response to concerns regarding the health risks associated with its products. I realize that this may seem like an extremely harsh comparison, but let’s consider the facts.

The following is from Hong Kong’s Department of Justice:

“The time, costs, acrimony and uncertainty involved in traditional litigation raise hard issues as to whether the present dispute resolution process is adequate to meet the needs of justice and efficiency. Increasingly, mediation is considered the alternative or even the preferred method. In Hong Kong, whether the use of mediation can take off affects not only our status as a leading financial and business centre, but also our efforts to build a more harmonious community….

Many people still think that mediation is, in effect, an informal arbitration. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mediation does not seek to establish liability or fault. It is not a weapon for use in the ‘blame culture’ that is seen in so many parts of the world. Mediation is a process that seeks to help the parties find a solution to their problems that they ‘can live with’. Mediation is not tied to traditional judicial remedies. It can be, and often is, highly imaginative and can have the effect of bringing the parties back into a good relationship.

In the 2007-08 Policy Address under ‘Investing for a caring society’, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, Mr. Donald Tsang said that, ‘To alleviate conflicts and foster harmony, we will promote the development of mediation services. On many occasions, interpersonal conflicts need not go to court. Mediation can reduce social costs and help parties concerned to rebuild their relationship. This is a new trend in advanced regions around the world….’

The Chief Justice of Hong Kong Andrew Li Kwok Nang in his Opening Address at the ‘Mediation in Hong Kong: The Way Forward’ Conference in 2007 said as follows: ‘I believe that the promotion of mediation is plainly in the public interest.’

The atmosphere in mediation is intended to be non-adversarial…. In family mediation, the settlement or agreement reached is not only responsive to the needs of each party, but also to the needs of their children, and the continuing relationship as parents can also be enhanced. Mediation avoids the tension and conflict in the adversarial system, and may generally start or be terminated at any time. Users save time and money in not having to contest matters in court. Mediations are conducted in a calm, constructive and confidential setting, which is a major consideration for parties involved in a family dispute.”

In British Columbia, the Ministry of Attorney General, Justice Services Branch, described the situation as follows:

“One of the most important differences between mediation and the court process (which is called litigation) is that mediation allows people to reach agreements that meet everyone’s interests. The court process, on the other hand, focuses on opposing legal rights and obligations of the parties. In litigation, one person wins and the other person loses….

Mediation can be used for many kinds of family disputes but is most often used when couples separate or divorce. In these situations there are sometimes disagreements about the value of the family home and how other assets are to be divided. If children are involved there can be disputes about where and with whom the children will live, how often and when the children will spend time with the non-custodial parent and how the parents will share the cost of raising the children….

Something that often makes family disputes different from other kinds of disputes is how emotional people may be, especially when disputes about child custody and access arise….

Mediation is particularly well suited to family disputes because the process helps people negotiate settlements on the basis of their needs and interests so that everyone can win in the end. On the other hand, when cases go to court a judge makes a decision that everyone must live with, even when one person wins the case and the other loses.

In family disputes, judges must make their decisions based on the best interests of the child…. It can be difficult for parents to sort out their own needs from those of their children. Mediation can help with that process. The mediator encourages people to think about everyone’s interests and needs, not just their rights. The court process, on the other hand, focuses on a person’s legal rights. The result can be that parents confuse their rights with their child’s best interests — the child gets put in the middle of the dispute….

When children are involved, parents often continue to have a relationship. Mediation can help to develop better channels of communication and to build new, appropriate relationships after divorce or separation….”

According to the Australian Government, “Using ADR to resolve child protection disputes before the Children’s Court is appealing for a number of reasons. Court processes that are underpinned by adversarial principles are conflict-driven by nature, with parties competing against one another to ‘win’. However, care and protection matters heard before the children’s court routinely involve family members and child protection workers who must continue to work together to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the child well into the future. Giving parties an opportunity to resolve child protection disputes outside of a hearing and where this is not possible, at least reducing the amount of time families and professionals have to spend in the courtroom, serves to minimise the potential detrimental impact of contested hearings on individuals and relationships. ADR, and its focus on collaborative decision making, has the potential to encourage more positive working relationships between families and child protection workers. Providing an opportunity to discuss and consider the range of possible options available can lead to decisions that are better informed and more responsive to the needs of children and therefore more likely to be implemented. These are all important outcomes.”

The Honourable Warren K. Winkler Chief Justice of Ontario explains it as follows:

“The advantages [of mediation] do not end with costs savings…. [A] mediated resolution can encompass the entire dispute between the parties, not just a narrow issue that is before a court. In addition, a mediated resolution is all the more valuable and meaningful in disputes where the relationship between the parties is longstanding and ongoing….

[R]esponsible lawyers will advise clients enmeshed in lawsuits to at least consider mediation as an option, whether or not the Law Society mandates that this be done.

[Some] types [of cases] should always be mediated. These include wrongful dismissal cases, family law matters, and any dispute in which there exists an imbalance in terms of financial resources or the ability to withstand delay, either occasional or deliberate on the part of the opponent. All these cases, in my opinion, must be mediated at as early a stage in the proceeding as is likely to be fruitful….”

The Law Reform Commission in Northern Ireland found as follows:

“In preparing its Consultation Paper and this Report, the Commission’s approach is based on the key objective that civil disputes are resolved in a way that meets the needs of the parties and conforms to fundamental principles of justice….

[W]here it is appropriate, parties involved in civil disputes should be encouraged to explore whether their dispute can be resolved by agreement, whether directly or with the help of a third party mediator or conciliator, rather than by proceeding to a formal ―winner v loser decision by a court. This happens every day in the courts, in family litigation, in large and small commercial claims and in boundary and other property disputes between neighbours. In that respect there are strong reasons to support and encourage parties to reach a solution through agreement, especially in disputes where emotional issues combine with legal issues, provided that this alternative process meets fundamental principles of justice….

While it is difficult to set out general categories of cases which are appropriate for resolution through mediation or conciliation, it can be suggested that features of appropriate cases include: where the parties wish to restore or maintain their relationship with the other party (parents, business partners, siblings); claims where the monetary and non-monetary costs of litigation are disproportionately high in comparison to the issues in dispute; claims where one or both parties are seeking remedies which are not available through the traditional court system (such remedies may include: an apology, an explanation; flexibility in relation to financial repayments; changes in administrative procedures); and where the parties wish to resolve the dispute in a confidential and private manner….

[R]esearch has indicated that: “The adversarial nature of proceedings does little to resolve conflict in families’ lives but rather compounds and increases that conflict in many cases. Alternatives, such as mediation and collaborative law, should be better supported and encouraged, and be widely available countrywide….”

The Commission concurs with the view of the President of Ireland that: “While happiness and misery are not always easy to measure there can be little doubt that the experience of being an active participant in a process that drives towards consensus has to be a considerable improvement on being a passive participant in a process where outcomes are imposed with all the potential for longitudinal resentment that can seriously blight many lives, but especially the lives of children.”

The United Kingdom’s Family Justice Minister has said, “Mediation works and we are committed to making sure that more people make use of it, rather than go through the confrontational and stressful experience of going to court. When people separate we want them to do it in the least damaging way for everyone involved, especially children.”

The United States Executive Branch and the Department of the Navy specify that “ADR techniques shall be used as an alternative to litigation or formal administrative procedures to the maximum extent practicable. Use of these techniques may resolve the entire issue in controversy or a portion of the issue in controversy. The goal is to resolve disputes and conflicts at the earliest stage feasible, by the fastest and least expensive method possible, and at the lowest possible organizational level prior to litigation. Every issue in controversy, regardless of the subject matter, is a potential candidate for ADR.”

The following information is from the Nebraska Dispute Resolution Office, Administrative Office of the Court, Nebraska Supreme Court:

“Some form of informal mediation and ways to resolve disputes has been used in every culture and people throughout history. Mediation has been used by indigenous peoples of the Americas, New Zealand, Australia, and also used by religious orders such as the Quakers and Mennonites. In more recent times, formal systems of rights-based dispute resolution, using primarily an adversarial process, have evolved in Western civilization and have been largely and exclusively used in the United States and many other nations….

Mediation both resolves past issues and addresses future needs. Mediation allows parties to come to a resolution of their dispute within the context of their relationship. This is particularly important when the relationship is going to continue, such as the relationship that parents have with one another even after a divorce, the relationship of one business partner to another, the relationship of employer and employee, the relationship of neighbors, etc. Mediation not only resolves the dispute at hand but may set up a framework to more easily resolve future disagreements. Mediated settlements tend to hold over time; and, if the parties do develop a later dispute, they are better equipped to resolve the dispute without resorting to the courts.

Generally speaking, mediation should be considered in those situations where a long-term relationship is involved, such as conflicts between family members, employer/employee, landlord/tenant, debtor/creditor, parent/child/school, neighbor/neighbor, business associates, and many others.”

The Alaska Judicial Counsel has reported, “Research about family mediation suggests that mediation can be an effective and efficient service that can be more helpful than litigation to divorcing couples in conflict. Research shows that the majority of clients entering family mediation across a variety of settings reach agreement (either in whole or in part), report satisfaction with the experience and consider it fair and responsive to their needs. Also, relitigation rates among mediation couples have been found to be consistently low, and lower than those found among their litigation counterparts.”

As set forth by the New York Unified Court System, “In ADR processes such as mediation, parties play an important role in resolving their own disputes. This often results in creative solutions, longer-lasting outcomes, greater satisfaction, and improved relationships…. Mediation may be particularly useful when family members, neighbors, or business partners have a dispute.”

As you can see, governments all over the world are well aware that resolving disputes by way of litigation causes a great deal of damage to business, family, and community relationships. With all of this information available, how can the self-regulated legal profession reasonably believe that resolving such matters through litigation, litigated negotiation, or any other such adversarial process is in the public’s interest? Are those involved in the legal field somehow unaware of this information or do they just choose to ignore it? It should be noted that failure to disclose constitutes a deceptive omission. Since litigation is so costly, has the legal profession knowingly and secretly decided to put the buying public at risk solely for the purpose of making profits? Regardless of the reason, families, children, and our society as a whole are being harmed as a result. Maybe, litigation should come with a warning.