text:
A Year Later, The War In Libya Is Far From Over – OpEd
By Horace Campbell
October 23, 2012 will be exactly one year after the Chairperson of the National Transitional Council declared that the Liberation of Libya was complete. A few days later the Secretary General of NATO, General Anders Fogh Rasmussen declared the end of the NATO mission, declaring that the NATO mission to Libya had been 'one of the most successful in NATO history.' Despite this announcement of success there are daily reports of fighting all across Libya with the levels of insecurity unprecedented in the history of the country with over 1,700 militias roaming. After Col Gaddafi was executed on October 20, 2011, the disinformation agencies of empire worked hard to keep the news of the militias and the insecurity out of international news. However, the competition between the differing oil companies had ensnared numerous forces. So this warfare continued with the militias linked to western oil companies through private military contractors and relevant western agencies.
Citizens of the United States learnt of the levels of insecurity of the people of Libya on September 11 when the Ambassador of the United States to Libya was killed in Benghazi, the city that was the base of the rebellion against Gaddafi. The death of Ambassador Stevens brought out facts of the US diplomatic/intelligence activities and its relationship to the militias. The differing accounts of the death entered into the presidential campaign as the Republican controlled Congress mounted hearings to get to the 'truth'. Prior to these Hearings reports had been coming out in drips and drabs about the US intelligence presence in Benghazi. When the US security personnel were evacuated after the fateful events of September 11, 2012, the Libyan Deputy Prime Minister Mustafa Abushagour told the Wall Street Journal: 'We were surprised by the numbers of Americans who were at the airport. We have no problem with intelligence sharing or gathering, but our sovereignty is also key.' Libyans were awoken to the extent of the integration between the large numbers of US intelligence and the competing militias in Benghazi.
The testimony of the officials of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security at the Department of State before the US Congress only created more uncertainty in relation to the objectives of the United States in Libya. This Hearing before Congress failed to bring out the important role of the intelligence community in Libya in the coordination of the present war in Syria.
In our commentary this week, we will note that the war in Libya is not over and that the United Nations and the BRICS societies will have to be more forthright in placing a different plan for the restoration of peace and decent livelihood for the peoples of Libya. Ultimately, the triggers of war that spun out of the NATO intervention in Libya are having a tragic effect on all of the peoples of the Middle East and North Africa. The African Union will have to once again intervene in Libya as the NATO countries descend into deeper economic depression and political repression at home and abroad.
After the execution of Gaddafi on October 20, 2011 and the capture of Saif al-Islam in November, the western media went into overdrive to present the idea that a new era of peace and reconstruction had arrived in Libya. Carefully managing the news coming out of Libya, Western citizens were assured that Libya was in a 'transition' phase. Step one in the planning of the masterminds of the intervention was declaration of victory after the destruction of Sirte and the displacement of hundreds of thousands. Step two involved the formation of an interim government which was supposed to have been completed by October 31, 2011 with Abdurrahim El-Keib succeeding Mahmoud Jibril. This phase of the transition was supposed to be guided through February 2012 when there was an appointment of an election commission with the adoption of electoral legislation. The farcical nature of this transition was soon made obvious when in March 2012, NTC officials in the east, centred on Benghazi, launched a campaign to re-establish autonomy for the region, further increasing tension with the central NTC in Tripoli. This push for autonomy in the oil rich region ensured that there was a flurry of activities as the executives of the oil companies and their private contractors fanned out in Benghazi to ensure that their own companies would emerge as strong forces after the redistribution of oil contracts.
It was in the midst of the dangerous squabbling between oil executives and their contractors and militias when there was the constant announcement of plans for elections in Libya in June 2012. The elections for the General National Congress were held on July 7, 2012. International news organizations went overboard to highlight the success of the elections and the 'fact' that Islamists and Jihadists did not come out as winners. The transitional government handed power to the General National Congress. This Congress then elected Mohammed Magarief of the liberal National Front Party as its chairman, thereby making him interim head of state.
These well-crafted versions of the 'transition' concealed the continued warfare that was going on all over Libya. There were approximately 1,700 militia groups running the country with each neighborhood dominated by a faction that went into the business of using weapons as a means of gaining access to resources. After the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, US citizens were alerted to the existence of what the State Department called 'security incidents.' But the 230 'security incidents' over the past year were the tip of the iceberg of the massive destabilization and killings that had occurred. Black skinned Libyans from Tawergha were expelled from their community and more than 30,000 displaced. Even the usual spokespersons for Western imperial missions had to speak out as Human Rights Watch joined in the condemnation of the rule of the militias. Human Rights Watch brought out a 'Report Rule of Law or Rule of Militias' bringing into sharper focus some of the outstanding questions of the role of these armed marauders all over Libya. In June one militia brigade briefly took over Tripoli international airport
Despite the 230 security situations in Libya, international oil companies were back in business so that by the end of September 2012, Libya was producing 90 per cent of its pre-NATO intervention output. In fact more oil was now being pumped out than in the month immediately prior to the start of the NATO war. Foreign companies had been trooping back into Libya with BP being the last to arrive in May. Even without the hundreds of thousands of foreign workers, the stability of the exportation of oil had driven foreign companies to focus on who would be in control of Benghazi, especially after the noisy declaration of autonomy by the militia/political leaders in February.
US oil companies did not want to be left behind in this new insensate struggle, hence US diplomatic efforts were now directed at Benghazi. Christopher Stevens had been appointed ambassador of the United States to Libya in January 2012 and arrived in Tripoli in May. When the uprisings had started in February 2011 and the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy was going into Benghazi to mobilize support for French interests, Chris Stevens was one of the first US diplomatic personnel to be on the ground in Benghazi. He had served as a 'Special Representative' to the Libyan Transitional National Council from March 2011 to November 2011 during the NATO intervention. Prior to this period he had served as the Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya from 2007 to 2009. At that time, Stevens described Gaddafi as an 'engaging and charming interlocutor' as well as a 'strong partner in the war against terrorism.'
Chris Stevens belonged to that section of the US Department of State that was very knowledgeable about the movements of militia members between Benghazi, Libya, and the current war against the Assad regime in Syria. Libyan Islamists from the Eastern region comprise the largest single component of the 'foreign fighters' who are playing an ever more dominant role in the war being waged in Syria with the aim of toppling the government of President Assad. According to some estimates, they comprise anywhere from 1,200 to 1,500 of approximately 3,500 fighters who have been infiltrated into Syria from as far away as Chechnya and Pakistan.
Throughout North Africa, the fallout of the NATO war was being felt with the citizens of Libya bearing the brunt of the lawlessness that had been unleashed. Such lawlessness suited the short term interests of the capital equity forces of Wall Street, the oil executives and the Emirates. The proliferation of military weaponry from unsecured Libyan stockpiles — including small arms, explosives and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles (MANPADs) — expanded the availability of weapons with the border regions suffering directly. The present destruction in Mali is directly related to these forms of plunder by Western interests.
The NATO powers and Western nations remained smug because this instability temporarily postponed the questions of African integration. However, some sections of Africa were sufficiently angry for them to work for the removal of the Chairperson of the Commission of the African Union, Jean Ping.
The purpose of Wednesday's hearing of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee was to examine security lapses that led to the killing in Benghazi last month of the US ambassador and three others. What this hearing confirmed was what many knew; that there was no real 'consulate' in Benghazi, but a vast intelligence and private contractors web for the CIA and the oil companies. It was the testament of Charlene Lamb before Congress that gave away the fact that the 'facility' in Benghazi where Christopher Stevens and three others lost their lives was not a diplomatic facility.
The events surrounding the death of Ambassador Stevens exposed the USA in Libya at a number of levels. First, the role of Stevens exposed the hypocrisy of the so called 'war on terror'. Second, the evidence pointed to the integration between US intelligence and the militias. In the testimony before Congress, Charlene Lamb told US law makers that the intelligence compound depended on the militia in Benghazi known as the 17th February Brigade. Lamb, Deputy Assistant Secretary State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, told Congress on October 10 that in terms of armed security personnel, there were five Diplomatic Security agents on the compound on September11. 'There were also three members of the Libyan 17th February Brigade' – a reference to the Libyans hired to guard the American compound.
The third level was the jockeying between French, British, Italian and US oil companies over political dominance in Benghazi. Traditionally, the Italians had been a force on the ground in Libya but during the NATO operations French, British and WE operatives muscled out the Italians as junior partners in the imperial operation.
These factors did not come out in the hearings, but what did come out was the inter-agency conflicts between the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency. The US military has kept quiet as these inter-agency squabbles were played out on C Span.
Even before the hearings, Eric Nordstrom had engaged in a media battle to place his stamp on the events leading up to the death of the ambassador. In his testimony, the regional security officer who served about 10 months in Libya, said he sought to obtain more agents and to extend a mission for the security site team in Libya.
There was in fact need for security but as the diary of Ambassador Stevens showed, he was opposed to the presence of official State Department personnel because of the integration of the private contractors, the intelligence operatives and the militias. Earlier in June there had been an attack on the intelligence facility that was called a 'consulate,' a June 6 bomb attack on the Benghazi consulate, a June 11 rocket-propelled grenade attack on a convoy carrying Britain's ambassador to Libya, and an August 27 State Department travel warning noting the threat of car bombings and assassinations in Tripoli and Benghazi. However, despite these attacks Stevens argued to the State Department Bureau of Diplomatic Security that the matter of security should not be entrusted in the hands the Marines who usually guarded US diplomatic establishments.
Stevens took this decision to 'show faith in Libya's new leaders,' according to the Wall Street Journal, which wrote: 'Officials say Mr Stevens personally advised against having Marines posted at the embassy in Tripoli, apparently to avoid a militarized US presence.'
While the media was hailing Ambassador Stevens as a hero, the first major inclination of the depth of intrigue was the struggle between CNN and the State Department over the contents of the diary of Ambassador Stevens. This diary and the appointment calendar which was picked up by journalists were found by journalists and parts of this diary which exposed the multiple roles of Stevens were aired on the US network CNN. This same network had been complicit in the disinformation during the war, but in the current ratings competition, CNN did not wait for clearance before exposing the activities of Stevens as documented by Stevens himself. These revelations displeased the State Department. While Stevens was given a public tribute by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, the three other US personnel who succumbed to the attack on September 11 were buried quietly so that the local papers from their towns would not raise questions about what they were doing in Benghazi.
When Stevens was killed, the US representative to the United Nations, Susan Rice, stated that the killings took place in the context of the international demonstrations over the obnoxious video about the prophet Mohammed. Soon afterwards it became clearer that the attack on Benghazi was not related to the international demonstrations but in relation to the inter-militia warfare in Benghazi. The Republican candidate for president, Mitt Romney pounced on this disparity of the facts and the US Republican controlled Congress called hearings to embarrass President Obama.
However, no sooner were the hearings in session before the Republican lawmakers found out that they were opening a can of worms, exposing the extent of the CIA operations in Libya. Very early in the hearings, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) was the first to unmask the role of the CIA. 'Point of order! Point of order!' he called out as a State Department security official, seated in front of an aerial photo of the US facilities in Benghazi, described the night of the attack. 'We're getting into classified issues that deal with sources and methods that would be totally inappropriate in an open forum such as this.'
The State Department official then retorted that the information being presented was available on commercial sites and easily retrievable through Google Earth maps. The State Department revealed that the material was unclassified; bring out to the US public the differences between the CIA and the State Department. 'I totally object to the use of that photo,' Chaffetz continued. He went on to say that 'I was told specifically while I was in Libya I could not and should not ever talk about what you're showing here today.'
After Representative Chaffetz alerted the world that something valuable was in the photo, the chairman, Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), attempted to close the barn door after the horses had been out. 'I would direct that that chart be taken down,' he said, although it already had been on C-SPAN. 'In this hearing room, we're not going to point out details of what may still in fact be a facility of the United States government or more facilities.'
Dana Milbank from the insider beltway media poked fun on the CIA and how they were outed in the hearings. In an article posted on Huffingtonpost, he wrote:
'In their questioning and in the public testimony they invited, the lawmakers managed to disclose, without ever mentioning Langley directly, that there was a seven-member 'rapid response force' in the compound the State Department was calling an annex. One of the State Department security officials was forced to acknowledge that 'not necessarily all of the security people' at the Benghazi compounds 'fell under my direct operational control.'
'And whose control might they have fallen under? Well, presumably it's the 'other government agency' or 'other government entity' the lawmakers and witnesses referred to; Issa informed the public that this agency was not the FBI.'
The operations of the CIA in Libya had backfired. The plan of the Republicans to make political capital out of this incident had backfired and the entire world was brought closer to the multiple roles of the US military, private contractors, intelligence operatives and oil companies in Libya.
The number of CIA operatives in Benghazi was also a revelation to the 'provisional' government in Libya. When the US evacuated their personnel from Benghazi, the Libyans were surprised and wanted greater accountability from the US about their operations. However, for the US intelligence community, the major question was damage control.
'It's a catastrophic intelligence loss,' a US official who had been stationed in Libya told the New York Times. 'We got our eyes poked out.'
Robert Fisk of the Independent drew the linkages between the NATO intervention in Libya and the escalating war in Syria, warning the West of the dangers of its duplicity in the Middle East and North Africa. Writing after the death of Ambassador Stevens, Fisk commented that:
'The United States supported the opposition against Libya's Colonel Gaddafi, helped Saudi Arabia and Qatar pour cash and weapons to the militias and had now reaped the whirlwind. America's Libyan 'friends' had turned against them, murdered US ambassador Stevens and his colleagues in Benghazi and started an al-Qa'ida-led anti-American protest movement that had consumed the Muslim world. The US had fed the al-Qa'ida scorpion and now it had bitten America. And so Washington now supports the opposition against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, was helping Saudi Arabia and Qatar pour cash and weapons to the militias (including Salafists and al-Qa'ida) and would, inevitably, be bitten by the same 'scorpion' if Assad was overthrown.'
Fisk quoted from one of his friends in Syria who was warning against the current escalation of the war:
'You know, we're all sorry about Christopher Stevens. This kind of thing is terrible and he was a good friend to Syria – he understood the Arabs.' I let him get away with this, though I knew what was coming. But we have an expression in Syria: 'If you feed a scorpion, it will bite you'.'
This bite is now being felt even in the halls of the US Congress as the Congressional hearings backfired on the Republicans who had hoped to make political capital out of the events in Benghazi because what is emerging from the press reports is that the CIA agency was not merely conducting covert surveillance on the Islamists based in eastern Libya, but providing them with direct aid and coordinating their operations with the current war in Syria.
Libya is again dominating the news as the US government is forced to juggle lies and disinformation. There are now at least seven new books that detail the quagmire of the NATO intervention. Next month, my own contribution will be published by the African Institute of South Africa. The title of my book is 'Global NATO and the Catastrophic Failure in Libya: Lessons for Africa in the Forging of African Unity'. This book will join the wave of statements from across the world calling for corrective measures for Africa against this new plunder. NATO is now completely discredited and is being called to expand war to Syria, Iran and beyond.
After the death of Stevens, the US Navy sent two destroyers to Libyan waters. Inside Libya, there have been cries for the disbanding of the militias. Demonstrators are calling on the Libyan government to disband the forces of terrorism in Libya. However, the Central government of Libya is torn between the competing interests of the French, British, Italian, US, Emirates, Saudi and Turkey. The continued warfare in Libya points to the need for an intensification of the calls for the UN Security Council to remove the private contractors and foreign military personnel from Libya. On March 12, 2012, the United Nations Security Council extended the mandate of the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) for one year in order to assist the transitional authorities with security and administrative challenges. This extension of the Security Council mandate was in fact assistance to the external oil companies.
Members of the BRICS societies had been angry over the manipulation of the Responsibility to Protect resolution. The anger of Brazil, Russia, India and China must be turned into concrete support for the peoples of Africa and Libya by pressuring the USA and NATO to expel the private contractors and intelligence operatives who are now using Libya as one of the rear bases for the war in Syria.
African peoples everywhere are mindful of how the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 heralded the start of World War II. The slow and escalating wars across North Africa and the Middle East pose great dangers to humans everywhere. Vigilance is needed and clear political agendas to oppose African dictators while strengthening the Peace and Security Council of the African Union.
Horace Campbell is Professor of African American Studies and Political Science at Syracuse University. He is also a Special invited Professor at Tsinghua University, Beijing. He is the author of the forthcoming book, 'Global NATO and the catastrophic failure in Libya'.


text:
Scenes From Movies of the Eighties, Entries Beginning With the Letter X |
What was the most memorable scene from an eighties movie? Was it when the Blues Brothers make an impossible leap over the drawbridge, or was it when Bender in the Breakfast Club leads the group through the deserted school corridors while trying to avoid getting caught? Whatever the reason, whatever the scene, let me know and I'll share it with everyone else.
What is your favorite 80s movie moment?This site grows only with submissions from dedicated visitors like yourself. If you have a question to ask, please use the 80's Messageboard, otherwise you will not receive an answer. |

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Your Holiday Lights of Lafayette specializes in Christmas light installation in the greater Lafayette area, including design, installation, maintenance, take-down and storage. We are locally owned and operated by your trusted home service providers, Window Genie. Together, you and our team at Your Holiday Lights will bring your vision to life! Our fully trained, insured and bonded field technicians are experienced professionals ready to transform your home Christmas lights for the holiday season. For a free consultation and to discuss your home's Christmas lights design concept, call 765-250-9677 or CLICK HERE to schedule an estimate. We look forward to brightening your home this holiday season, and for many to come.
Why Choose Your Holiday Lights?
Hanging holiday decor is difficult, dangerous and time consuming to do yourself. Whether you're cleaning and preparing the house for guests, spending long hours baking in the kitchen, or doing last minute shopping, the tasks on your holiday to-do list can really start to add up. Why spend your precious free time untangling Christmas lights and risking a fall on a ladder? Avoid the hassle and call your local Your Holiday Lights professional today!
Your Holiday Lights designs, supplies, installs, maintains, takes down, and stores your outdoor holiday lights. We use high-quality long-lasting LED lights direct from the manufacturer for all customers, and each strand is custom-cut to fit, with no strands left dangling from roof-lines. Our service comes complete with a hassle-free program that includes a three-year, no worries warranty, and prompt service as needed. Most importantly, having outdoor lights professionally installed greatly reduces the risk of homeowner accidents involving roofs and ladders.


text:
In-demand Career with Room for Growth
The JRCERT nationally accredited Diagnostic Medical Imaging Program is challenging, rewarding and an experience like no other. The Program curriculum prepares students to become clinically competent, entry-level Radiologic Technologists with a combination of classroom, laboratory, and supervised clinical education experiences. Students learn how to operate imaging equipment, communicate with patients, properly position body parts, select appropriate exposure factors, and obtain diagnostic quality images. Additionally, students will learn the ethical and legal aspects of the Medical Imaging field and the professional standards required for a successful career. Throughout the duration of the Program, students will complete all educational and clinical requirements for Radiography certification and registration in accordance with the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT).


text:
U.S. Department of State Annual Report on International Religious Freedom for 2004 - Seychelles
- Document source:
15 September 2004
Released by the U.S. Department of State Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor on September 15, 2004, covers the period from July 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004.
The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respects this right in practice.
There was no change in the status of religious freedom during the period covered by this report, and government policy continued to contribute to the generally free practice of religion.
The generally amicable relationship among religions in society contributed to religious freedom.
The U.S. Government discusses religious freedom issues with the Government as part of its overall policy to promote human rights.
Section I. Religious Demography
The country has a total area of approximately 444 square miles, and its population is approximately 80,100. According to a July 2003 estimate by the country's Ministry of Information Systems Division, about 87 percent of the population is Roman Catholic and 7 percent is Anglican. There are other Christian churches, including Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, the Assemblies of God, the Pentecostal Church, the Pentecostal Assembly, the Nazarites, and Jehovah's Witnesses. Hinduism, Islam, and the Baha'i Faith also are practiced, although there are no mosques or temples in the islands. Almost 50 percent of the population is estimated to be religiously active. It is unknown whether there are atheists in the country.
A few foreign missionary groups practice in the country, including the Missionaries of Charity, which is a Roman Catholic organization.
Section II. Status of Religious Freedom
Legal/Policy Framework
The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respects this right in practice. The Government at all levels strives to protect this right in full and does not tolerate its abuse, either by governmental or private actors. There is no state religion.
The Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Seventh-day Adventist churches and the Islamic mosques have individual acts of incorporation. The Baha'i local spiritual assembly was incorporated in 1999. Other churches that are not corporate bodies are registered as associations with the Registrar General and are entitled to tax-free privileges, similar to a charity. All religious organizations must register to be entitled to tax-free privileges. If an organization does not want tax-free privileges, it is not required to register.
The Government tends to remain uninvolved with religious matters, but it provides program time to different religious organizations on the national radio broadcasting service. On Sundays a radio broadcast of a Catholic Mass alternates each week with a broadcast of an Anglican service. The Islam and Hindu faiths are allowed 15-minute broadcasts every Friday, and the Baha'i and Seventh-day Adventists faiths are allowed 15-minute broadcasts every Saturday.
Government employees of all faiths can request paid leave on any of their holy days, and such leave generally is granted. Former President France Albert Rene's wife is a member of the Baha'i Faith, while the majority of government ministers are Catholic.
The Roman Catholic holidays of Good Friday, Easter, Corpus Cristi, Assumption of Mary, All Saints Day, and Christmas are national holidays. These holidays do not negatively affect any religious groups.
Restrictions on Religious Freedom
In the past, the Government did not demonstrate favoritism toward one religion over another; however, in 2003 the Government gave a grant of $400,000 (2 million Seychelles rupees) to the Anglican Church to construct a new cathedral, and $400,000 (2 million Seychelles rupees) to the Roman Catholic Church.
According to the Government, a portion of the national budget is periodically allocated to provide assistance to faiths that request financial support at the beginning of each year. In the past, the Baha'i and Hindu religions have benefited from these grants, which are awarded on a case-by-case basis and based on the availability of the budget.
There were no reports of religious prisoners or detainees.
Forced Religious Conversion
There were no reports of forced religious conversion, including of minor U.S. citizens who had been abducted or illegally removed from the United States, or of the refusal to allow such citizens to be returned to the United States.
Abuses by Terrorist Organizations
There were no reported abuses targeted at specific religions by terrorist organizations during the period covered by this report.
Section III. Societal Attitudes
The generally amicable relationship among religions in society contributed to religious freedom.
Section IV. U.S. Government Policy
The U.S. Government discusses religious freedom issues with the Government as part of its overall policy to promote human rights.
This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.


text:
How to tell if you have leadership potential
A common refrain about Generation Y is that there is a dearth of leadership. It's something I heard every day when I was a twenty-something at work, when people were saying Generation X were slackers. And, I have a feeling that while the Baby Boomers were high at Woodstock, their elders were saying there was a dearth of leadership in the younger generation.
So, instead of constantly complaining about the coming doom in the leadership realm, we should see the idea of leadership as dynamic, and the faster we can understand how it changes, the faster we can identify the upcoming leaders of our time.
1. New leaders are facilitators rather than dictators.
The world used to be hierarchical and you did what leaders said. You could climb closer and closer to the leader at the top of the ladder if you listened to the leader and put your career in their hands. Now, top-down leadership is completely out of fashion because it only works if the person at the top can take care of the people at the bottom. It's a patriarchal way of life that is not tenable in an environment where companies lay people off every year.
So instead, leaders have to focus on helping people to be their best selves. The long-term vision that leaders promote has to involve the long-term vision of the followers' dreams in order to get everyone on board. Today leaders are facilitators rather than dictators; they lead from the middle.
The result is, eventually, an organization with no official bosses. And, before you assume that doesn't work, take a look at this article in The Wall St. Journal about Valve, a videogame company with 300 people and no promotions or titles, only projects and champions. The most remarkable thing about the article is the language the members of the company use to talk about office productivity. It is completely new—because when you change the top-down culture, you have to change the top-down language.
2. New leaders are not out in front.
There is a workforce obsession with entrepreneurship, which has led to an academic obsession with research into entrepreneurship to attract more students to MBA programs. Consequently, we have a lot of entrepreneurs who paid for MBAs and don't need them, but also, we have a keen understanding the process of getting new ideas.
And we know that most often, the people who have all the new ideas are crazy. They live in their heads. They are control freaks. Leaders are people who can come in just behind the idea people and say, "Here's a way that this idea works for you." Leaders make the idea less about the person who thought of it and more about the people who grab onto it. Leaders come on second, or third, and the first thing they are, before good leaders, is a good follower. The best illustration of this I can think of is in this video, (which I love so much and you should click that link.)
Barbara Kellerman, at the Center for Public Leadership, outlines how leaders emerge organically in her book, Followership: How Followers are Creating Change and Changing Leaders. The important thing, though, is if you want to change the world, think about how to find that second person. That's the one who will give your ideas traction. And if you want to lead, look for ideas worth propelling.
3. New leaders come to leadership in a roundabout way.
If modern leadership is not about command and control but rather about facilitation and inspiration, then today's leaders will not be people who set out to lead. That's the old-fashioned way, and it won't resonate with people around you.
People obsessed with being leaders is inherently inauthentic anyway. Historically, truly revolutionary leaders don't set out to be revolutionaries, but rather, they take actions that are completely natural to them, though contrary to what is expected by society, and in that moment, the people areound them are ripe for something new.
This is why most revolutionaries are not first-borns. Because first-borns are more likely to feel comfortable following the rules.
People who will lead today are people who facilitate collaboration and intuitively bring out the best in other people. If you are doing this, you might be a leader already.
4. New leaders are not groundbreakers.
We are in a conservative era. Not conservative like McCarthyism. But conservative like we are just trying to get by. The US is no longer a powerhouse, college is no longer a ticket to financial stability, divorce rates loom high and the chances of you earning more than your parents is low. This is all to say that Generation X is focused on creating family stability, and Generation Y is extremely risk averse. (Before you argue with this conclusion, click that last link, okay?)
We're in an era of conservative leadership. Not politically. But in a broader, more classical sense of conservative, the idea of trying to keep change from coming too fast. A great example of this shift in leadership is Madonna. She built a career on being groundbreaking, new and shocking. That worked twenty years ago. But today, people are turned off. It simply doesn't work.
Bill Taylor wrote an article in Fast Company titled, The Leader of the Future. In it he explains that the old kind of leader was a visionary. The new kind is one who helps people see reality and take action based on that. Taylor says that leaders of the future help people face the tough challenges that come their way.
5. New leaders lead online.
In the old leadership we could talk bombastically about our greatness and our future and it didn't matter if we could connect in an authentic way to the leader. Today, stripped of our sense of grandeur, we need leaders to help us see the truth about where we are, which means we need leaders who are authentic about who they are as well. The emergence of the Internet – with it's openness and non-hierarchical nature — coincides nicely with our need to be lead from the middle by people who are authentic. This is why the new leader will lead online. We saw this with Obama, funding his 2008 campaign online, and the CEO of Sun, resigning via Twitter.
Check out the story on NPR about Mitt Romney's running mate. Mark Memmott says that you can judge who the likely running mate will be by whose Wikipedia page has the most edits. And Senator Rob Portman is winning by a large margin: 98 edits last Tuesday alone. It's a metaphor for leadership today: you can't edit your own Wikipedia page — the editors will take the page down if you do that. The page has to be edited by the followers, who attach their own name to the edit.
When you look at your own potential for leadership, look at your capacity for transparency, your ability to deliver difficult news to the people around you, and your interest in inspiring grand behavior in people who might not be feeling so grand. These are the tasks of leaders today. It's a different challenge than leaders of earlier generations, which is why so many people fear there's a leadership vacuum. In fact, we are entering a new realm of leadership that is collaborative and uplifting. And for some of you this will mean your time has come.


text:
Anika Noni Rose, Laura Bell Bundy & Shoshana Bean Release Epic Girl Power Anthem
August 14th, 2020 | By Lindsey Sullivan
It's a happy new music Friday for Broadway fans! Three golden-voiced powerhouses have teamed up to create the anthem "Get It Girl, You Go!" Tony winner Anika Noni Rose and Shoshana Bean have provided vocals on the premiere single for Laura Bell Bundy's forthcoming album Women of Tomorrow, which is slated to drop in 2021. (Fun fact: Bean and Bundy appeared in Broadway's Hairspray together.) Give it a listen below!


text:
Show All Answers
Click here to be taken to the Health Department after hours FAQs.
For births after 1906, please contact the Pennsylvania Department of Health
You can find out the age of your system by requesting a copy of your septic system permit by submitting the Sewage and Well File Look Up Form.
There are several laboratories in Chester County that offer well water testing.
Records are available from our office. Call 610.344.6252 during regular business hours.
Complaints are handled by the Pennsylvania Department of Health.
Visit the Chester County Solid Waste Authority for information on disposing of red bag waste.
Visit our webpage on medication drop-off disposal boxes.
Latex paint is not hazardous waste. Latex paints are water-based and are a safer substitute for oil-based paints. They can be placed in the trash after allowing to harden. Take the top off the pain can and place it outside, away from pets and children. Allow it to harden. If the can is very full, absorb the material by mixing it with sawdust, clay-based cat litter, or rags. Stir with a stick until all the paint is absorbed. When the paint is solidified, it can be placed in the trash leaving the lid off.
Several municipalities in Chester County maintain their own code enforcement office. These municipalities have primary jurisdiction over housing conditions such as high grass/weeds, abandoned vehicles, junk/debris accumulations. If you live in one of these municipalities and have a housing complaint, please contact thecode enforcement office for your area. If you live in a municipality that does not have a code enforcement office, please call 610-344-6225 or email [email protected] to lodge a complaint.
Chester County Hospital and Paoli Hospital have travel immunization programs. You can find information on both on our International Travel Information web page.


text:
Senate Republicans have questioned Chuck Hagel's truthfulness and they've challenged his patriotism.
Now they're threatening to stonewall his nomination to be President Barack Obama's defense secretary unless the White House gives them more information about what Obama was doing on the night of the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has set the stage for a full Senate vote on Hagel, a former two-term Republican senator from Nebraska and twice-wounded Vietnam combat veteran. Reid filed a motion Wednesday to limit debate and force a vote, which is expected to be held Friday. While Democrats hold a 55-45 edge in the Senate and have the numbers to confirm Hagel on a majority vote, they need the support of five Republicans to clear the way for an up-or-down vote on him.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he'll vote against ending debate on Hagel's nomination and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., may join him if the White House doesn't tell them whether Obama spoke to any Libyan government official during the assault and requested assistance for the American personnel at the mission. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in the raid last September at the compound in Benghazi.
"There seems to not be much interest to hold this president accountable for a national security breakdown that led to the first ambassador being killed in the line of duty in over 30 years," Graham said. "No, the debate on Chuck Hagel is not over. It has not been serious. We don't have the information we need. And I'm going to fight the idea of jamming somebody through until we get answers about what the president did personally when it came to the Benghazi debacle."
McCain declined to say Wednesday whether he would try to delay Hagel's confirmation if Obama did not provide an answer. "My position right now is I want an answer to the question," he said.
A president's pick for a Cabinet post usually requires only a majority vote, leading Reid to accuse Senate Republicans of orchestrating a filibuster against a nominee for defense secretary for the first time in the country's history.
But the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee challenged Reid's claim, saying it's not unusual to hold a Cabinet nominee to a 60-vote threshold. "It's not a filibuster," said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla. "This has happened (before), and it's happening again right now."
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he's confident that the White House will supply the information Graham and McCain want and that Hagel will be confirmed.
A bitterly divided Armed Services Committee on Tuesday voted to approve Hagel by a 14-11 vote, with all the panel's Democrats backing him. The committee's Republicans were unified in their opposition to their onetime colleague, who would succeed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta if he's confirmed.
Hagel has faced intense opposition from Republicans, who have challenged his past statements and votes on Israel, Iran, Iraq and nuclear weapons.
But the questions and comments before Tuesday's vote took a more personal and confrontational turn. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, demanded that Hagel provide information on compensation for speeches over a five-year period — three years more than required — and suggested that without the information, the committee wouldn't know whether Hagel got money from "extreme and radical groups."
Inhofe said reports about Iranian leaders praising Hagel's nomination back up Cruz's claim. "I'd say he's endorsed by them. You can't get any cozier than that," Inhofe said.
Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Republican senator from Maine once thought to be a possible backer of Hagel's nomination, said Wednesday she'll oppose his confirmation. Hagel's views on the most critical threats facing the United States are "unsettling," she said in a four-page statement.
Collins said Hagel was unwilling to ask the European Union to designate Hezbollah a terrorist organization in 2006, and he has been hesitant to back the use of all nonmilitary options, such as unilateral sanctions, to pressure Iran into ceasing its nuclear program.
But Collins, who serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she would not join in a filibuster to block a final vote.
In her statement, Collins said that Hagel's "courageous military service deserves our praise and gratitude" and that he cares deeply about the welfare of the troops. But she could not get past what she described as Hagel's troubling record on key national security issues. Confirming him as defense secretary would send the wrong message to the country's allies and adversaries about the resolve of the United States, Collins said.
"I am unable to support Senator Hagel to be the next secretary of defense because I do not believe his past positions, votes and statements match the challenges of our time, and his presentations at his (confirmation) hearing did nothing to ease my doubts," Collins said. "I regret having to reach that conclusion given our personal relationship and my admiration for Senator Hagel's military service. But I have concluded that he is not well-suited for the tremendous challenges our country faces during this dangerous era in our history."
Two Republicans — Sens. Thad Cochran of Mississippi and Mike Johanns of Nebraska — have announced their support for Hagel.
Associated Press writers Alan Fram and Donna Cassata contributed to this report.
Sen. Susan Collins: https://www.collins.senate.gov/public/
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2013 Capitol Hill Blue


text:
Slaves to energy
We depend on energy sources that threaten dramatic climate changes around the world. Can we change course?
Tolman leads a climate change study and action group at his congregation, the First Unitarian Church of Wilmington, Delaware. He points to a quote from the writings of Jefferson on the door of his church. "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Elegant and heartfelt stuff from a towering figure of the Enlightenment. "But," says Tolman, "he also loved building additions to his home, rare books, good music and food, and fine imported wines. And he was able to live in this grand style because he owned slaves who did the hard work." Before Emancipation, a handful of affluent families--slaveholders and others, including northern mill owners who profited by use of slave-produced cotton--prospered by exploiting the work of those they held in bondage.
Today residents of affluent nations prosper in large part because of the work done for us by modern sources of energy. There's nothing inherently immoral in using energy, but we in affluent nations use vastly more energy than residents of poor nations. Even in industrial nations that are far less profligate with energy than the U.S., energy remains a critical feedstock for affluence. Thrifty Denmark, where hoards of urbanites happily bicycle to their offices, uses less than half the U.S.'s energy per capita, but still 100 times more than, say, Rwanda.
This is more than a sign of mere piggishness--and here is where the parallel to Jefferson becomes clear. By burning fossil fuels to generate our energy, affluent nations produce far more carbon dioxide, the principle greenhouse gas implicated in global warming, than poorer nations. Yet if temperatures rise across the globe in coming decades, as a broad consensus of leading climatologists predicts, the most profound consequences will not likely befall people in the U.S. or Denmark or the rest of the developed world. Although costs to our own economies may be high, the most seriously afflicted will be people in some of the world's most impoverished nations--consequences ranging from prolonged drought and desertification of agriculturally productive areas to widespread coastal flooding, increases in such insect-vectored diseases as malaria, and increased frequency and intensity of devastating monster hurricanes. And that consequence--the affluent reveling in our comforts at the likely expense of the world's poorest--ties us, in Tolman's view, to Jefferson, Enlightenment hero, comfortable pursuer of happiness, putative Unitarian, and slaver.
In a guest sermon at my own congregation in New Jersey only a few weeks before the Kyoto Protocol went into effect in mid-February, Tolman shared some of his thoughts about morality and this environmental problem. The first international treaty designed to abate greenhouse gas emissions, the protocol had been signed by almost all the world's developed nations, yet spurned by two: Australia and, most notably, the planet's largest greenhouse gas emitter, our own. (With 5 percent of the world's population, the U.S. emits 25 percent of the world's human-generated carbon dioxide). With some countries like the United Kingdom and Germany already talking about going far beyond the Kyoto treaty to cut emissions 50 percent or more over time, what should we make of the morality of the outright rejection of the Kyoto treaty by the U.S. political leadership and the muted public outcry in the U.S.?
In fact, based on our "moral responsibility to future generations," delegates to the UUA General Assembly voted in 2004 to make global warming the Study/Action Issue for congregations for the next two years. A resource guide available from the Washington Office for Advocacy and Witness (www.uua.org/uuawo/) suggests that global warming "is a greater potential danger than any other we face today or perhaps ever have."
If such language strikes you as over the top, consider what the best science is telling us. Since the dawn of the Industrial Age we have been injecting increasing volumes of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. Today, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is more than 30 percent higher than it was before the Industrial Revolution. If the world continues on this path, some estimates suggest that concentrations could be double the preindustrial level by about the middle of this century.
Scientists know for certain that a greenhouse effect exists, that even without industrial emissions a naturally occurring blanket of carbon dioxide and other gases helps trap solar radiation. Without that blanket, the planet would be a frozen wasteland. But as greenhouse gases continue to build in the atmosphere, the blanket thickens.
Reading or listening to the mainstream news media one might conclude that the entire notion of impending global warming remains an enormous scientific uncertainty. In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international group of about 2,000 of the world's top climate scientists, has concluded that average temperatures on Earth are likely to increase 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. This conclusion was confirmed in a recent, detailed report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
The word "likely" is the sticking point. Scientists will not say that this much global warming, and the dire consequences it could bring, are unequivocably certain to happen. Even with the best predictive models run on the most powerful available supercomputers, climate is so complex that the best science can do is assign probabilities. Is there scientific debate about global warming? Of course. Science progresses that way, with scientists challenging each other's hypotheses. But unfortunately, in attempting to "balance" news coverage by including a doubting voice in every story, much mainstream coverage of global warming has missed the heart of the matter: The best minds in the climate field believe the probability is very high that global warming is already under way and that its rate is increasing.
The only way to achieve absolute scientific certainty is to run a massive, potentially catastrophic experiment on the planet itself. That's the path we're on now. Unfortunately, by the time this global experiment is far enough along to prove if the scientists' "likely" scenario is correct, it will be too late to avoid some of the worst consequences.
Strong warnings from the scientific community about the risks from global warming began at least a decade and a half ago. And yet the response from the American public at large and from most of our political leaders has been remarkably subdued. Anyone looking into the issue, including new UU congregational Study/Action groups, might start by asking why.
Think of this hypothetical situation: You wake up one morning to the frightening news that astronomers have located a belt of asteroids heading towards Earth. They've plotted a trajectory that hints that the cluster could begin colliding with the planet in two years. The nations of the world rapidly convene their best scientists, who conclude that although calculating trajectories is complex, serious harm will likely come to Earth. We might get lucky and avoid calamity, but the probability of mass human casualties and ecological devastation appears high. The scientists do have some better news. We still have time to act, but only if we begin immediately. Solving the problem, however, will be difficult and costly. The rich nations of the world are going to have to shoulder the bulk of the burden.
It's difficult to picture an America apathetic about the threat, or political leaders aggressively rejecting pleas to act.
Perhaps we're suffering from a sort of environmental exhaustion. Beginning in the early 1960s, with dire warnings about DDT and other pesticides, and through crises involving polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin, acid rain, and holes in the ozone layer, we've been warned repeatedly of environmental disaster. Maybe our fear circuits are overloaded. Or maybe past successes in dealing with environmental problems have lulled us into a sense that with a few regulatory or technological tweaks any problem will pretty much go away.
On the contrary, it could be that we sense the global warming threat really is awful, and facing the gargantuan task ahead is simply too much to bear. Or perhaps it's the sheer abstraction. Bald eagle eggs cracking due to pesticides, kids threatened by poisoned water, raw sewage washing up on the nation's beaches—now there are problems we can get our minds around. Asteroids rushing towards Earth sounds like a tangible threat. The temperature creeping upward over a generation and more seems so much more remote.
University of Wisconsin ecologist John Magnuson once wrote in the journal Bioscience about what he called "the secrecy of the invisible present." We can all sense short-term changes in our environment—the intensity of waves on a lake increasing as a storm approaches, for example. But over decades, our instincts tell us the world is a more or less static place. Perhaps the most daunting obstacle we confront is relying on this sort of instinct rather than on reason and science. But as Magnuson found, sometimes only reason and science can penetrate the invisibility of the present. (The Enlightenment Jefferson would have liked this line of thought.)
If UU congregations can succeed in making no more of a contribution than helping move public consciousness past the invisibility of the present, that alone would be substantial.
As a study group in one Maryland congregation discovered, accepting that the threat is real leads to a daunting new hurdle: comprehending how difficult it will be to control the global thermostat.
In 2001, a science and religion study group at the Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist Church in Bethesda, Maryland, decided to take on the issue of global warming. The destination their path of discovery led them to will probably surprise, even shock, many UU environmentalists.
The two dozen members of the group included scientists, lawyers, economists, teachers, and artists, says member Harvey Lerner. The group members looked at what it would take to meet the guidelines of the Kyoto Protocol. The treaty envisioned the U.S. first reducing its carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels, then a further 7 percent. Analyzing data in carbon dioxide emission trends in the U.S., the Cedar Lane group made an astonishing discovery. Environmentalists have often touted improved fuel efficiency standards for automobiles as part of the solution to global warming. The group found out just how small a part that would be: They calculated that to reduce emissions to 1990 levels through changes in auto emissions alone, we would have to eliminate every single gasoline-powered passenger car on American streets and highways. To reduce emissions another 7 percent to meet the Kyoto goals, we would have to eliminate not only cars, but SUVs, pick-ups, and vans, plus boats and ships.
And here's worse news: Most experts agree that the Kyoto guidelines are only a start. Some top climatologists believe the world as a whole may eventually need to eliminate 50 percent, or even 80 percent, of projected future carbon dioxide emissions. (Keep in mind how rapidly economies are growing in heavily populated Asian nations, including China and India, and how growing personal wealth will lead to demand for comforts from cars to refrigerators to air conditioned homes.)
These are sobering figures. Although it will not wholly solve the problem, improving energy efficiency in transportation is at least a meaningful part of the solution. Energy efficiency is the cheapest way to clean up pollution in general and can even put money in consumers' and businesses' pockets. But the Cedar Lane group's epiphany made it clear that a far larger part of the solution must come from the ways we produce and use electricity, our largest source of greenhouse gases. (The charts on page 27 show how much of our carbon dioxide emissions come from generating electricity compared to transportation and other sources.)
Today, more than 70 percent of our electrical energy comes from burning fossil fuels, especially coal, to produce steam that in turn drives electric generators. Burning fossil fuels unavoidably produces carbon dioxide. Some scientists have floated ideas about capturing carbon dioxide from power plants and storing it deep underground. Others have speculated that we might be able to get the oceans to absorb more of it by seeding some areas with iron, which in turn could boost growth of algae that would, in turn, take up volumes of carbon dioxide. But even if such ideas turned out to be economically, technologically, and environmentally feasible, they would take years to study, much less implement. (What, for instance, might be the ecological ripple effects of producing vastly more algae in the world's oceans?)
Environmentalists routinely point to solar and wind power as keys to a solution. The Cedar Lane group concluded that these technologies were not advanced or economical enough to make a significant difference in the short time frame available to control the problem. The only practical remaining answer, the group concluded, would be to turn to a source of electrical generation that many, maybe most, members of our denomination regard with fear and loathing: nuclear power.
It's certainly true that nuclear power plants produce no carbon dioxide. But there's plenty of paradox in a UU study group coming to that conclusion: A 1976 General Assembly resolution opposed construction of new nuclear power plants because of their risks to life, from melt-downs to proliferation of weapons development to transporting and storing wastes than can remain lethal not just for centuries, but for millennia.
Harvey Lerner says his group acknowledged the potential risks, but concluded that nuclear power ultimately emerged as the least among multiple evils. And Lerner, who is now retired but spent thirty years working in international development, including in some of the world's poorest nations, says that morality played a central role in how his group grappled with the issue.
"If you're going to lift people out of poverty in the developing world, you can't have that happen without more energy," he says. "Do we tell them, well, we can have gasoline for our cars and electricity for lights at night, but you can't? And then are we going to tell millions of people in a low-lying coastal country like Bangladesh, well, we're going to keep burning coal while your country floods?
"Everything we looked at had a downside," he adds. "The question we were left with was this one: what's going to do the least harm?"
The Union of Concerned Scientists, a U.S. advocacy group that adamantly opposes nuclear power generation, insists there's another way. That group is calling for an intense national effort to follow what they call a "blueprint for clean energy," including boosting nonpolluting energy sources like solar and wind as well as intensifying energy conservation and efficiency efforts. (See "Resources.")
With this approach, we would still face tough and often perplexing tradeoffs. Consider the promise and the paradox of one still-emerging form of alternative energy: machines that capture the free and clean energy of the winds.
Electric-generating windmill technology has improved dramatically in recent years, with several major high-tech wind farms now operating in Europe and others beginning to spring up in the U.S. Costs have declined to the point where they're approaching the cost of fossil fuel-based generation. And it's a "fuel" we have plenty of.
Most environmental groups suggest that making good site decisions can help resolve concerns about windmills becoming environmental problems themselves, particularly as threats to migrating birds. Still, as an indication of just how tough any path we choose will be, consider a recent uproar over proposals to build an extensive offshore wind farm within view of the pricey residential and vacation real estate on Massachusetts' Nantucket Sound. A key objection: The windmills will destroy a celebrated view.
Similar proposals are in play to build a string of major offshore wind farms right in the backyard of my own congregation, the UU Congregation of the South Jersey Shore. New Jersey's acting governor has placed a moratorium on such projects while state officials and citizens ponder environmental, economic, and, yes, aesthetic matters.
So my own congregation has a couple of tough, perplexing questions with which to begin our own study of global warming, as do we all. As the Cedar Lane group discovered, any solution is going to involve serious compromise and one sort of unpleasant cost or another. But if we're faced with a profound moral choice, and given all the intertwined moral links between energy, global warming, affluence, and poverty in the world, maybe we need to start by deciding, as Chad Tolman put it to me, what the word "ugly" really means.


text:
Analysts anticipated another miss ahead of Research In Motion's first-quarter earnings report on Thursday as sales continue to stall ahead of the struggling smartphone vendor's first BlackBerry 10 smartphone launch, which is expected this October. RIM warned in late May that it would likely see an operating loss in the first fiscal quarter — its first net quarterly loss since fiscal 2004 — but the Street's consensus ranged from a profit of $0.01 per share on $3.1 billion in sales to a net loss of $0.03 per share. The numbers are now in and RIM reported on Thursday that it lost $0.37 per share on revenue of $2.8 billion.
The company said that it plans to cut an additional 5,000 jobs beyond its most recent round of layoffs, and these new efforts will cost the company $300 million. Despite this new round of cost-cutting efforts, the company said it expects to report an operating loss in the fiscal second quarter as well.
To compound matters, unexpected delays will push the launch of RIM's first BlackBerry 10 smartphone back to the first calendar quarter of 2013. RIM previously said the first handset to run its next-generation OS would be released later this year.
RIM CEO Thorsten Heins confirmed on the company's earnings call that it intends to launch a full-touchscreen BlackBerry 10 device in the first quarter next year, and that launch will be followed by the launch of a QWERTY smartphone shortly after. New details surrounding both models leaked earlier this week. Heins also said RIM is exploring opportunities to license BlackBerry 10 to other companies.
RIM sold 7.8 million BlackBerry smartphones during the first fiscal quarter of 2013, down 41% from the same quarter a year earlier, and the firm's cash on hand rose to $2.2 billion.
The company's stock plummeted more than 17% in after-hours trading on the news. RIM's full earnings release follows below.
Research In Motion Reports First Quarter Fiscal 2013 Results
WATERLOO, ONTARIO — (Marketwire) — 06/28/12 — Research In Motion
Limited (RIM) (NASDAQ:RIMM)(TSX:RIM), a world leader in the mobile
communications market, today reported first quarter results for the
three months ended June 2, 2012 (all figures in U.S. dollars and U.S.
GAAP, except where otherwise indicated).
— Cash, cash equivalents, short-term and long-term investments increased
to $2.2 billion at the end of the first quarter
— Cash flow from operations was approximately $710 million in the first
— Revenue of $2.8 billion in Q1, down 33% from $4.2 billion in the prior
— GAAP net loss in Q1 of $518 million or $0.99 per share diluted; adjusted
net loss of $192 million or $0.37 per share diluted
— Shipments of BlackBerry smartphones were 7.8 million and shipments of
BlackBerry PlayBook tablets were approximately 260,000
— BlackBerry 10 smartphone launch now scheduled for Q1 of calendar 2013
— Restructuring efforts underway that will include a workforce reduction
of approximately 5,000 employees as part of RIM's efforts to realize
over $1 billion in cost savings, based on RIM's Q4 FY2012 run rate
— Launched World Tour BlackBerry Jam developer sessions in 23 countries
resulting in strong adoption and support by application and developer
partners for BlackBerry 10 platform
— BlackBerry App World continues to grow with over 89,000 applications
— The overall BlackBerry subscriber base continued to grow, and the
subscriber base grew in all regions except for North America
— RIM names Steve Zipperstein, former General Counsel of Verizon Wireless,
as Chief Legal Officer
Q1 Results
Revenue for the first quarter of fiscal 2013 was $2.8 billion, down
33% from $4.2 billion in the previous quarter and down 43% from $4.9
billion in the same quarter of fiscal 2012. The revenue breakdown for
the quarter was approximately 59% for hardware, 36% for service and
5% for software and other revenue. During the quarter, RIM shipped
7.8 million BlackBerry smartphones and approximately 260,000
BlackBerry PlayBook tablets.
GAAP net loss for the quarter was $518 million, or $0.99 per share
diluted, compared with a GAAP net loss of $125 million, or $0.24 per
share diluted, in the prior quarter and GAAP net income of $695
million, or $1.33 per share diluted, in the same quarter last year.
Adjusted net loss for the first quarter was $192 million, or $0.37
per share diluted. Adjusted net loss and adjusted diluted loss per
share exclude the impact of pre-tax charges of $335 million ($326
million on an after tax basis), which are predominantly non-cash
related to the impairment of goodwill. This charge and its related
impact on GAAP net loss and diluted loss per share are summarized in
the table below.
"Our first quarter results reflect the market challenges I have
outlined since my appointment as CEO at the end of January. I am not
satisfied with these results and continue to work aggressively with
all areas of the organization and the Board to implement meaningful
changes to address the challenges, including a thoughtful realignment
of resources and honing focus within the Company on areas that have
the greatest opportunities," said Thorsten Heins, President and CEO.
"Our top priority going forward is the successful launch of our first
BlackBerry 10 device, which we now anticipate will occur in the first
quarter of calendar 2013. In parallel with the roll out of
BlackBerry 10, we are aggressively working with our advisors on our
strategic review and are actively evaluating ways to better leverage
our assets and build on our strengths, including our growing
BlackBerry subscriber base of approximately 78 million, our large
enterprise installed base, our unique network architecture and our
industry leading security capabilities."
The total of cash, cash equivalents, short-term and long-term
investments was $2.2 billion as of June 2, 2012, compared to $2.1
billion at the end of the previous quarter, an increase of
approximately $100 million from the prior quarter. Cash flow from
operations in Q1 was approximately $710 million. Uses of cash
included intangible asset additions of approximately $285 million,
capital expenditures of approximately $155 million and a business
acquisition of approximately $100 million.
BlackBerry 10 Update
The successful launch of the BlackBerry 10 platform and the delivery
of high quality, full-featured BlackBerry 10 smartphones remain the
Company's number one priority. Over the past several weeks, RIM's
software development teams have made major progress in the
development of key features for the BlackBerry 10 platform; however,
the integration of these features and the associated large volume of
code into the platform has proven to be more time consuming than
anticipated. As a result, the Company now expects to launch the first
BlackBerry 10 smartphones in market in Q1 of calendar 2013.
"RIM's development teams are relentlessly focussed on ensuring the
quality and reliability of the platform and I will not compromise the
product by delivering it before it is ready. I am confident that the
first BlackBerry 10 smartphones will provide a ground-breaking next
generation smartphone user experience," said Thorsten Heins,
President and CEO. "We are encouraged by the traction that the
BlackBerry 10 platform is gaining with application developers and
content partners following the successful BlackBerry Jam sessions
that we have held around the world since the beginning of May.
Similarly, the reception of the BlackBerry 10 platform by our key
carrier partners has been very positive and they are looking forward
to going to market with BlackBerry 10 smartphones in the first
quarter of calendar 2013."
Organizational Update
RIM today also announced the appointment of Steve Zipperstein, former
General Counsel of Verizon Wireless, as its Chief Legal Officer.
Prior to joining Verizon, Mr. Zipperstein previously served as Deputy
General Counsel for GTE Corporation and was employed with the United
States Department of Justice as a federal prosecutor. Mr. Zipperstein
joins Kristian Tear, Chief Operating Officer and Frank Boulben, Chief
Marketing Officer as the latest additions to RIM's executive
management team.
CORE Program
The Company announced its CORE (Cost Optimization and Resource
Efficiency) program in March of this year. The program is focused on
delivering operational savings through various initiatives, with
financial objectives for the program targeted to drive at least $1
billion in savings by the end of fiscal 2013, based on RIM's Q4
FY2012 run rate. As a result of the shift in BlackBerry 10 launch
timeline, the increasingly competitive environment, as well as the
identification of additional cost saving and efficiency
opportunities, the Company may increase the scope and magnitude of
these programs, and considers these original estimates as minimum
numbers it will be pursuing.
To date, the Company has started implementing a number of these
initiatives including:
— a reduction in the number of layers of management to drive better
clarity, efficiency and accountability across the organization;
— the continued streamlining of our supply chain, which includes the
consolidation of our manufacturing footprint from 10 external
manufacturing sites to three, and working closely with our suppliers and
other partners to identify ways to drive further efficiency;
— outsourcing key parts of the Company's Global Repair operations,
including management of device level repairs;
— targeted use of resources in our sales and marketing initiatives to more
effectively leverage marketing windows and prioritize our marketing
efforts and spend in regions that offer the highest opportunity and
— further outsourcing of non-core functions as determined during the
implementation of the CORE program; and
— a global workforce reduction of approximately 5,000 employees, which is
expected to be completed by the end of fiscal 2013.
The Company expects to incur restructuring related charges of
approximately $350 million by the end of fiscal 2013, primarily
associated with the global workforce reduction. Other charges and
cash costs may occur during this process, and the Company intends to
share more details throughout the year regarding its progress as
programs are implemented or changes are completed.
The Company expects the next several quarters to continue to be very
challenging for its business based on the increasing competitive
environment, lower handset volumes, potential financial and other
impacts from the delay of BlackBerry 10, pressure to reduce RIM's
monthly infrastructure access fees, and the Company's plans to
continue to aggressively drive sales of BlackBerry 7 handheld
devices. The Company expects to report an operating loss in the
second quarter of fiscal 2013, as RIM continues to invest in
marketing programs and continues to work through the transition to
BlackBerry 10, as well as the Company's fixed costs being allocated
over a lower volume of shipments. This outlook excludes the impact of
charges related to the CORE Program.
Reconciliation of GAAP net loss and diluted loss per share to adjusted net
loss and adjusted diluted loss per share:
(United States dollars, in millions except per share data)
Three months ended
June 2, 2012
Net Loss Diluted EPS
(net of (net of
income tax) income tax)
As reported $ (518) $ (0.99)
Impairment of Goodwill(1) 326 0.62
Adjusted $ (192) $ (0.37)
Note: Adjusted net loss and adjusted diluted loss per share do not
have a standardized meaning prescribed by GAAP and thus are not
comparable to similarly titled measures presented by other issuers.
The Company believes that the presentation of adjusted net loss and
adjusted diluted loss per share enables the Company and its
shareholders to better assess RIM's operating results relative to its
operating results in prior periods and improves the comparability of
the information presented. Investors should consider these non-GAAP
measures in the context of RIM's GAAP results.
(1) During the first quarter of fiscal 2013, the Company performed a
goodwill impairment test and based on the results of that test, the
Company recorded a pre-tax goodwill impairment charge of
approximately $335 million, or $326 million after tax.
Conference Call and Webcast
A conference call and live webcast will be held beginning at 5 pm ET,
June 28, 2012, which can be accessed by dialing 1-800-814-4859 (North
America), (+1)416-644-3414 (outside North America), or through your
personal computer or BlackBerry(R) PlayBook(TM) tablet at
http://www.rim.com/investors/events/index.shtml. A replay of the conference
call will also be available at approximately 7 pm ET by dialing
(+1)416-640-1917 and entering pass code 4501363#. A replay of the
webcast will be available on your personal computer or BlackBerry
PlayBook tablet by clicking the link above. This replay will be
available until midnight ET, July 12, 2012.
About Research In Motion
Research In Motion (RIM), a global leader in wireless innovation,
revolutionized the mobile industry with the introduction of the
BlackBerry(R) solution in 1999. Today, BlackBerry products and
services are used by millions of customers around the world to stay
connected to the people and content that matter most throughout their
day. Founded in 1984 and based in Waterloo, Ontario, RIM operates
offices in North America, Europe, Asia Pacific and Latin America. RIM
is listed on the NASDAQ Stock Market (NASDAQ:RIMM) and the Toronto
Stock Exchange (TSX:RIM). For more information, visit http://www.rim.com or
This news release contains forward-looking statements within the
meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
and Canadian securities laws, including statements regarding: the
Company's current expectations regarding the timing of the BlackBerry
10 smartphone launch; RIM's plans and strategies to implement
meaningful changes to address its challenges; anticipated continued
growth in the Company's BlackBerry subscriber base; the Company's
views regarding the anticipated benefits and customer response to the
BlackBerry 10 smartphones; RIM's expectations and beliefs relating to
the support of its developer partners and the development of its
ecosystem in advance of the launch of BlackBerry 10; RIM's plans,
objectives, estimates and expectations regarding the scope, magnitude
and benefits of the CORE program, and the Company's expectations
regarding restructuring-related charges in fiscal 2013; RIM's
intention to provide shareholders with updates, when possible,
relating to its progress and challenges; RIM's outlook, including its
expectation that the business will continue to be very challenging
for the next several quarters, and its expectations regarding the
effects of the intense competition in the wireless communications
industry, declining handset volumes, the impacts from the delay of
BlackBerry 10, pressures to reduce RIM's monthly infrastructure
access fees, and the financial impact of its sales and marketing
initiatives relating to BlackBerry 7 smartphones; and the Company's
current expectation that it will continue to report operating losses
in the second quarter of fiscal 2013. The terms and phrases
"scheduled", "underway", "will", "continue", "implement", "address",
"honing", "opportunities", "going forward", "anticipate", "leverage",
"growing", "believes", "confident", "financial objectives",
"targeted", "drive", "may", "estimates", "pursuing", "expects",
"intends" "plans", "work through", "transition", "outlook", and
similar terms and phrases are intended to identify these
forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based
on estimates and assumptions made by RIM in light of its experience
and its perception of historical trends, current conditions and
expected future developments, as well as other factors that RIM
believes are appropriate in the circumstances, including but not
limited to general economic conditions, product pricing levels and
competitive intensity, supply constraints, the timing and success of
new product introductions, RIM's expectations regarding its business,
strategy, opportunities and prospects, including its ability to
implement meaningful changes to address its business challenges, and
RIM's expectations regarding the cash flow generation of its
Many factors could cause RIM's actual results, performance or
achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied by
the forward-looking statements, including, without limitation: RIM's
ability to enhance current products and develop new products and
services in a timely manner or at competitive prices, including risks
related to further delays in new product introductions, including the
Company's BlackBerry 10 smartphones; risks related to intense
competition, including RIM's ability to compete in the tablet market,
strategic alliances or transactions within the wireless
communications industry, and risks relating to RIM's ability to
maintain or grow its services revenues; RIM's reliance on carrier
partners and distributors; risks relating to network disruptions and
other business interruptions, including costs, potential liabilities,
lost revenue and reputational damage associated with service
interruptions; RIM's ability to manage inventory and asset risk;
RIM's ability to implement and realize the anticipated benefits of
its CORE program; RIM's ability to maintain or increase its cash
balance; security risks and risks related to the collection, storage,
transmission, use and disclosure of confidential and personal
information; RIM's ability to attract and retain key personnel; RIM's
ability to adapt to recent management changes; RIM's reliance on
suppliers of functional components for its products and risks
relating to its supply chain; RIM's ability to maintain and enhance
the BlackBerry brand; risks related to RIM's international
operations; risks related to government regulations, including
regulations relating to encryption technology; RIM's reliance on
third-party network infrastructure developers, software platform
vendors and service platform vendors; RIM's ability to expand and
manage its BlackBerry App World applications catalogue; RIM's
reliance on third-party manufacturers; potential defects and
vulnerabilities in RIM's products; risks relating to litigation,
including litigation claims arising from the Company's past practice
of providing forward-looking guidance; RIM's ability to manage its
past growth and its ongoing development of service and support
operations; potential additional charges relating to the impairment
of goodwill or other intangible assets recorded on RIM's balance
sheet; disruptions to RIM's business as a result of shareholder
activism; risks related to intellectual property; and difficulties in
forecasting RIM's financial results given the rapid technological
changes, evolving industry standards, intense competition and short
product life cycles that characterize the wireless communications
These risk factors and others relating to RIM are discussed in
greater detail in the "Risk Factors" section of RIM's Annual
Information Form, which is included in its Annual Report on Form 40-F
and the "Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements"
section of RIM's MD&A (copies of which filings may be obtained at
http://www.sedar.com or http://www.sec.gov). These factors should be considered
carefully, and readers should not place undue reliance on RIM's
forward-looking statements. RIM has no intention and undertakes no
obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements,
whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise,
except as required by law.
Research In Motion Limited
Incorporated under the Laws of Ontario
(United States dollars, in millions except share and per share amounts)
Consolidated Statements of Operations
Three months ended
June 2, March 3, May 28,
2012 2012 2011
Revenue $ 2,814 $ 4,190 $ 4,908
Cost of sales 2,026 2,789 2,752
Gross margin 788 1,401 2,156
Gross margin % 28.0% 33.4% 43.9%
Operating expenses
Research and development 368 386 423
Selling, marketing and administration 552 650 704
Amortization 176 152 132
Impairment of goodwill 335 355 –
1,431 1,543 1,259
Income (Loss) from operations (643) (142) 897
Investment income, net 3 5 7
Income (Loss) before income taxes (640) (137) 904
Provision (benefit) for income taxes (122) (12) 209
Net income (loss) $ (518) $ (125) $ 695
Earnings (loss) per share
Basic $ (0.99) $ (0.24) $ 1.33
Diluted $ (0.99) $ (0.24) $ 1.33
Weighted-average number of common shares
outstanding (000's)
Basic 524,160 524,160 523,983
Diluted 524,160 524,160 524,524
Total common shares outstanding (000's) 524,160 524,160 524,112
Research In Motion Limited
Incorporated under the Laws of Ontario
(United States dollars, in millions except per share data) (unaudited)
Consolidated Balance Sheets
June 2, March 3,
As at 2012 2012
Cash and cash equivalents $ 1,467 $ 1,527
Short-term investments 471 247
Accounts receivable, net 2,551 3,062
Other receivables 255 496
Inventories 1,018 1,027
Income taxes receivable 194 135
Other current assets 512 365
Deferred income tax asset 196 197
6,664 7,056
Long-term investments 309 337
Property, plant and equipment, net 2,722 2,748
Goodwill – 304
Intangible assets, net 3,372 3,286
$ 13,067 $ 13,731
Accounts payable $ 659 $ 744
Accrued liabilities 2,086 2,382
Deferred revenue 489 263
3,234 3,389
Deferred income tax liability 216 232
Income taxes payable 9 10
3,459 3,631
Shareholders' Equity
Capital stock and additional paid-in capital 2,441 2,446
Treasury stock (273) (299)
Retained earnings 7,395 7,913
Accumulated other comprehensive income 45 40
9,608 10,100
$ 13,067 $ 13,731
Research In Motion Limited
Incorporated under the Laws of Ontario
(United States dollars, in millions except per share data) (unaudited)
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
For three months ended
June 2, 2012 May 28, 2012
Cash flows from operating activities
Net income (loss) $ (518) $ 695
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss)
to net cash provided by operating
Amortization 480 355
Deferred income taxes (16) 1
Income taxes payable (1) –
Stock-based compensation 25 23
Impairment of goodwill 335 –
Other 11 23
Net changes in working capital items 395 (77)
Net cash provided by operating activities 711 1,020
Cash flows from investing activities
Acquisition of long-term investments (118) (67)
Proceeds on sale or maturity of long-term
investments 32 43
Acquisition of property, plant and equipment (153) (222)
Acquisition of intangible assets (284) (560)
Business acquisitions, net of cash acquired (105) (27)
Acquisition of short-term investments (234) (111)
Proceeds on sale or maturity of short-term
investments 103 162
Net cash used in investing activities (759) (782)
Cash flows from financing activities
Issuance of common shares – 7
Tax deficiencies related to stock-based
compensation (4) (1)
Purchase of treasury stock – (26)
Net cash used in financing activities (4) (20)
Effect of foreign exchange loss on cash and
cash equivalents (8) (23)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash
equivalents for the period (60) 195
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of
period 1,527 1,791
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period $ 1,467 $ 1,986
As at June 2, 2012 March 3, 2012
Cash and cash equivalents $ 1,467 $ 1,527
Short-term investments 471 247
Long-term investments 309 337
$ 2,247 $ 2,111


text:
Game-Changing Investing Moments of 2012
In 2012, corporate governance really began to matter to more and more investors. Shareholders rights and votes didn't just grab some companies' attention, but also grabbed news headlines. In other words, more people started to care.
We've come a long way from the days when corporate governance issues were considered esoteric if not at times downright eccentric. Let's take a look back on 2012's biggest shake-up moments, when public company shareholders took back their ownership spirit and pushed back at corporate managements and boards.
Shareholder votes, shareholder activists
In the years since say-on-pay votes were mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act, we've seen a few shareholder votes against executive pay packages, but they mostly occurred at smaller, lower-profile public companies. However, this past April a mind-blowing vote took place: A majority of Citigroup shareholders voted against CEO Vikram Pandit's pay package.
Speaking of shake-ups, another one occurred in Citi's executive suite later this year: In October, Pandit resigned.
Here's another remarkable moment in 2012. Everybody knows that Wal-Mart shareholders have little voice. After all, the founding Walton family owns about half the company's stock, so right out of the gate we know that independent shareholders don't have a chance of culling a majority vote. However, given that backdrop, a surprising number of shareholders voiced their displeasure with some factors at Wal-Mart, including the international bribery probes coming to light in the last 12 months.
In June, about 13% of shareholders' votes came in against the reelection of current CEO Mike Duke to Wal-Mart's board. In an even more humiliating turn of events, 13% voted against Chairman Robert Walton, who happens to be Sam Walton's son. Major institutional investor CalSTRS had pre-announced its intention to vote against key members of the company's management and board in light of the circumstances.
Several companies' chief executives exhibited a sore response to shareholder criticism of their pay packages: They simply immediately walked. The chief executives of both Aviva and AstraZeneca both resigned after their pay packages were blasted by shareholders.
Carl Icahn is a major fan of shaking up corporate managements and boards, and he's been busy this year. Icahn has taken stakes in major, well-known companies like Netflix and Chesapeake Energy this year.
Chesapeake Energy has long been one of the poster children for really, really bad corporate governance policies, and that situation reached absolute crisis status in 2012. In one heck of a long overdue shakeup, four Chesapeake Energy directors resigned to be replaced with independent directors after Icahn arrived on the scene. The company agreed to implement majority voting, a shareholder-friendly move, and controversial CEO Aubrey McClendon relinquished his role of chairman of the board.
Changing the landscape
On a higher level, shareholders will receive a few other goodies that represented pretty major changes on the landscape of owning shares of public companies in 2012.
For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission finally mandated conflict minerals disclosure, which requires companies to reveal whether their business supply chains support oppressive regimes in war-torn regions like the Democratic Republic of Congo.
In another turn of events that could have lasting repercussions for good or for ill, in 2012 the JOBS Act gave us all a mixed bag to think about. Although it supposedly sought to help companies more easily access capital by going public, it also allows some companies to duck more in-depth disclosure requirements. There's been a good argument that the act will do more to help perpetuate frauds against investors than drum up more jobs for Americans, so investor, beware.
Clearly, 2012 has hardly been dull in the corporate governance realm. The good news is that we investors are stepping closer to an optimum outcome: one in which corporate managements are subject to far more accountability and scrutiny than has previously been the case. This will build better companies and a far more stable pool of stocks to invest in. That's good news for 2013 and beyond.
More expert advice from The Motley Fool
Energy investors would be hard-pressed to find another company trading at a deeper discount than Chesapeake Energy. Its share price depreciated after negative news surfaced concerning the company's management and spiraling debt picture. While these issues still persist, giant steps have been taken to help mitigate the problems. To learn more about Chesapeake and its enormous potential, you're invited to check out The Motley Fool's brand new premium report on the company. Simply click here now to access your copy, and as an added bonus, you'll receive a full year of key updates and expert guidance as news continues to develop.
Check back atFool.comfor more of Alyce Lomax's columns on environmental, social, and governance issues.
The article Game-Changing Investing Moments of 2012 originally appeared on Fool.com.
Alyce Lomax has no positions in the stocks mentioned above. The Motley Fool owns shares of Citigroup Inc and Netflix and has the following options: long JAN 2013 $16.00 calls on Chesapeake Energy, long JAN 2014 $20.00 calls on Chesapeake Energy, long JAN 2014 $30.00 calls on Chesapeake Energy, and short JAN 2014 $15.00 puts on Chesapeake Energy. Motley Fool newsletter services recommend Netflix. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Copyright © 1995 - 2012 The Motley Fool, LLC. All rights reserved. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


text:
There's a new kind of entrepreneur on the block, one that melds beautiful design and eco-friendly business practices. Kora Design is definitely leading the pack. In the past two years, designing duo Maxandra Short and Amy Walker have built a company that not only produces some of the most gorgeous baubles around, but also sustains several communities of artisans in Africa, where all of their jewelry is produced. They've got fans all over the world, and the Kora ladies teamed up with The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo's Rooney Mara and Uweza—a foundation that dedicates itself to ending poverty in Kenya's Kibera slums—to create a horn and recycled metal necklace that was at the top of many holiday wish lists. And while they may be making an impact on the economy across the world, if you want to get a glimpse of Kora's stateside studio and sneak a peek at where the designs are conceived, we've got a ticket to their dreamy, light-filled Laurel Canyon digs in Los Angeles. It may be a world away from the bustling city of Hollywood below (and the Kenyan communities they help support), but this nestled canyon retreat is the perfect place to catch up with two of our favorite young designers.
TCM: What inspired you to start Kora?
Amy: I was living in Rwanda doing business development for a nonprofit when I came across the horn material. The first few pieces we were making were stunning. This was an opportunity for my work to transition from nonprofit to for-profit business development (the trade-not-aid model). I approached Max, a longtime friend with wanderlust and an eye for design, and she was equally as inspired. We began with market tests — small sales events to test the market — and the reaction was overwhelming. Soon after we founded KORA!
TCM: What has been the rewarding moment?
Max: It's a tie: The first time I saw a total stranger wearing Kora, I saw them on the street in NYC and my heart just jumped. And then it's also incredibly rewarding each time we go back to Africa, seeing the progress made there on the ground, checking in with all of our artisans.
TCM: What's the best part of your job as designers?
Max: Designing, and knowing that our pieces are giving back, supporting the artisans we work with back in Kenya and their families by giving them a steady source of income. Channeling the considerable buying power of the developed world to do good feels pretty awesome.
Amy: Designing. By far the most fun — especially when we get to work in Nairobi. Some designs are a bit unusual for the artisans but they are always up for the challenge.
TCM: Biggest surprise starting a small, sustainable jewelry company?
Max: That the thrill of discovering new materials remains strong. And the endless adaptability of our materials, and how a focus on recycled or repurposed materials isn't at all limiting, it's actually incredibly fulfilling and inspiring to work within those parameters.
Amy: How much I still fall in love with our classic pieces – the horn is so unique that every one is a gem.
TCM: How has your business affected the lives of the people and communities who make your product?
Max: It provides our artisans with a steady source of income. And the workshops are able to build their businesses with the steady income stream as well.
TCM: What areas do you source from?
Amy: East Africa, mostly Kenya. And some of our pieces come from Ghana.
TCM: Tell us about the average craftsman creating your product in Kenya and Rwanda.
Max: Many of the workshops we source from are based in the slum districts of Nairobi, very poor areas where jobs are scarce. Most of our artisans are also from those areas and are trained in carving or casting, giving them a steady job, which provides valuable income for themselves and their families.
TCM: What materials do you use to create your jewelry?
Amy: Recycled Ankole cow horn (cows are not harmed, the horn is bought from local abattoirs, or butcheries, where it would typically otherwise be discarded — the horn is a byproduct of the meat industry in Kenya), recycled cast brass and aluminum (cast from scrap metal and old cooking pots and car parts). Greek leather, repurposed brass wire. Recycled glass.
TCM: Biggest challenges you've faced since you started Kora?
Max: Production in Africa, being so far away.
Amy: The flights!
TCM: How can small businesses like yours affect communities in need?
Amy: Like Max mentioned above, providing steady income (and the trickle down effect in the local community) is how KORA helps the communities in which we work.
TCM: Why do you believe in this type of business model?
Amy: We once asked the artisans in the horn workshop what they thought the Kibera slum district needed for development and they said jobs. In my experience, the nonprofit model focuses on trainings and helps support the business via donations, but if there is no source to market the products then the on-the-ground efforts are fruitless. There are nonprofit models and hybrids (non- and for-profit) that work well, but we believed for-profit was the best setup for KORA.
TCM: Tell us about your dog, Gabo.
Amy: Gabo is our right-hand man from Rwanda. I adopted him when I was living in Kigali when he was just a few weeks old and now he is a full time L.A. resident. We like to think of him as our mascot.
TCM: What's new for the spring collection?
Max: For spring we gave everything a serious infusion of color. We started using a profusion of colored leather cord in a color palette that ranges from bold and primary (yellow, electric blue, bright Kelly green) on one end and subtle and desert-inspired (camel, desert rose) on the other. To balance out the pops of color the collection also features angular, geometric metal pieces — inspired by Calder and the expanses of Rothko — as well as organic shapes inspired by ancient ceremonial jewelry designs from Papua New Guinea. All cast in recycled brass.
TCM: What is your favorite piece?
Max: I gotta say that the leather-wrapped Ruma bangles are my fave. They're a color pop adaptation of our classic Rumas, which are Kora's signature, and it's been so cool to give them an ever-changing color palette with the colored leather. We're working on new color combos for our FW 12 collection, which is one of my favorite things to do. Whenever I'm out and about I'm constantly finding new and amazing color combo options.
Amy: My favorite is the diamond tab ring. It's simple yet unique. The conflict-free diamonds are a new addition to KORA.
TCM: What advice might you give to others wanting to support international development through small business?
Max: Dialog and trust with your producers.
KORA is available at ShopKoraDesigns.com; Los Angeles: TenOverSix, Roseark, Driftwood, Yolk; New York: Henri Bendels, Saks, Anthropologie, Maryam Nassir Zadeh.