“This National Small Business Month,SCORE is recognizing the incredible impact of America’s entrepreneurs in their communities and across the country.
“Small businesses are the driving force of our economy, creating jobs and allowing entrepreneurs to fulfill their dreams,” said SCORE CEO Bridget Weston. “We join the rest of the nation in celebrating small business owners – the heart of every community – and take pride in partnering with them on their road to success.”
Small businesses are starting and growing in communities across America. These entrepreneurs repeatedly overcome challenges and navigate uncharted territory, inspiring future business owners to do the same.
Reaching a goal and helping the community
For many entrepreneurs, owning their own business is not only a dream come true, but also a way to give back. “In January 2021, I quit my job in the corporate wellness industry and started SiteWell Solutions, a wellness consulting business focusing on remote workers,” said SCORE client Chelsea Kidd, whose business is based in Bozeman, Mont. “The timing was perfect since the pandemic caused a shift toward employee wellness. I’m grateful to run a company that works hard to improve the quality of life for others.”
SCORE client Paulina Enriquez, owner and director of Wonder Kids Learning Center in Arlington, Va., worked with SCORE mentor Richard Rose to overcome roadblocks on her business journey. “With Richard’s guidance, I wrote a 30-page business plan in English (my second language) which Richard has described as one of the ‘best’ business plans he’s ever seen,” said Enriquez. “It was a real challenge for me and to hear that from someone like Richard with all of his experience made me proud.”
Connect with mentors and other entrepreneurs
With more entrepreneurs than ever paving their own path towards building a better life, there is a need for guidance and mentorship. This National Small Business Week, SCORE and the SBA are hosting a Virtual Summit April 30-May 1, bringing together thousands of current and aspiring small business owners to celebrate their success and provide tools and training for continued growth and profitability. The summit is free and includes access to expert-led business sessions, professional advice from SCORE mentors, a virtual exhibit hall with federal resources and services, and opportunities for networking. View the full agenda and register here.
Partnering with small business owners one-on-one, SCORE mentors offer experienced advice and consulting on best practices free of charge for the life of your business. Find a mentor today at score.org.
About SCORE:
Since 1964, SCORE has helped more than 17 million entrepreneurs start, grow or successfully exit a business. SCORE’s 10,000 volunteers provide free, expert mentoring, resources and education in all 50 U.S. states and territories. Visit SCORE at www.score.org.
Funded [in part] through a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Small Business Administration.
“On April 23, the Federal Trade Commission voted, and issued a rule, to ban non-compete agreements. The FTC took this massive step to promote competition and to “protect the fundamental freedom of workers to change jobs, increase innovation, and foster new business formation.”
“While the FTC’s final rule will take effect 120 days after publication in the Federal Register, the non-compete ban may be put on hold as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and others, have already launched alawsuit challenging the rule. Even with a stay in the rule’s effectiveness, government and industry should begin planning on how an outright ban on non-competes could play out in practice.
Indeed, given that non-competes – and other means by which contractors secure key personnel for procurement opportunities – are commonplace, the impact of this rule could potentially and profoundly alter the government contracting landscape. This is particularly true because, as shown below, the FTC’s definition of non-compete is far-reaching.
Briefly, the FTC’s rule will, on a go-forward basis, ban virtually all non-competes – from low level workers to senior executives. The rule states, that companies are prohibited not only from entering or attempting to enter a non-compete but also from enforcing or attempting to enforce a non-compete. The rule also includes an expansive definition for non-compete.
Under the rule, a non-compete is a “term or condition of employment that prohibits a worker from, penalizes a worker for, or functions to prevent a worker from . . . seeking or accepting” work with another company (or starting a company) after conclusion of employment.
While a plain reading shows that an outright prohibition is perhaps easy to spot, the rule will still invite considerable debate and confusion regarding its applicability. Specifically, because the definition of non-compete includes nebulous “penalizes a worker for” and “functions to prevent” language, a letter of commitment and other types of worker-restricting terms could be captured by the rule, meaning the current system surrounding key personnel requirements should change.
Consider the following scenario. Suppose a contractor submits with its proposal a required letter of commitment for a named key person to serve as the program manager. Despite signing a commitment letter, the key person resigns from his role with the contractor to take a higher-paying job. All of this occurs after proposal submission and prior to award, but the company does not tell the agency.
Under Government Accountability Office protest decisions, this would likely upend the contractor’s bid (as it has many times in the past) because the key person will likely be deemed unavailable, thereby triggering GAO’s notice requirement. [1]
With the FTC’s prohibition on broadly defined non-compete clauses, however, the key person’s letter of commitment could be viewed by both the contractor and agency officials as either contrary to the FTC’s rule or simply an illusory commitment from the outset, or both. [2]
Specifically, because the FTC’s ban is wide-ranging and captures any term that “functions to prevent” a worker from “seeking or accepting” a new work, a letter of commitment (and potentially naming key persons or resumes) could fall under the definition of a prohibited non-compete.
So, despite submitting the letter, the key person’s commitment, in practice, could be viewed as illusory because the contractor is prohibited from crafting terms that prohibit or “functions to prevent” key personnel from seeking or accepting new work.
Because a letter of commitment could be considered impermissible and illusory, neither the contractor nor agency officials should be able to reasonably interpret the letter as providing a reasonable assurance as to the key person’s availability for the awarded contract.
Because, under the FTC’s rule, a letter of commitment ostensibly fails to serve the purpose for which it is intended, agencies should rethink the way key personnel requirements are used in government contracting.
In light of the foregoing, procuring agencies should abandon the current key personnel system and adopt a new strategy. Specifically, agencies could stop crafting solicitation terms that require bidders to propose named key personnel or to furnish letters of commitment or resumes.
Because workers will be free to come and go as they please (untethered by broadly defined non-competes), it would be unreasonable for agency officials and contractors to believe that a letter of commitment (or resume) means that the key person is definitively willing and available to perform under an awarded contract.
Indeed, even where some information is desirable, agency officials could simply request general details regarding the type of candidate that will fill a key position (e.g., educational background, general work experience, agency experience, certifications, etc.). This scenario would provide flexibility on the contractor’s part and provide agency officials with some confidence that the proposed key personnel have the necessary skills for successful performance.
On the other hand, where agency officials insist on requiring identifiable key personnel because they believe names and resumes will be critical to the success of a procurement, agency officials should consider solicitation language that permits flexibility. This could be accomplished, for example, by including language that clearly states that the agency will not consider a proposal unawardable where there is a change to key personnel after bid submission but prior to award.
After all, because the FTC’s stated rationale is to “protect the fundamental freedom of workers to change jobs,” it would be somewhat of a stretch to conclude that a proposed key person is definitively available, at the time proposals are submitted, to work on the awarded contract when the award may occur several months or years later.
Notably, by adopting a new approach, agency officials also will likely avoid the almost certain problems and protests that will surface where a contractor believes that a letter of commitment is an unreasonable solicitation term.
First, a contractor may object to such an approach on the theory that using a letter of commitment would require the company to violate their obligation not to enter or enforce a non-compete clause.
Second, the contractor may object to the term on the theory that a letter of commitment serves no legitimate need because if such letters fall within the rule’s grasp, they necessarily fail to provide agency officials (and contractors) with any reasonable assurances as to whether the key personnel will definitively be available and willing to perform on an awarded contract.
Interestingly, by adopting a new approach, agencies also will avoid the unintended consequences associated with key person unavailability and, in so doing, could end the split between how GAO and the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) treat key personnel unavailability. [3]
This lack of harmony – and GAO’s requirement that contractors notify agencies where it knows a key person has become unavailable after bid but prior to award – has plagued many contractors. Indeed, because this issue can sink a contractor’s bid (to the detriment of both contractors and procuring agencies), the current landscape also is unfair.
That is, while COFC arguably has favorable case law, some protests still must go to GAO for jurisdictional reasons. To that end, because a duty to notify can result in bid being rejected (through no fault of the contractor), a system without naming key personnel or requiring letters of commitment would be a welcome sight.
Takeaway
As the foregoing demonstrates, where a key person signs a letter of commitment or otherwise feels compelled to remain employed by the offeror and perform on the awarded contract or refrain from seeking or accepting potentially lucrative work during the pendency of a bid, such restricting terms or letters of commitment may fall within the grasp of FTC’s rule.
If letters of commitment reasonably can be construed as falling under the broad definition of non-compete, agencies will need to adopt a different approach as those commitments are not only illusory but also impermissible. Given this potential new reality, agencies should rethink their approach to key personnel requirements in solicitations.”
Josh Duvall is a shareholder in the Washington, D.C. office of Maynard Nexsen and is a member of the firm’s Cybersecurity & Privacy Practice Group and Government Solutions Practice Group.
__________
[1] See, e.g.,Ashlin Management Group, B-419472.3, B-419472.4, November 4, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 357 (sustaining a protest that the awardee’s proposal was unacceptable due to failure to notify the agency when the awardee had actual knowledge of the key person’s unavailability prior to award); M.C. Dean, Inc., B-418553, B-418553.2, June 15, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 206 at 4 (“[w]hen the agency is notified of the withdrawal of a key person, it has two options: either evaluate the proposal as submitted without considering the resume of the unavailable employee (where the proposal will likely be rejected as technically unacceptable for failing to meet a material requirement); or open discussions to permit the offeror to amend its proposal.”).
[2] Assuming, for the sake of argument, that neither the contractor nor any other offeror files a bid protest challenging the solicitation terms as unreasonable and/or contrary to the FTC’s rule. Interestingly, a contractor that seeks to provide additional but conditional compensation to a key person, regardless of whether a letter of commitment is in play, also could trigger the rule. For example, if a contractor offers a bonus that either will not be paid until after award or must be repaid by the key person if they take another position prior to the award, then the rule may be in play as the compensation terms could be deemed to “penalize a worker” from “seeking or accepting” a position with another firm.
[3] See, e.g., Golden IT, LLC v. United States, 157 Fed. Cl. 680 (2022) (rejecting GAO’s position and finding that offerors do not have a duty to notify agency officials when a proposed key person becomes unavailable after bid submission but prior to award); IAP Worldwide Services, Inc. v. United States, 159 Fed. Cl. 265 (2022) (same).”
Every U.S. citizen from the individual voter to the politician must view our country’s recent, recurring, war making motives as factors when considering future defense and financial security decision-making.
Our near term future as a country involves weighty decisions regarding fiscal and national security. There are trade offs during federal government war-making decisions and incremental funding authorizations.
We are approaching a National Debt of $35Trillion with a downgraded fiscal credit rating while carrying the financial burden of ongoing support for NATO and the Ukraine war, the Middle East Gaza conflict, as well as domestic program needs.
A look over our shoulder at two driving factors of our recent warfare is useful as we consider history when viewing our future while making prudent decisions on the principal contributors to our national debt and security.
DRIVING FACTOR 1 – GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR MOTIVES:
The motives of the U.S. Military Industrial Complex (MIC) and The US Agency for International Development (USAID) contractors have fostered continuing wars. Ongoing warfare nets billions in sales of weapons plus massive construction and redevelopment dollars for international companies. They often operate fraudulently, fostering waste, fraud and abuse.
It is common knowledge that many of these corporations spent more each year in lobbying costs than they paid in taxes and passed exorbitant overhead and executive pay costs on to the tax payer, thus financing the riches of their operating personnel while remaining marginally profitable to stockholders.
I watched this from the inside of many of these companies for 36 years. You can read my dissertation on the subject at:
There has been a complete lack of cultural understanding between U.S./Western decision makers and the middle east culture they have tried to “Assist” by nation building.
The only real cultural understanding that existed during the period was in the person of General Schwarzkopf who spent much of his youth in the Middle East with his father, an ambassador to Saudi Arabia. He was fascinated by the Arab culture, commanded their respect and, like Eisenhower, led a successful coalition during the first Gulf War to free Kuwait.
He astutely recommended no occupation of Iraq, went home and stayed out of government. Norman, like General Eisenhower, knew the power of the MIC.
U.S Tax payers funded billions in USAID and construction projects in Iraq. The money was wasted due to a lack of cultural understanding, waste, fraud and abuse. The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) has documented that aspect of the Iraq war history, as well as similar motives and abuses in Afghanistan.
CONCLUSION AND A HOPE FOR OUR FORTHCOMING DECISIONS:
History has been repeating itself here – much like Vietnam and Iraq, the above two factors are deeply at play with a lack of astute learning in our government as we look back over our shoulder.
We must come to the understanding, like a highly respected war veteran and West Point Instructor has, that military victory is dead.
“MODERN WAR INSTITUTE AT WEST POINT”
“Victory’s been defeated; it’s time we recognized that and moved on to what we actually can accomplish.”
Frank Spinney, a foremost expert on the MIC, spent the same time I did on the inside of the Pentagon while I worked in Industry. You may find his interviews informative.
I have hope these historical factors are useful in considering our future financial and defense security and that every U.S. citizen from the individual voter to the politician will consider them in their decision-making.
“I had two mentors at key points in my 36 year career in Aerospace.
They were a combination of technical, management and communications talent, rarely found in high tech industry. Neither placed salary, position or ego ahead of developing their subordinates and each reached the pinnacle of their respective careers for exactly that trait. Their skills at developing and utilizing people were their most highly valued qualities.
I owe my survival in a very hectic environment to those two and much of my ability to guide and counsel individuals as well as communicate effectively springs from their legacy of guidance.
Mentoring can be a dynamic, two way street.
The most successful organizations pair experienced personnel as models on a staff basis with junior ones. Each has individual assignments and reports to the boss but the senior party is the example in the process/experience-driven aspects of the job and is available to answer questions. The younger individual infuses the older one with energy and new ideas much like osmosis.
The result is a hybrid of old and new that has been put together by a team. The approach works extremely well, imposes on no one, results in the young and old learning by observation, satisfaction and recognition for collective efforts and reduction in the boss’s work load. A “Win-Win” all around.
Small business volunteering has kept me active in retirement, in touch with my profession and engaged in a continuous learning mode. It has been my “Window On The World” in pursuing those objectives.
I believe we are growing entrepreneurs more than growing monumentally successful enterprises. They, in turn, will grow their unique forms of business using their efforts, not ours. We do not do it for them. They do it for themselves. Hopefully our suggestions help. I have been pleased again and again when a small business owner took my basic suggestions, put their own unique twists on them and developed a thriving business. That is the ultimate reward.
I help with background and knowledge for the entrepreneur to consider as he or she makes decisions. I experience satisfaction every day from the work and I value being useful to highly motivated entrepreneurs who wish to succeed.
I view volunteer counseling much like a garden—a place to plant seeds, a place to grow fruitful enterprises and a place to harvest personal satisfaction and the gratitude of others.”
“The perspective you’ve gained from global deployments and working in diverse teams provides a breadth of understanding that can bridge divides and build stronger communities.”
“In our journey through life, few truths are as universal as the inevitability of change. For those of us who’ve donned the uniform, embraced the discipline and lived by the camaraderie that defines military life, one particular change presents a unique challenge: the transition to civilian life.
And why should it be hard? We all started as civilians and then became military, right?
This transition isn’t just about swapping a uniform for business casual; it’s a fundamental shift in how we interact with the world around us. The ways we interact with our colleagues on the deckplates of a destroyer, the dining facility on a base or other spots uniquely military are not how we interact in our offices and cubicles out in the civilian world.
And here’s the reality — the military community isn’t just invited to integrate into our broader communities; we have an obligation to do so. Nothing good ever came of sitting around in a bubble of people just like you.
Let’s face it, the military doesn’t last forever. No matter how profound the experience or how deep the commitment, there comes a day for all of us when we hang up the uniform for the last time. And when that day comes, the reality hits — you’re going to have to integrate into the civilian world.
So the question I ask is: Why wait? Why not start the process now, when the skills you’ve honed, the leadership you’ve exemplified and the values you’ve lived by can have an immediate impact?
I’m talking about civic engagement — that’s your golden ticket. Engaging with your community while still in service makes the eventual transition smoother, more meaningful, and, frankly, easier. But here’s the kicker: By stepping out and making your mark, you don’t just ease your own path; you have the power to change the world.
Look at efforts like#AfghanEvac. It isn’t just a mission; it is a movement. It shows us that when we come together — military veterans and civilians — setting aside the uniform while carrying forward its ethos of service and duty, we can move mountains. We’ve got admirals, ambassadors and corporals working alongside children’s book illustrators, animal shelter operators and retired grandmothers to help bring Afghans to America who face persecution because they worked for the U.S. military when it had thousands of troops in the Asian nation.
This isn’t about waiting for the right moment; it’s about making the moment right. It’s about understanding that our duty to serve extends beyond our military roles. The skills you’ve developed — leadership, teamwork, strategic thinking — are not just military assets; they’re societal gold. The perspective you’ve gained from global deployments and working in diverse teams provides a breadth of understanding that can bridge divides and build stronger communities.
So let’s go: Start where you are. Use what you have. Do what you can. Whether it’s mentoring youth, leading community projects or simply being a good neighbor, your actions set the stage for a smoother transition and a richer, more connected life post-service. And in doing this, you embody the best of what it means to serve — not just in uniform, but in the fabric of our daily lives.
We shouldn’t sugarcoat it — the transition to civilian life will happen and it can be difficult. But by engaging now, by weaving yourselves into the tapestry of community life, you make that transition not just a step, but a leap towards a fulfilling, integrated life. This is how you turn the page, not with trepidation, but with a sense of purpose and possibility. And in doing so, you don’t just adjust to the world outside; you change it. You bring to it the strength, resilience and leadership that defined your military service, showing us all that the true strength of our community lies in its diversity, its unity, and its shared commitment to a better world.
This is our charge, our mission. It’s not about if we transition; it’s about how we transition. Let’s do it with intention, with engagement and with the unwavering belief that our best days, both in and out of uniform, lie ahead of us. Together, let’s embrace this next chapter not just as former service members, but as active architects of our community’s future.”
Shawn VanDiverworks with government clients at all levels throughout California to identify innovative solutions to long-term municipal challenges. He was appointed to the Board of Directors of the San Diego Convention Center in 2021, and is the founder of the San Diego Chapter of the Truman National Security Project. Additionally, he serves as the Executive Director of the Defense Entrepreneurs Forum San Diego Chapter and on the Boards of Directors for Emerge California, Veterans Community Connections, and the Downtown San Diego Partnership. Shawn is a Navy veteran living in Clairemont with his wife and two children. He can be found on Twitter @shawnjvandiver.
” THE PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT” (POGO) ‘The Bunker‘ By Mark Thompson
“Pentagon rolls out a proposed 2025 budget nearing $1 trillion; senators call for probe alleging “war profiteering”; the U.S. finds itself supporting both sides in Gaza fight; and more.
This is what happens when you have too much money. The Pentagon’s post-9/11 cash gusher “hasn’t forced us to make the hard choices,” Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in 2011. “It hasn’t forced us to limit ourselves and get to a point or deciding, in a very turbulent world, what we’re going to do and what we’re not going to do.“
Even as40% of Americans want the U.S. to step back from solving the world’s conflicts, the Pentagon is marching smartly ahead, seeking a nearly $1 trillion budget for 2025. The Defense Department rolled out next year’s request March 11, proposing $849.8 billion for the Pentagon and $45.5 billion more for military expenditures — like nuclear warheads — handled by other government agencies. That totals $895.2 billion, basically freezing defense spending because of a deal strucklast year between the White House and Congress to avoid a government default.
But if history is any guide, Congress will pile on additional tens of billions of dollars using various forms of fiscal flimflammery. The same day the Pentagon unveiled its budget, in fact, the government’s intel chiefs held their annual threatfest on Capitol Hill to justify more spending. Preoccupied and uncertain people, and governments, unsure of their own place in the world, tend to double down on the status quo.
It’s small wonder many Americans feel tuckered out when it comes to the front lines. Just over 20 years ago, President Bush the Younger warned us of dire consequences unless we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Eight trillion dollars, 7,053 U.S. troop lives, and more than 400,000 civilian lives later, there’s scant evidence that the investment was worth it.
This isn’t just a Republican issue. Over the past two years, the Biden administration has allocated $111 billion in military and other aid to Ukraine. In fact, there’s $60 billion more snared on Capitol Hill because of GOP doubts it will make much difference in that war’s bloody stalemate following Russia’s 2022 invasion. The White House also wants $14 billion sent to Israel to help in its war in Gaza. The U.S. provides Israel with about $3.3 billion a year in military aid; since 1946 it has given Israel nearly $300 billion in aid, including more than $200 billion for its military.
The good thing about these two conflicts, jingoistically speaking, is that there are no U.S. combat boots on the ground in either Ukraine or Gaza. The bad news, taxpayer-wise, is that American wallets are Waist Deep in the Big Muddy. And with close to another trillion dollars slated to fuel the U.S. military next year, it’s a safe bet we’re going to get deeper and muddier.
TRUMAN 2.0
Six senators call for panel to probe “war profiteering”
The U.S. keeps spending more on its military and getting less — fewer troops, fewer tanks, fewer ships, and fewer planes. Surely some of that is because the hardware is becoming more complex. But a half-dozen progressive senators say defense-contractor greed is also driving the less-bang-for-the-buck U.S. military.
They cite recent stock buybacks by Lockheed and RTX as evidence that top U.S. defense contractors are being paid too much. “There’s a name for all this: war profiteering,” they said, adding “that defense contractors routinely overcharge the Pentagon by nearly 40% to 50%, lining their pockets at taxpayer expense.” The March 4 letter(PDF) was sent to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) by Senators Edward Markey (D-MA), Jeffrey Merkley (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR). They asked him to recreate World War II’s so-called Truman Committee to probe Pentagon contractor profits.
That panel, officially known as the Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program, was led by then-Senator Harry Truman (D-MO). “Where there has been so much haste in the expenditure of such enormous sums there are bound to be leaks and mistakes of judgment,” Truman said in 1941. “Many people believe in both patriotism and profits, but sometimes, unfortunately, profits come first with them.” Truman estimated his panel, in operation for seven years, cost $1 million and saved taxpayers $15 billion.
That’s nearly $200 billion in today’s dollars.
BOTH SIDES NOW
A Pentagon paradox in the Middle East
As the Defense Department seeks to spend nearly $1 trillion next year (it’s well past that, actually, once you add in the nearly $400 billion spent annually on veterans), it finds itself on the horns of a dilemma. The old saying was that “the U.S. is in an arms race with itself,” seeing as the Pentagon has been pushing for ever-more advanced armaments to leapfrog what it’s already got in its arsenal (along with a sprinkling of bogeyman pixie dust, of course). But the war in Gaza finds the U.S. on both sides of the conflict: bombs for the Israelis, and box lunches for those they’re bombing.
Washington has quietly approved more than 100 weapons sales to Israel since it invaded Gaza, largely financed by the more than $3 billion in annual aid the U.S. gives to Israel. At the same time, the U.S. is airdropping tens of thousands of meals to feed starving Palestinians in the Gaza strip and plans to build a temporary port to try to avert a famine. “We are airdropping food to famine-stricken Gaza today and supplying bombs for Israel to drop on devastated Gaza tomorrow,” Senator Peter Welch (D-VT) said March 5. Hamas attacked Israel last October, killing more than 1,100 Israelis. Israel has responded with barrages that Hamas health authorities say have killed more than 30,000 Gazans, despite repeated pleas from the Biden administration that Israel do more to protect civilians in Gaza.
This is what happens when you have too much money. The Pentagon’s post-9/11 cash gusher “hasn’t forced us to make the hard choices,” Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in 2011. “It hasn’t forced us to limit ourselves and get to a point or deciding, in a very turbulent world, what we’re going to do and what we’re not going to do.” Thirteen years later, unfortunately, the U.S. has yet to sit itself down and have that discussion.”
Mark Thompson has been covering U.S. national security for four decades, including from 1994 to 2016 as senior correspondent and deputy Washington bureau chief at TIME Magazine.Mark worked at TIME from 1994 to 2016. Before that, he covered military affairs for the late Knight-Ridder Newspapers (including the Detroit Free Press, the Miami Herald, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the San Jose Mercury-News) for eight years.Prior to Knight-Ridder, Mark reported from Washington for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram for seven years. During that time, he and his paper were awarded the 1985 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for a series of articles on an uncorrected design flaw aboard Fort Worth-built Bell helicopters that had killed nearly 250 U.S. servicemen.
“Supporting women entrepreneurs has long been a mission of mine, so I’m always searching for organizations that share my passion. In alphabetical order, here are 26 of my favorite online resources for women entrepreneurs. Some have membership fees, but even without joining, you can get a lot of information from their blogs and newsletters.
American Business Women’s Association (AWBA) holds over 5,000 business/networking meetings nationwide. Membership also includes access to online courses available 24/7. AWBA’s blog is free to read on its website, or you can subscribe using an RSS reader. The membership fee is $115.
Association of Women Business Centers (AWBC) is a public-private partnership between the Small Business Administration (SBA) and over 100 nonprofit entrepreneurial development organizations nationwide. WBCs help women succeed by providing training, mentoring, business development, and financing opportunities to over 150,000 women entrepreneurs annually. Membership for organizations is $400 per year.
Committee of 200(C200) is an international nonprofit organization of more than 500 of the most successful and influential women business leaders who run companies. Members serve as mentors and advisors to empower the greater C200 community of all women in business, including current and rising leaders. To join, you must be an entrepreneur or C-suite executive.
eWomenNetwork connects over 500,000 entrepreneurs through 118 chapters. Each year, the eWomenNetwork hosts more than 2000 networking and training events, both online and in- person, which includes an annual women’s entrepreneur conference. Membership is $19.95 a month and includes two VIP coaching sessions plus exclusive content.
The Female Founder Collective(FFC) started in 2018 to support, develop, and elevate the founders of female-owned and led businesses. Based on member feedback, it has pivoted and launched The 10th House, a membership platform offering exclusive connections with mentors, sponsors, investors, and investors and skill-building programs. There are three membership levels, free, $425 a year, and $649 a year.
ForbesWomen provides news and content to help professional and executive women succeed. Its website offers information-packed articles, how-to posts, and profiles of successful women in business.
Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women provides the education, opportunities, and access to capital women need to grow their businesses. The Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women online classes are free, practical business courses covering Growing Your Business, Sales and Marketing, and Business Finance. Once all ten courses are completed, learners will be invited to join the Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women global alumni community.
Hello Alice, founded by two women, is designed to guide and support entrepreneurs offering tools, resources, workshops, and access to its Financing Marketplace, which connects business owners to over 90 lenders and financing companies.
Ladies Who Launch(LWL) is a nonprofit organization offering access to free educational resources, capital opportunities, networking with peers and experts, and an active, close community. LWL’s “Small Business Grant & Mentorship Program” is a six-month cohort-based grant and mentorship program dedicated to helping women-owned small businesses grow and sustain their businesses.
National Women’s Business Council (NWBC) is a nonpartisan federal advisory council created to provide advice and policy recommendations to the President, Congress, and the SBA on economic issues of importance to women business owners. The Council’s priorities are to promote access to capital, women in STEM, and rural women’s entrepreneurship.
The National Association of Women Business Owners (NAWBO) is a dues-based organization with 60 chapters and 5,000 members. Chapters of NAWBO are in nearly every major city and 60 countries. NAWBO supports women entrepreneurs by building strategic alliances, transforming public policy, and bringing members together at events and meetings. Membership fees vary by chapter.
The SBA’s Office of Women’s Business Ownership oversees a network of Women’s Business Centers (WBCs) which provide free to low-cost counseling and training and focus on women who want to start, grow and expand their small businesses. The WBC program is a national network of more than 140 centers that offer counseling, training, networking, workshops, technical assistance, and mentoring to women entrepreneurs.
She Owns It is a website packed with helpful articles for and by women business owners. So if you’re looking for a solution, you’ll likely find it here.
The Story Exchange. The Story Exchange is a nonprofit media organization that elevates women’s voices. The Story Exchange provides inspiration and information through videos, articles, and podcasts. In 2021, the company launched an annual Women In Science Incentive Prize—a grant program for female scientists addressing climate change.
The U.S. Small Business Administration(SBA) was created in 1953 as an independent agency of the federal government to aid, counsel, assist and protect the interests of all small business owners. The website offers a wealth of information and advice about starting, growing, and funding a small business.
Small Business Currents is my company’s website. We post relevant articles daily to help you start and grow your small businesses, covering new ideas and trends and offering inspiration, insights, and relevant, actionable information.
Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) are a program under the SBA that provides free, professional, and individualized counseling and training to small businesses. SBDCs help small businesses in their communities access capital, develop and exchange new technologies, improve business planning, and more. There are 62 Lead Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs)—at least one in every state—with a network of more than 900 service locations.
The Tory Burch Foundation empowers women and women entrepreneurs by providing access to capital, education, and digital resources. Launched in 2009 by Tory Burch, the iconic lifestyle entrepreneur, the Foundation offers grants to women of color, access to an affordable loan program in partnership with Bank of America, a fellowship program that includes digital education, access to interest-free loans via Kiva, a peer network, a business plan builder, events, webinars and informative articles for women who want to start, operate, and grow their businesses.
The U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce uses a “platform of influence, innovation, and opportunity to help our members grow successful businesses.” The Women’s Chamber supports women’s business growth, retirement security, education, and employment opportunities. Membership fees vary by membership type; however, there is a complimentary option. Check out their full calendar of events and workshops.
Walker’s Legacyaims to support entrepreneurial Black and Brown women with the tools to level up their businesses and the business playing field. To meet their goal of equipping 10,000 entrepreneurial women of color to be “capital ready” by 2025 through highly customized programming and educational content.
The Women’s Business Development Council (WBDC) supports women business owners through workshops, one-on-one coaching, and training programs. Check out their upcoming class schedule offered in English and Spanish. Classes are free or low-cost.
The Women’s Business Enterprise National Council(WBENC) is the largest third-party certifier of businesses owned, controlled, and operated by women in the U.S. The WBENC is a nonprofit organization and partners with 14 “Regional Partner Organizations” to provide its national certification standard. WBENC also sponsors programs and events to help advance women-owned businesses.
Women Impacting Public Policy(WIPP) is a national, nonpartisan organization that advocates for women entrepreneurs. Their mission is to create economic opportunities for women and impact public policy. After surveying members about their biggest concerns, WIPP relays them to Congress. The group provides members with benefits such as advocacy training, assistance getting federal contracts, educational opportunities, and access to events. Annual membership fees vary from $125-$1,000.
The Women Presidents’ Organization(WPO) is a nonprofit membership organization for women presidents of multimillion-dollar companies. Members of the WPO meet monthly to take part in advisory groups and grow their businesses to the next level. To be a member, women must run their company’s day-to-day management as the CEO/President/Partner and have an ownership interest in the business. In addition, the company must be privately-held and reach at least $2 million in gross annual sales for a product-based business or $1 million for a service-based business. Membership fees vary.
Women’s Startup Labis a startup and leadership accelerator for women entrepreneurs “who have the bold vision to lead the wave of innovation and change required for growth and competitiveness in today’s economy.” The Silicon Valley-based organization, founded in 2013, has graduated 16 cohorts, has over 150 alumnae and is an active global community of over 20,000 women entrepreneurs, investors, industry experts, and active supporters.
And, of course, SCORE, is one of the most valuable resources for any business owner. Whether your business is in the startup or growth phase, the SCORE website has the content and connections to help you. Some personal insight: My small, two-employee company and my friend’s multi-million dollar retail business have both received valuable advice from the same SCORE mentor.”
Find yourSCORE mentor and get free, expert business advice that will help you solve your business challenges.
“Asking warriors to do everything poses great dangers for our country — and the military. Our armed services have become the one-stop shop for America’s policymakers.“
“When my mother came for lunch at the Pentagon, I shepherded her through the visitor’s entrance, maneuvered her onto the escalator, and had just ushered her past the chocolate shop when she stopped short. I stopped too, letting an army of crisply uniformed officers and shirt-sleeved civilians flow past us down the corridor. Taking in the Pentagon’s florist shop, the banks, the nail salon, and the food court, my mother finally looked back at me. “So the heart of American military power is a shopping mall?”
She wasn’t far off. By the time I started working at the Defense Department in the early years of the Obama administration, the Pentagon’s 17.5 miles of corridors had sprouted dozens of shops and restaurants catering to the building’s 23,000 employees. And, over time, the U.S. military has itself come to offer a similar one-stop shopping experience to the nation’s top policymakers. At the Pentagon, you can buy a pair of new running shoes or order the Navy to search for Somali pirates.
At the Pentagon, you can buy a pair of new running shoes or order the Navy to search for Somali pirates.
You can grab some Tylenol at CVS or send a team of Army medics to fight malaria in Chad. You can buy yourself a new cell phone or task the National Security Agency with monitoring a terrorist suspect’s text messages. You can purchase a small chocolate fighter jet or order up drone strikes in Yemen.
You name it, the Pentagon supplies it. As retired Army Lt. Gen. Dave Barno once put it to me, the relentlessly expanding U.S. military has become “a Super Walmart with everything under one roof” — and two successive presidential administrations have been eager consumers.
But the military’s transformation into the world’s biggest one-stop shopping outfit is no cause for celebration. On the contrary, it’s at once the product and the driver of seismic changes in how we think about war, with consequent challenges both to our laws and to the military itself.
Here’s the vicious circle in which we’ve trapped ourselves: As we face novel security threats from novel quarters — emanating from nonstate terrorist networks, from cyberspace, and from the impact of poverty, genocide, or political repression, for instance — we’ve gotten into the habit of viewing every new threat through the lens of “war,” thus asking our military to take on an ever-expanding range of nontraditional tasks. But viewing more and more threats as “war” brings more and more spheres of human activity into the ambit of the law of war, with its greater tolerance of secrecy, violence, and coercion — and its reduced protections for basic rights.
Meanwhile, asking the military to take on more and more new tasks requires higher military budgets, forcing us to look for savings elsewhere, so we freeze or cut spending on civilian diplomacy and development programs. As budget cuts cripple civilian agencies, their capabilities dwindle, and we look to the military to pick up the slack, further expanding its role.
“If your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” The old adage applies here as well. If your only functioning government institution is the military, everything looks like a war, and “war rules” appear to apply everywhere, displacing peacetime laws and norms. When everything looks like war, everything looks like a military mission, displacing civilian institutions and undermining their credibility while overloading the military.
More is at stake than most of us realize. Recall Shakespeare’s Henry V:
In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour’d rage…
In war, we expect warriors to act in ways that would be immoral and illegal in peacetime. But when the boundaries around war and the military expand and blur, we lose our ability to determine which actions should be praised and which should be condemned.
For precisely this reason, humans have sought throughout history to draw sharp lines between war and peace — and between the role of the warrior and the role of the civilian. Until less than a century ago, for instance, most Western societies maintained that wars should be formally declared, take place upon clearly delineated battlefields, and be fought by uniformed soldiers operating within specialized, hierarchical military organizations. In different societies and earlier times, humans developed other rituals to delineate war’s boundaries, from war drums and war sorcery to war paint and complex initiation rites for warriors.
Like a thousand other human tribes before us, we modern Americans also engage in elaborate rituals to distinguish between warriors and civilians: Our soldiers shear off their hair, display special symbols on their chests, engage in carefully choreographed drill ceremonies, and name their weapons for fearsome spirits and totem animals (the Hornet, the Black Hawk, the Reaper). And despite the changes ushered in by the 9/11 attacks, most of us view war as a distinct and separate sphere, one that shouldn’t intrude into our everyday world of offices, shopping malls, schools, and soccer games. Likewise, we relegate war to the military, a distinct social institution that we simultaneously lionize and ignore. War, we like to think, is an easily recognizable exception to the normal state of affairs and the military an institution that can be easily, if tautologically, defined by its specialized, war-related functions.
But in a world rife with transnational terrorist networks, cyberwarriors, and disruptive nonstate actors, this is no longer true. Our traditional categories — war and peace, military and civilian — are becoming almost useless.
In a cyberwar or a war on terrorism, there can be no boundaries in time or space: We can’t point to the battlefield on a map or articulate circumstances in which such a war might end. We’re no longer sure what counts as a weapon, either: A hijacked passenger plane? A line of computer code? We can’t even define the enemy: Though the United States has been dropping bombs in Syria for almost two years, for instance, no one seems sure if our enemy is a terrorist organization, an insurgent group, a loose-knit collection of individuals, a Russian or Iranian proxy army, or perhaps just chaos itself.
We’ve also lost any coherent basis for distinguishing between combatants and civilians: Is a Chinese hacker a combatant? What about a financier for Somalia’s al-Shabab, or a Pakistani teen who shares extremist propaganda on Facebook, or a Russian engineer paid by the Islamic State to maintain captured Syrian oil fields?
When there’s a war, the law of war applies, and states and their agents have great latitude in using lethal force and other forms of coercion. Peacetime law is the opposite, emphasizing individual rights, due process, and accountability.
When we lose the ability to draw clear, consistent distinctions between war and not-war, we lose any principled basis for making the most vital decisions a democracy can make: Which matters, if any, should be beyond the scope of judicial review? When can a government have “secret laws”? When can the state monitor its citizens’ phone calls and email? Who can be imprisoned and with what degree, if any, of due process? Where, when, and against whom can lethal force be used? Should we consider U.S. drone strikes in Yemen or Libya the lawful wartime targeting of enemy combatants or nothing more than simple murder?
When we heedlessly expand what we label “war,” we also lose our ability to make sound decisions about which tasks we should assign to the military and which should be left to civilians.
Today, American military personnel operate in nearly every country on Earth — and do nearly every job on the planet. They launch raids and agricultural reform projects, plan airstrikes and small-business development initiatives, train parliamentarians and produce TV soap operas. They patrol for pirates, vaccinate cows, monitor global email communications, and design programs to prevent human trafficking.
Many years ago, when I was in law school, I applied for a management consulting job at McKinsey & Co. During one of the interviews, I was given a hypothetical business scenario: “Imagine you run a small family-owned general store. Business is good, but one day you learn that Walmart is about to open a store a block away. What do you do?”
“Roll over and die,” I said immediately.
The interviewer’s pursed lips suggested that this was the wrong answer, and no doubt a plucky mom-and-pop operation wouldn’t go down without a fight: They’d look for a niche, appeal to neighborhood sentiment, or maybe get artisanal and start serving hand-roasted chicory soy lattes. But we all know the odds would be against them: When Walmart shows up, the writing is on the wall.
Like Walmart, today’s military can marshal vast resources and exploit economies of scale in ways impossible for small mom-and-pop operations. And like Walmart, the tempting one-stop-shopping convenience it offers has a devastating effect on smaller, more traditional enterprises — in this case, the State Department and other U.S. civilian foreign-policy agencies, which are steadily shrinking into irrelevance in our ever-more militarized world. The Pentagon isn’t as good at promoting agricultural or economic reform as the State Department or the U.S. Agency for International Development — but unlike our civilian government agencies, the Pentagon has millions of employees willing to work insane hours in terrible conditions, and it’s open 24/7.
It’s fashionable to despise Walmart — for its cheap, tawdry goods, for its sheer vastness and mindless ubiquity, and for the human pain we suspect lies at the heart of the enterprise. Most of the time, we prefer not to see it and use zoning laws to exile its big-box stores to the commercial hinterlands away from the center of town. But as much as we resent Walmart, most of us would be hard-pressed to live without it.
As the U.S. military struggles to define its role and mission, it evokes similarly contradictory emotions in the civilian population. Civilian government officials want a military that costs less but provides more, a military that stays deferentially out of strategy discussions but remains eternally available to ride to the rescue. We want a military that will prosecute our ever-expanding wars but never ask us to face the difficult moral and legal questions created by the eroding boundaries between war and peace.
We want a military that can solve every global problem but is content to remain safely quarantined on isolated bases, separated from the rest of us by barbed wire fences, anachronistic rituals, and acres of cultural misunderstanding. Indeed, even as the boundaries around war have blurred and the military’s activities have expanded, the U.S. military itself — as a human institution — has grown more and more sharply delineated from the broader society it is charged with protecting, leaving fewer and fewer civilians with the knowledge or confidence to raise questions about how we define war or how the military operates.
It’s not too late to change all this.
No divine power proclaimed that calling something “war” should free us from the constraints of morality or common sense or that only certain tasks should be the proper province of those wearing uniforms. We came up with the concepts, definitions, laws, and institutions that now trap and confound us — and they’re no more eternal than the rituals and categories used by any of the human tribes that have gone before us.
We don’t have to accept a world full of boundary-less wars that can never end, in which the military has lost any coherent sense of purpose or limits. If the moral and legal ambiguity of U.S.-targeted killings bothers us, or we worry about government secrecy or indefinite detention, we can mandate new checks and balances that transcend the traditional distinctions between war and peace. If we don’t like the simultaneous isolation and Walmartization of our military, we can change the way we recruit, train, deploy, and treat those who serve, change the way we define the military’s role, and reinvigorate our civilian foreign-policy institutions.
After all, few generals actually want to preside over the military’s remorseless Walmartization: They too fear that, in the end, the nation’s over-reliance on an expanding military risks destroying not only the civilian competition but the military itself. They worry that the armed services, under constant pressure to be all things to all people, could eventually find themselves able to offer little of enduring value to anyone.
Ultimately, they fear that the U.S. military could come to resemble a Walmart on the day after a Black Friday sale: stripped almost bare by a society both greedy for what it can provide and resentful of its dominance, with nothing left behind but demoralized employees and some shoddy mass-produced items strewn haphazardly around the aisles.”
Rosa Brooks is a law professor at Georgetown University and a senior fellow with the New America/Arizona State University Future of War Project. She served as a counselor to the U.S. defense undersecretary for policy from 2009 to 2011 and previously served as a senior advisor at the U.S. State Department. Her most recent book is How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything.
THE ‘WEE 1 TACTICAL’ ‘JR 15’ A FULLY FUNCTIONAL ASSAULT WEAPON, marketed for use by children and identical to the AR 15, but reduced in size and caliber.
At 2 pounds it is chambered for Long Rifle 22 Caliber Ammunition and functions in all other respects identical to the AR 15 Assault Firearm. 22 Caliber Long Rifle Ammunition can kill a human being up to a mile away.
OUR VIEW: As former military men and security specialists who have taken lives in combat, we assure you of the following:
If you or your child are considering a weapon of this nature or its full sized brother, and you are NOT one of the following:
1. A soldier on active duty 2. A policeman or a duly authorized security officer on duty 3. A licensed hunter of wild animals in the woods Then consider you may become part of the problem of guns in our society today – and not part of the solution.
FURTHER:
If your child has an interest in this style of weaponry and warfare, we suggest you educate he or she on the history of this country and wars in general, as well as the role of weapons in the destruction of others lives as we are now seeing in Ukraine
If the child’s interest continues to age 18, we recommend you guide the young person to a military recruiter, where the role of a soldier is fully available through a lifestyle that includes the skilled use of weaponry in the defense of our country.
ACCLIMATING A CHILD TO ASSAULT WEAPONS DESIGNED FOR MASS KILLING IS NOT ENTERTAINMENT OR SPORT – IT IS A DANGEROUS ELEMENT OF REAL LIFE WITH POTENTIAL PERMANENT CONSEQUENCES.
ROSE COVERED GLASSES 