Taking the Shame Out of the Name

Taking the Shame Out of the Name

Taking the Shame out of the name

Who needs professional indemnity insurance?

As an individual or a business entity, you need to have yourself protected against unforeseen events, and the protection essentially includes insurance covers. One such insurance cover is professional indemnity insurance, which covers the compensation awarded to a client in the event of a lawsuit against those who provide professional services. Following are a few professions that need professional indemnity cover:

IT professionals: At times, projects undertaken by IT firms don’t go as planned. Although, minor aberrations to the specified guidelines can be reworked or resolved over a discussion with the client, it is not possible when the damages are significant. In such events, professional indemnity insurance can save you from the consequences of a huge financial loss.

Recruitment agencies: In the event of an accident due to negligence of a staff member who was recruited by an agency without proper reference checks, the client can file a lawsuit against the agency. The agency can also face lawsuit if confidential data is stolen or lost from the client’s office and the employee entrusted with access to the data is recruited by the agency. Small agencies may not have the resources to deal with such incidents and hence, need to be covered.

Business consultant: If you are working as a consultant, advising businesses on a day-to-day basis, then any loss resulting from the services provided by you can lead to a legal claim. However, if you have professional indemnity insurance, such events can be taken care of and you can avoid an impending financial loss.

Fitness trainers: As a fitness professional, it is absolutely necessary for you to ensure a high quality of service. However, often we cannot do much about unexpected turn of events. An injury during training may not only damage your reputation as a trainer but can also lead to a legal battle. Your clients can also file lawsuits if the services provided by you do not conform to the desired level of your clients.

Teaching professionals: Similar to fitness professionals, teachers also need to be prepared for unforeseen events. An injury in the classroom or complaints of below par tutoring can result in adverse consequences.

Apart from the ones mentioned above, various other professionals also need to be covered under professional indemnity insurance, including but not limited to designers, wedding planners, and photographers. Although it’s mandatory to have professional indemnity insurance for certain professionals, it’s advisable to have yourself covered, even if you are not obliged to, if you fall under the categories mentioned above.

The Basics Of Marine Insurance

There is an inherent need today to ensure that every facet of your life, right from general insurance, life insurance as well as goods and services, are insured. If you do not pay heed to this, you may end up with serious debt and straddled with long, drawn out payment hurdles. This is extremely imperative while shipping prized cargo across countries or continents. Marine insurance covers the risk of goods from the point of departure until the cargo reaches its destination, and this is where the policy ends.

Time Policy insures the ship for a fixed timeframe. It is possible to extend the duration for a longer period. Another feather in the cap is the mixed policy hull insurance transit coverage. The ship is assured of a cover for a mixed and timely duration – ideal for ships operating on a particular route. To ensure that there is no serious damage to the cargo or passengers, it is a necessity for the owner of the vessel to keep the policy up-to-date.

Transit insurance offers coverage for cargo and hull insurance. Both are imperative to a ship owner as well as the exporter. This ensures that all the goods are covered while in transit, from the point of origin to the destination point. In the past, the concept of inland marine insurance was established so that goods were insured while traveling at sea. Thankfully, it encompasses a wider range today.

There are different types of marine insurance policies under this umbrella. The sailing vessels policy takes care of the vessel in case of collision, burning or sinking at sea. An annual insurance policy provides an assurance cover of goods that belong to a specific assured party. The insured amount is calculated based on the value of the goods. It is essential from every aspect, from the time the ship leaves with the shipment, to the time it docks to ensure that every facet is taken into account.

Floating policies are an ideal form of transit insurance taken for a large amount for gargantuan trade. To send off the shipment, a declaration is a necessity. The open cover contract is an agreement created between the assured party and the insurer. The scope falls under the honor bound scheme where separate policies are not a necessity for every shipment. As an open cover policy, it works rather well for regular cargo shipments once the declarations are made.

Scope of Professional Indemnity Insurance

An insurance is like a contract, in which a legal entity or an individual receives financial protection or reimbursement from an insurance company, in case of any loss incurred. This contract is called a policy. Insurance policies are used to protect the individual or a company from financial losses, small and big, that may have resulted from damage to the insured or to his or her property, or from liability for the damage caused to a third party.

While choosing an insurance, it is very important to keep in mind the components of the insurance – the premium and the deductible amount. The premium is the cost of the insurance paid on a monthly basis. The premium varies from one insurance company to another, based on the risk profile of the company or individual. The deductible is the out-of-pocket expense borne by the insured whenever he or she makes a claim.

There are different types of insurances, which can be availed by any company or individual. According to the business requirements, there are special kinds of insurances. Some insurances are need based – like kidnap and ransom (K&R) insurance, medical malpractice, professional indemnity insurance, also called errors and omissions insurance.

Scope of Professional Indemnity Insurance:

Professional Indemnity Insurance is a type of insurance that protects companies and individuals against claims made by clients for negligent actions and inadequate services. This insurance policy usually covers the cost of the court case as well as the settlement amount as specified in the policy. Commercially busy places have many agencies offering this insurance. For example, Professional Indemnity Insurance in Singapore is very common

Professional Indemnity Insurance in Singapore can be availed by hiring financial planners, investment advisors who are registered, and also other financial professionals. Even regulatory bodies like Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) avails this insurance.

The benefits reaped from this insurance differs from one insurance agency to another. The scope and benefit plan laid out in the policy also differs from one insurance agency to another. Professional Indemnity Insurance that covers a company includes all its workers. However, it may not cover the temporary workers or the workers in the probation period in the company. It also may not cover the work that is done before the policy came into force. Some policies do not cover certain jurisdictions, as lawsuit in any business is very common and court cases are filed even on small issues. Thus, in the business world Professional Indemnity Insurance is a necessity.

The Brilliance of Howard Dean

If you swung by the Liberal-Bias Message Board this week, you probably caught the noticeable disagreement in how Howard Dean chose to criticize the Republican Party to a group of journalists Monday June 6th. As many Democratic senators, congressmen, and officials took umbrage with his statements, others were actually glad to hear such refreshing rhetoric. I would say I distinctly fall into the latter category.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m well aware of the way that such direct and caustic language can be misconstrued by the public, distorted by the media, and flat out used as fodder for jerk neocon pundits, Tom DeLay, and other such street vermin. It’s hardly safe language. But that’s just it. The Democratic Party doesn’t need to be playing it safe anymore. Al Gore was a safe choice. John Kerry was a safe choice. Compromising the filibuster was safe. What the hell has that accomplished?

I apologize if any latte liberals don’t like sports references mixed into your political debate, but the Democratic Party is down by 4 touchdowns halfway through the 3rd quarter, and their defense is sucking wind. Right now an off tackle running play or a dump into the flat isn’t going to cut it. Some risks need to be taken to have a chance at winning late in the fourth quarter.

What Mr. Dean said is not all that inflammatory. Was it PC? No. But PC is not what wins elections anymore. Times have changed. The biggest reason I heard from moderates I knew who voted for Bush was that they seemed to identify more with Bush than Kerry, and that Kerry always seemed way too guarded with his answers during debates and interviews, therefore causing them to think that he was saying what he thought people wanted to hear, instead of the way he really felt. I’m a big believer that people don’t appreciate hearing someone sound as if they are reading off a script when supposedly being themselves.

People can’t stand to hear sports figures (sorry again weenie liberals) like Alex Rodriguez, Tiger Woods, and Jim Tressel give homogenized vanilla answer after homogenized vanilla answer at press conferences and during interviews. You learn nothing from it, and tune it out because you can’t feel any sense of sincere revelation from the person. While strong statements may turn some people off in the short term, they will eventually get over it, and in the long term, come to make the connection that Howard Dean is a straight shooter.

Let’s all look at the numbers than can be applied to taking such a statement. The US Census Bureau estimates that by 2010, the population percentage of whitey in this country will decrease by .8%, while blacks will increase .3%, Asians .5%, and hispanics 1.2%. In terms of raw numbers that means by 2010 there will be 7.1 million more whiteys than now, but 2.3 million more blacks, 2.1 million more Asians and 5.1 million more hispanics. That shifts the white to non white balance in this country 2.4 million towards the non-whites. Howard Dean is no dummy. He understands the need to recognize the growing minority in this country and is doing just that.

While no great number, according to CNN’s exit poll numbers in 2004, Bush was still able to get a enough votes from non whites (30% men, 24% women) to get him over the top. The Dems need to cut into those numbers. Look at those numbers. If even remotely accurate, Howard made more of a statement of fact than one of personal conviction. What’s so wrong about saying the Republican Party is the party of white christian males? They are. The numbers prove it.

The CNN poll also showed 13% of people who considered themselves “liberals” voted for Bush. Huh? Did I miss something there? I can clearly see why someone considering themself a conservative would vote for Kerry, but seems impossible for me for someone who is a true liberal would vote for Bush (see my “Convert A Bushie” piece concerning Victims). That’s a clear sign that the Kerry campaign didn’t strut it’s liberal stuff enough to win. What can be more liberal than throwing a dig at “The Man”?

I’m very happy Dean did not back pedal from his statements. Just look at the Bush administration. Despite a huge pile of failures with enough facts behind them to sink The Love Boat, they never ever admit they were wrong. They take nothing back. DeLay practically told open minded federal judges to watch their backs and sympathized with those that would threaten a judge’s life. Where did his followers fall off at? They didn’t. In fact, they all lined up for a $250 a plate dinner to help him pay his lawyers another month.

Don’t think I haven’t thought about or listened to how the neocons will spin this. They will be play the “victim card” for all it’s worth. Oh the those poor oppressed conservatives. Always getting picked on by those big mean liberals. Those mean obstructionist liberals who prevented them from confirming Condi Rice and John Bolton, repealing the estate tax, letting bankrupt CEO’s escape harder bankruptcy laws, and starting an unnecessary war. So now they can label democrats racist and anti-Christian. Good. Let ’em have at it. If after 6 years the American public can’t figure out we have a religiously intolerant, corporatist & fascist administration who doesn’t care about the common man, then I don’t think they’ll be too quick to catch onto the non-fact that democrats are racist Jesus haters beause Howard Dean told the truth.

Howard Dean is just one of the few democrats who has started to figure out what the game is all about these days. He’s giving it a try at beating them at their own game. He’s throwing a forty yard post pattern on 1st and 10, and you know what? I like it. The Democrats have been in dire need of a spine recently, and they’ve finally found one in Howard Dean. Let’s just hope they use it.

The Demise of Air America Radio?

A post this week on the LB Message Board about the prospects of Air America Radio (AAR) going bankrupt got me thinking long and hard (Butthead: “huh huh…he said long and hard”…) about the current state of things regarding the representation of liberal points of view in today’s media.

One post took a harsh tone with the listeners of AAR, for not supporting the network enough. Others blamed the network itself for not having good enough programming to reel in the casual listener or sustain the interest level of the converted.

I for one, am not sure the recent reports surrounding AAR of it’s apparent problems is really a matter of blame at all. While I do believe there is truth in each and every post, I’m not sure it’s even possible for a product like AAR to flourish in today’s society at all. Let me explain a few natural handicaps that AAR has had working against it from day one.

1. Terrestrial radio is controlled by conservatives.

Let’s face it, the only reason that a conservative owned conglomerate like Clear Channel brought AAR to as many of its affiliates was because it thought it could profit from it, then, in all likelihood, use those profits to back other conservative special interests.

And don’t think Clear Channel’s lack of interest didn’t show. Where I live, Clear Channel owned WTPG 1230 is the local affiliate for AAR, but you wouldn’t know it. Outside of the Al Franken show you wouldn’t know that WTPG had much to do with AAR at all. For a while, the only AAR programming you would hear was the Franken Show and one hour of Randi Rhodes. They would do things like bump the morning lineup for a re-run of Springer’s show from the day before. Nothing like listening to stuff you heard about yesterday all over again to start your morning. Then the AAR mid-morning programming would be bumped for the Stephanie Miller Show. Now I like Stephanie Miller and her show, so I’m glad I got to hear it, but it didn’t do much for AAR and the Unfiltered show. Franken had his full time slot, then Ed Schultz would come on and bump the first 2 hours of Randi Rhodes (maybe the best Lib radio host out there). To finish the day off, I would get my full dosage of Cincinnati Reds baseball from 6:30 to 11:00. Not exactly giving Central Ohio it’s full helping of AAR. Clear Channel did not represent AAR very well, but being a startup, AAR probably had no better offers, and beggars can’t be choosers.

The sad reality is that most major radio networks are part of larger conglomerates that are usually in lockstep with BushCo’s tax breaks and corporate friendly policies. You are not going to find many billionaires wanting to finance shows that argue in favor of increasing their taxes and regulating their trade.

2. Liberals don’t lie.

All things considered, it’s way easier for conservative radio hosts to make things sound more interesting than they actually are when they have “poetic license” at their disposal. The average American schlep does not have the intellectual attention span to sit through hearing the real explanations behind why the Bush administration is doing what it is doing. Hearing why PlameGate is such a bad thing takes some work on the part of the listener. It was much, much easier for Rush Limbaugh to get people to pay attention when he said “If you don’t support the Patriot Act, terrorists will come and kill you!”

Limbaugh didn’t really say that, but probably wanted to. And you can’t argue that that lie was the most memorable part of the last paragraph. The main problem with liberal radio hosts is that they feel too much of an obligation to the truth to be entertaining.

3. AAR was too open about what it was trying to accomplish.

AAR never made any bones about what it stood for. From day one it billed itself as a champion of progressive causes. BIG F’ING MISTAKE!

You can’t sell something to the masses by letting them know what you are really selling. Trust me, I work in retail. You ever seen Kraft trying to sell cheese by promoting the amount of polyglocuthenalimines (I made that ingredient up, but, again, lying really helps..see!) in it? No, you have not, because the American people can’t handle the truth. You’d be surprised to know just how many average Joes think Glenn Beck is just a moderate straight shooter. Fox News is the evilest entity on the planet, but I have to give them credit for bashing us over the head with “Fair & Balanced” as much as they have. If their slogan had been “Slanted & Conservative” I doubt their numbers would be where they are.

AAR never should have ever acknowledged that they were there to promote progressive values. That alone instantly turned off half of the market. People do not trust people with an agenda, no matter how much truth they are spouting. We even debated that issue here when we started Liberal-Bias. I felt that being up front about our mission would not allow us the opportunity to do much more than “preach to the choir”. More of the other founders disagreed and felt we should be more open of our intentions. They were true liberals. I wasn’t. They got their way. We lost our potential to reach the masses.

So where does that leave liberal radio? The picture I painted above might lead one to think it leaves it with potential for success. I disagree. I think there is a way that liberally biased radio programs can exist, but only under the following conditions:

1) If you can’t own your network, then just syndicate only.

AAR would have been in a much better position to succeed if it had control over what programming was available to its local markets. The Central Ohio example above was only one of many similar situations. How can you develop a consistent listener base, when the listeners never know when or if a program is going to be on or not. This appears impossible in terrestrial radio today, but perhaps as satellite radio’s popularity increases their may be an opportunity to exhibit such control over programming.

If the network cannot happen, then stick to syndication. Having the ability to negotiate with several stations in a market can give the radio shows more of an advantage to control their consistency in availability.

2) Pretend to be something you are not.

America likes to be lied to in some small way. It’s easier than facing facts. I believe more people would rather hear false confirmation of their preconceptions, than accurate contradiction. So it makes no sense to go public with your intentions of pushing a liberal agenda. Too many people that intentionally consider themselves moderates or centrists will turn off without giving it a chance. Rush Limbaugh & Glenn Beck did not rise to where they are because they billed themselves as neoconservative points of authority. They connected with their base because the successfully sold themselves as just regular guys who argue from no other vantage point than “just plain old common sense” and used those points to make a case against liberals. Not so much as promoting what they really stood for as much a tearing down those they opposed by showing how disconnected liberals were with “us plain old American folks”.

That’s how you do it. Connect first, push later. That’s why I’ve always held that Oprah Winfrey could be the great savior for liberal causes if she ever wanted to go that route. She’s already connected with her base. If she would just run one program on Downing Street or the evils of the sham that is Iraq, the results could be devastating for BushCo. But for some reason she chooses to not go that route. I’m guessing it’s in effort to keep a stronghold on her $1.4 Billion empire, and not suffer the mild but recoverable corporate backlash that would follow.

I think the area of greatest impact right now in the media is Keith Olbermann. He already achieved his street cred via his time on ESPN, and by taking a relatively neutral, albeit cynical, stance in the past. It hasn’t been until the last year that he has taken his anti Bush position up a notch. And because he waited, it is now carrying that much more weight.

The next big movement in liberal radio needs to present itself in the same “Hey we have no agenda except to look out for you, the average American” stance that the Neocons have preached so well up to this point. It’s quite amazing how many people, regardless of race, religion, or income, think of themselves as “average Americans”

3) Entertain us.

I hate Limbaugh & Beck as much as the next guy, but they are great radio personalities. If there is ever another concerted effort to find liberal radio hosts, they should look for people who are entertaining and have a great radio presence first, then worry about their liberal credentials later. AAR tried this and failed with Marc Maron, Janeane Garofalo, and Al Franken, and it didn’t work. Maron was a good standup, but never seemed comfortable in the radio booth, and never failed to make mention of how much he didn’t like his job all that much. Garofalo’s attendance on her own show was spotty at best. And Franken, while having had the most success so far, is not good radio. His pauses can be unbearable at times and his wit is too high brow for Joe Ironworker to get on a regular basis.

There needs to be an effort to find a great radio personality, who will not be afraid to “go political”. I have often contended that the great liberal voice we are all searching for, does not even have to have a political show. It can be from a musical or sports themed show if need be. There just needs to be that one person who can handle a mic, and not be afraid of the backlash for “going political” every now and then.

4) Play dirty.

Liberal radio needs to stop living in fear of the backlash from conducting business on less than “on the level” manner. Rush Limbaugh doesn’t do interviews. He doesn’t debate people. He screens his callers ad better than they screen your luggage at airports, and will even stoop to having planted callers. He’s not afraid to contradict himself to prove point at that moment. The same guy that said all drug addicts should be locked up, and that Saddam Hussein wasn’t that bad a guy, now wants sympathy for the disease of addiction and says the world and Iraq is safer without Hussein in power. Do his listeners care? No.

It’s very easy to manipulate the public when you have the resources at your disposal. Liberals need to start using them. The bad guys always have the upper hand, so you are not going defeat them by playing fair.

In conclusion, if AAR does go in the proverbial toilet, I think it should stand for future generations of liberals as a hallmark for what not to do if you actually want to make a dent in the current conservative media bias. It’s not just about being right, or being truly liberal. It’s about ratings, and the rest will take care of itself.

Like Tony Montana once said, “In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the woman.”

Director’s Chair Insights from Scott Games Director, Liberal-Bias

John Conyers, the House Judiciary Committe, & November

Because it is the season, there has been much talk in the media about polling and prediction on who will win which election in November, and what the resulting Congress will look like.  The focus of the analysis is whether the Democrats have enough momentum among the public to reclaim control of the House the party lost in 1994.  Yes, those are the stakes, but there is one man who raises those stakes substantially, and is the big reason Republicans cannot permit the Democrats to reclaim control, whatever the means. His name is Rep. John Conyers.

Most everyone I tell that the Democrats can’t win in November because of election fraud don’t seem to know who Rep. Conyers is and what he has done in his minority role since 1994, so I felt as though a summary and brief walk down memory lane is in order.  Rep. Conyers (D-MI), helped by his insurmountable support of the voters in his Detroit area District, has been one of the few Democrat who has attempted to energize liberals to stick to the big problems; those that seem to mostly stay on the web and rarely make it to the corporate owed media.

First, a little bit about Rep. John Conyers.  According to his campaign website (linked below), Rep. Conyers is a candidate for his 21st term in the US Congress, and rarely receives much of a political challenge.  He has been a champion of liberal causes for his entire Congressional career, on any issue from civil rights to the environment and everything in between.  As somewhat of a political junky, it seems that anytime there is an issue that I think deserves special attention, it is Rep. Conyers, whether it is popular at the moment or not, who is in the middle of making a stink about it.
Some of the best Rep. Conyers moments from the past couple of years . . .

Rep. Conyers held an informal hearing about the sate of the media, and its Republican dominance (article linked below).  It was a star studded event that was a laundry list of how the “Republican Noise Machine” works.  The meeting left very little doubt about how the whole thing works, and the media, predictably, ignored it.

Rep. Conyers held an informal hearing on the circulation of the Downing Street Minutes (article linked below).  After the meeting was over, Conyers delivered personally to the White House the hundreds of thousands of signatures on a petition demanding a formal investigation.  The media ignored this one, too, except to make fun of the meeting. See below the Washington Post’s disgusting and irresponsible “coverage” of the event.

The difference between the substantial exit polling and the official count in Ohio during the 2004 presidential election was about six percentage points, both a statistical impossibility, and as such, would be seen as obvious fraud if it happened in another country. To my knowledge, Rep. Conyers is the only member of either house of congress to produce a formal study on the matter (linked below). If you ever have the time, I recommend a complete reading of the report. It is long, detail and disturbing.  And the media largely ignored this one, too.

Now here is the most important part.  If the Democrats regain control of the House, Conyers will likely again serve as Chair of the House Judiciary Committee (function of committee linked below).  Much of Rep. Conyers’ work has a tag “informal” or “panel” to it because he has not been able to bring formal hearings on much of anything since the Republicans took control of the Judiciary Committee.  That is how Republicans have operated as the majority.  They do whatever they want to do, without regard for the minority, unless the minority is simply signing on to what the majority wants to do. Stories of Republicans holding meetings on what they want to do before the actual committee meeting takes place are common.
One of our newer regulars on the message board posted a great article on a portion of this very subject (linked below).  The facts are that if the Republicans lose the majority in Congress, they lose the ability to control what becomes a hearing, and those hearings will be chaired by a Member who will take on anything he chooses.  That probably means our current broken system will change substantially, some people will go to jail, there might even be impeachment hearings, the media will have to cover it, etc.  Basically, all hell breaks lose. Couple this, what has to be the big fear among Republicans, with the fact that Republicans control both the mainstream media and voting in this country, and one can only conclude that Republicans can not possibly permit a Democratic takeover of Congress.  The Conyers factor alone makes it too much of a threat.

I hope I am wrong.  However, this is the single biggest reason the Republicans will do whatever is necessary next month to control the elections in their favor.

© 2017: Liberal-Bias | Easy Theme by: D5 Creation | Powered by: WordPress