As the peoples of the world awaken in the dawn of a new year 2012 the threats of fundamentalism, and the emergence of seemingly Irreconcilable value systems continues to create conflict around us all. So much of late 20th century thinking and culture promoted competitive individualism, ethnocentrism, nationalism and polylogism. All big words that seek to break us apart rather than bring us together. There is nothing more powerful than fellow humans marching forward holding hands. I offer my hand lets all march forward.
We all need help to come to terms with a world struggling with the impact of a rapidly declining feel good factor. Add to our fears of the future the lure of religious fundamentalism and the clash of greed we walk an unsure path into the future. How can we engage in conversations across the divide of families, communities, parties, creeds and nations when, there is no common or universal logic. When there is no way for peoples of opposing groups, with opposing views, to resolve their disputes; it is useless to appeal to facts or to evidence, since the minds which engage in the process of reasoning obey different rules of thinking. Many have chosen comfort in place of living a right life so they live in fear of losing their comfort. It has been said by many before that if you live your life right when the end comes as it will surely come to us all you will have nothing to fear.
In my short life I have seen the internet as a self-organizing community, its subsequent co-option by business interests, the resulting collapse of the dot.com pyramid and the more recent self-conscious revival of interactive real time twitter. The battle for control over new and little understood communication has rendered transparent our political and cultural dysfunction. Meanwhile, to the horror of established controlling bodies the technologies have empowered individuals to take part in thinking about alternative governance. Thus, in an era when crass perversions of populism, and exaggerated calls for national security, remove the very foundation of representational democracy and free speech, interactive technologies offer us a ray of hope for a renewed spirit of genuine human enlightenment.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Freedom of Speech
Much has been made of this subject lately with the hijacking of a families grief by twisted shameful politicking.
Below is a speech by a great human being who had his life cut short by possibly the very conspirators he talks about. What is going on in the 27 security levels above the most powerful public office in the world we will never know but I believe we can change things for the better from the bottom up not the top down.
Below is a speech by a great human being who had his life cut short by possibly the very conspirators he talks about. What is going on in the 27 security levels above the most powerful public office in the world we will never know but I believe we can change things for the better from the bottom up not the top down.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Wisdom of The Crowds
Large, diverse groups of independent people make better decisions. An award-winning book The Wisdom of Crowds shows how and why. A friend stated he believed proportional representation a demand of the Lib Dems would be a complete failure if adopted in the UK. I say go further why are we so scared to initiate a shift from "representative democracy" to "direct democracy". The collapse of communism in the 20th century removed an ideological bogeyman that propped up the politics of representative democracy of the 2oth Century. This is the 21st century isn't it time for a change. Democracy is currently in a condition of arrested development. Each person exercises their political right once every few years casting a vote to choose their representative. These power crazed representatives then make all the decisions which in the extreme can lead a country to war. This is not what the ancient Athenians had in mind for democracy.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Voting Systems
At the moment the Westminster system generally uses the First Past the Post voting:
How does it work?
Voters choose their local MP. In each constituency the candidate with the most votes wins, regardless of whether they have the majority (more than 50%) of votes cast.
Pros
FPTP is simple to understand – voters know exactly what they are voting for and it maintains a link between MPs and their local constituency. Supporters say it usually produces a decisive result.
Cons
Critics of FPTP say it can lead to unbalanced national results. Typically in the UK, the Lib Dems won 23% of the votes, but ended up with less than 9% of the seats in Parliament. Many constituencies, MPs are supported by fewer than half of voters. No way of registering a protest vote.
Perhaps its time for a different voting system what do you think?
What Else is on Offer
Single Transferable Vote
How does it work?
The purest form of proportional representation. Several MPs would represent larger constituencies – perhaps consisting of 350,000 voters who would rank their preferred candidates 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. A quota is then set by dividing the total votes cast by the number of MPs to be elected. If a candidate passes that quota they become an MP. Their surplus votes are then passed on to others in order of the preference specified by voters. If this doesn’t provide enough winners then the candidates with the fewest votes are eliminated and their votes redistributed until all the MPs are chosen.
Pros
Far fewer wasted votes. If your first choice has no chance of being elected or has enough votes already, your vote is transferred to your next preference and so on, until all seats are filled. More than one candidate from each party would stand in each enlarged constituency, encouraging competition on local issues. And voters are likely to get at least one MP for the party they support in their area.
Cons
Greater chance of a hung parliament, meaning coalitions and deals at national level become more common and votes would take much longer to count.
Who else uses it?
The Republic of Ireland; Assembly, European and local government elections in Northern Ireland; local elections in Scotland, Malta and the Australian Senate.A
Alternative Vote
How does it work?
Constituencies stay the same but voters rank their candidates 1, 2, 3 etc. If one candidate gets more than 50% of votes they become the MP. If not, the candidate with the fewest first votes is eliminated and their second votes are distributed among other candidates. The process continues until one candidate has more than half the vote.
Pros
All MPs are supported by the majority of their constituents. It keeps existing constituency boundaries and maintains a strong link between MPs and the area they represent. Extremist parties are unlikely to gain a foothold as there is little chance of them picking up second and third preferences. There are fewer wasted votes compared with FPTP
Cons
So-called “donkey voting” can occur, in which voters rank their preferences at random if they don’t know much about each candidate’s policies.
Who else uses it?
Australian House of Representatives, Irish presidential election, Fiji, Student Union elections.
Alternative Vote Plus
How does it work?
Five-hundred MPs are elected using the alternative vote system, as detailed above. But as well as voting for their local MP, voters also choose a second county-level MP. These 150 seats are allocated to parties whose seat total doesn’t accurately reflect their share of the vote. For example, the Lib Dems, with 9% of seats from 23% of the vote would benefit from these “top-up” seats.
Pros
Maintains a local link between MPs and voters, but also provides a more proportional system at national level.
Cons
Ballot papers are more confusing, and there could be confusion with two different classes of MP in the House of Commons.
Who else uses it?
Nowhere yet. It was first proposed by the Jenkins Commission in 1998.
Additional Member System
How does it work?
A hybrid system. Everyone gets two votes – one for the person they want as their local MP and one for their favourite party. Local MPs are chosen on an FPTP basis, and the party votes are used to allocate MPs from a party list to make sure the complexion of Parliament reflects the popular vote.
Pros
AMS offers the best of both worlds – it is simple to understand, provides a local link to MPs and offers a degree of proportional representation.
Cons
Some MPs have no link to local voters – instead they are picked from a list by party bosses. Two different classes of MP, and it can be complicated to get final results.
Who else uses it?
The German Bundestag, led by Chancellor Angela Merkel, is split equally between FPTP MPs and top-up members, asis the New Zealand parliament; also the Scottish Parliament, London Assembly and Silvio Berlusconi’s. Italian parliament.
How does it work?
Voters choose their local MP. In each constituency the candidate with the most votes wins, regardless of whether they have the majority (more than 50%) of votes cast.
Pros
FPTP is simple to understand – voters know exactly what they are voting for and it maintains a link between MPs and their local constituency. Supporters say it usually produces a decisive result.
Cons
Critics of FPTP say it can lead to unbalanced national results. Typically in the UK, the Lib Dems won 23% of the votes, but ended up with less than 9% of the seats in Parliament. Many constituencies, MPs are supported by fewer than half of voters. No way of registering a protest vote.
Perhaps its time for a different voting system what do you think?
What Else is on Offer
Single Transferable Vote
How does it work?
The purest form of proportional representation. Several MPs would represent larger constituencies – perhaps consisting of 350,000 voters who would rank their preferred candidates 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. A quota is then set by dividing the total votes cast by the number of MPs to be elected. If a candidate passes that quota they become an MP. Their surplus votes are then passed on to others in order of the preference specified by voters. If this doesn’t provide enough winners then the candidates with the fewest votes are eliminated and their votes redistributed until all the MPs are chosen.
Pros
Far fewer wasted votes. If your first choice has no chance of being elected or has enough votes already, your vote is transferred to your next preference and so on, until all seats are filled. More than one candidate from each party would stand in each enlarged constituency, encouraging competition on local issues. And voters are likely to get at least one MP for the party they support in their area.
Cons
Greater chance of a hung parliament, meaning coalitions and deals at national level become more common and votes would take much longer to count.
Who else uses it?
The Republic of Ireland; Assembly, European and local government elections in Northern Ireland; local elections in Scotland, Malta and the Australian Senate.A
Alternative Vote
How does it work?
Constituencies stay the same but voters rank their candidates 1, 2, 3 etc. If one candidate gets more than 50% of votes they become the MP. If not, the candidate with the fewest first votes is eliminated and their second votes are distributed among other candidates. The process continues until one candidate has more than half the vote.
Pros
All MPs are supported by the majority of their constituents. It keeps existing constituency boundaries and maintains a strong link between MPs and the area they represent. Extremist parties are unlikely to gain a foothold as there is little chance of them picking up second and third preferences. There are fewer wasted votes compared with FPTP
Cons
So-called “donkey voting” can occur, in which voters rank their preferences at random if they don’t know much about each candidate’s policies.
Who else uses it?
Australian House of Representatives, Irish presidential election, Fiji, Student Union elections.
Alternative Vote Plus
How does it work?
Five-hundred MPs are elected using the alternative vote system, as detailed above. But as well as voting for their local MP, voters also choose a second county-level MP. These 150 seats are allocated to parties whose seat total doesn’t accurately reflect their share of the vote. For example, the Lib Dems, with 9% of seats from 23% of the vote would benefit from these “top-up” seats.
Pros
Maintains a local link between MPs and voters, but also provides a more proportional system at national level.
Cons
Ballot papers are more confusing, and there could be confusion with two different classes of MP in the House of Commons.
Who else uses it?
Nowhere yet. It was first proposed by the Jenkins Commission in 1998.
Additional Member System
How does it work?
A hybrid system. Everyone gets two votes – one for the person they want as their local MP and one for their favourite party. Local MPs are chosen on an FPTP basis, and the party votes are used to allocate MPs from a party list to make sure the complexion of Parliament reflects the popular vote.
Pros
AMS offers the best of both worlds – it is simple to understand, provides a local link to MPs and offers a degree of proportional representation.
Cons
Some MPs have no link to local voters – instead they are picked from a list by party bosses. Two different classes of MP, and it can be complicated to get final results.
Who else uses it?
The German Bundestag, led by Chancellor Angela Merkel, is split equally between FPTP MPs and top-up members, asis the New Zealand parliament; also the Scottish Parliament, London Assembly and Silvio Berlusconi’s. Italian parliament.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Taking Back Parliament
Take Back Parliament
It is interesting to see this petition in the UK. The interesting thing is it has never been the peoples to take back. A parliamentary system is a system of government in which the executive and legislative branches are intertwined. In such a system, the head of government is both chief executive and chief legislator. What chance do the people have absolutely none!
During the election it was clearly evident that there are a lot of very unhappy people out there.
Look at but a few of the websites/facebook offerings:
Unlock Democracy
VoteforChange
Noneof theAboveParty
NoneoftheAboveMovement
Power 2010
OpenDemocracy
Electoral Reform Society
JuryTeam
DemocracyUK on Facebook
The one I liked best was NewEconomics(NEF) at least it is more than just a protest. There is no objective to all these protests and most if not all will be dismissed as crackpots and lunatics. Is there any hope of making the even the smallest of electoral reforms. If we could achieve just one alteration what a change we would see. One small step for everyone one giant leap for humanity. How about......
“all elected persons should not be unduly influenced in the decisions of state by an affiliated party but their decisions should be guided by personal conscience and or the majority will of the people that elected them. Thomas Jefferson referred to the "wall of separation between church and state," one of the founding principles of the US to ensure that the federation never becomes a religious monopoly but a place where free religious belief was welcomed. Looking at a parallel why can we not have a wall of separation between party affiliation and State. That is to say any person could still affiliate with fellow groups for sympathizing views but as an elected official they should be held to a duty not to slavishly follow a party line. Is that asking too much for a person to be guided by their sense of right and wrong? As an individual we make mistakes but the wisdom of the crowd could help in those sometimes gray areas affecting the common good.”
While Hang-Em may have helped achieve a hung parliament I fear it will be a short reprieve and everyones anger and disappointment will fizzle as we all live through our daily struggles. The system will not be changed and any coalition (remember the Lib/Lab pact) will disintegrate and in 12months another election will take place. Most likely the Tories will gain overall control. My experience working in a NOC council meant that with politicians fighting each other the power switched to the executive body great for the civil service. They become uncontrolled and the politicians will become more and more frustrated. Mrs Thatcher started the heavy politicisation of the UK Civil Service and guess who currently has put their flunkies in control?
Maybe you can just dismiss me as another crackpot but just give it some thought you never know from small acorns mighty oak trees do grow.
It is interesting to see this petition in the UK. The interesting thing is it has never been the peoples to take back. A parliamentary system is a system of government in which the executive and legislative branches are intertwined. In such a system, the head of government is both chief executive and chief legislator. What chance do the people have absolutely none!
During the election it was clearly evident that there are a lot of very unhappy people out there.
Look at but a few of the websites/facebook offerings:
Unlock Democracy
VoteforChange
Noneof theAboveParty
NoneoftheAboveMovement
Power 2010
OpenDemocracy
Electoral Reform Society
JuryTeam
DemocracyUK on Facebook
The one I liked best was NewEconomics(NEF) at least it is more than just a protest. There is no objective to all these protests and most if not all will be dismissed as crackpots and lunatics. Is there any hope of making the even the smallest of electoral reforms. If we could achieve just one alteration what a change we would see. One small step for everyone one giant leap for humanity. How about......
“all elected persons should not be unduly influenced in the decisions of state by an affiliated party but their decisions should be guided by personal conscience and or the majority will of the people that elected them. Thomas Jefferson referred to the "wall of separation between church and state," one of the founding principles of the US to ensure that the federation never becomes a religious monopoly but a place where free religious belief was welcomed. Looking at a parallel why can we not have a wall of separation between party affiliation and State. That is to say any person could still affiliate with fellow groups for sympathizing views but as an elected official they should be held to a duty not to slavishly follow a party line. Is that asking too much for a person to be guided by their sense of right and wrong? As an individual we make mistakes but the wisdom of the crowd could help in those sometimes gray areas affecting the common good.”
While Hang-Em may have helped achieve a hung parliament I fear it will be a short reprieve and everyones anger and disappointment will fizzle as we all live through our daily struggles. The system will not be changed and any coalition (remember the Lib/Lab pact) will disintegrate and in 12months another election will take place. Most likely the Tories will gain overall control. My experience working in a NOC council meant that with politicians fighting each other the power switched to the executive body great for the civil service. They become uncontrolled and the politicians will become more and more frustrated. Mrs Thatcher started the heavy politicisation of the UK Civil Service and guess who currently has put their flunkies in control?
Maybe you can just dismiss me as another crackpot but just give it some thought you never know from small acorns mighty oak trees do grow.
Friday, May 7, 2010
UK Election Results
The votes have been cast and just maybe a glimmer of hope with no overall control.
I have worked for an Authority which had NOC it made far more balanced decisions.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming weeks in the UK.
There is no doubt that the business world hates uncertainty and immediately the pound dropped and the markets stuttered. Are the voters in control or are we all just pawns in a game of greed. Here is an amusing little video that made me smile anyway.
I have worked for an Authority which had NOC it made far more balanced decisions.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming weeks in the UK.
There is no doubt that the business world hates uncertainty and immediately the pound dropped and the markets stuttered. Are the voters in control or are we all just pawns in a game of greed. Here is an amusing little video that made me smile anyway.
Monday, May 3, 2010
UK Elections
It is good to see some other folks who are unhappy with the status quo.
Here is another protest vote site Vote for Change
View this video
Here is another protest vote site Vote for Change
View this video
Sunday, May 2, 2010
If the World was a village of 100 people
This view is an interesting snapshot
Us three on the internet need to do more to make the world a better place.
When you see this you have to feel that you have nothing to complain about except those dam politicians!!!
Us three on the internet need to do more to make the world a better place.
When you see this you have to feel that you have nothing to complain about except those dam politicians!!!
Friday, April 30, 2010
Think Outside the Ballot Box
Here is an adaption of a well known piece produced to provoke deeper thinking.
A voter gets an Ego
A Voter rested comfortably on a bench, sweetly enjoying the weather and the singing of the birds. His daydreams were interrupted when Negative walked by.
“Oh, man,” Negative complained. “An undecided voter. Why can’t we ever get people to commit to vote around here?”
Voter had never given any thought to himself before. Negative’s words made him suddenly self-aware of his own existence. He was. But WHAT was he? According to Negative, he was an Undecided Voter. Voter adopted the identity of Undecided Voter.
An identity crisis
Voter did not feel Undecided. Lost and confused, Voter asked for feedback. When Pessimist walked by, Voter asked, “Excuse me, sir, but am I Undecided?”
“You’re not Undecided,” Pessimist replied. Voter breathed a sigh of relief. Pessimist continued. “You’re abandoned. You should be with others, but you’re not. I want a Supporter, not an Abandoned Voter.”
As Pessimist’s rant continued, Voter despaired. Pessimist saw he wasn’t undecided. But Pessimist condemned who he was. Voter discovered his ego, and that ego hurt. Feeling inadequate, Voter considered ways to become a supporter, but felt too depressed to take action.
A false self
Voter wallowed in self-hatred until Positive walked by. “Oh, look,” Positive said. “A Supporter. How wonderful to see a Supporter. It makes me smile.”
Voter smiled too. Pessimist was wrong about him. He wasn’t Abandoned. He was a Supporter. Voter took great pleasure in thinking of himself as a Supporter. He beamed with an egoic sense of pride. At times Voter felt an underlying sense of discomfort, but his ego quickly silenced his doubts.
Then Optimist walked by. “Oh, look,” Optimist said. “A free thinking voter. I am happy to see a free thinking voter.”
Voter’s ego resisted Optimist’s words. How dare Optimist suggest he was not a Supporter? But Optimist’s words ate at Voter’s ego until he faced himself. He was not a Supporter. Voter reluctantly adopted A free thinking voter as his new definition of himself.
Voter remembers who he is
Next, Realist walked by. “Oh, look,” Realist said. “A Voter. A supporter and A free thinking voter depending on how we look at it.”
When Voter heard Realist’s words, he remembered who he was. He was a Voter. Whether that was a good thing or a bad thing all depended on the person looking. It had no bearing on his true nature. Suddenly, Voter realized he had tried to shape, distort, and present himself according to perceptions of others – perceptions that had nothing to do with who he was. Relieved, Voter rested comfortably on the bench, sweetly enjoying the weather and the singing of the birds.
Voter is not fooled again
Then Proactive walked by. “Oh, look,” Proactive exclaimed. “A Voter. A supporter and A free thinking voter. I want your Vote, I could bribe Voter to get his Vote.”
There was a time when Voter would have been beside himself with horror from hearing Proactive’s words. There was a time when Voter’s ego would have puffed with visions of Supporter greatness. But now, Voter heard Proactive’s words with equilibrium. Voter wouldn’t mind a bit if Proactive bribed him.
Voter continued resting comfortably on the bench, sweetly enjoying the weather and the singing of the birds.
A new Life
Proactive filled Voter with promises. Voter became a Supporter. Proactive got the Vote. Voter was immediately abandoned after the Vote.
That’s when Voter had a new realization. He exclaimed, “I’m still me!” Not only was he not defined by other’s perceptions of him, he was not defined by his form in the moment. Voter had been bribed and used, but he was still himself.
Free of ego limitations, Voter continued sitting on the bench the weather had changed and the birds stopped singing. It would never be the same as before.
Notes:Perspectives:
Negative negates the good and only sees bad.
Pessimist sees things as they are, but interprets to emphasize bad.
Positive negates bad and only sees good.
Optimist sees things as they are, and interprets to emphasize good.
Realist sees things as they are and knows anything beyond that is a matter of perspective and opinion.
Proactive sees things as they want them to be and shapes them into what they need them to be…according to Proactive’s perceptions and opinions.
Voter is a Voter no matter who looks at him.
A voter gets an Ego
A Voter rested comfortably on a bench, sweetly enjoying the weather and the singing of the birds. His daydreams were interrupted when Negative walked by.
“Oh, man,” Negative complained. “An undecided voter. Why can’t we ever get people to commit to vote around here?”
Voter had never given any thought to himself before. Negative’s words made him suddenly self-aware of his own existence. He was. But WHAT was he? According to Negative, he was an Undecided Voter. Voter adopted the identity of Undecided Voter.
An identity crisis
Voter did not feel Undecided. Lost and confused, Voter asked for feedback. When Pessimist walked by, Voter asked, “Excuse me, sir, but am I Undecided?”
“You’re not Undecided,” Pessimist replied. Voter breathed a sigh of relief. Pessimist continued. “You’re abandoned. You should be with others, but you’re not. I want a Supporter, not an Abandoned Voter.”
As Pessimist’s rant continued, Voter despaired. Pessimist saw he wasn’t undecided. But Pessimist condemned who he was. Voter discovered his ego, and that ego hurt. Feeling inadequate, Voter considered ways to become a supporter, but felt too depressed to take action.
A false self
Voter wallowed in self-hatred until Positive walked by. “Oh, look,” Positive said. “A Supporter. How wonderful to see a Supporter. It makes me smile.”
Voter smiled too. Pessimist was wrong about him. He wasn’t Abandoned. He was a Supporter. Voter took great pleasure in thinking of himself as a Supporter. He beamed with an egoic sense of pride. At times Voter felt an underlying sense of discomfort, but his ego quickly silenced his doubts.
Then Optimist walked by. “Oh, look,” Optimist said. “A free thinking voter. I am happy to see a free thinking voter.”
Voter’s ego resisted Optimist’s words. How dare Optimist suggest he was not a Supporter? But Optimist’s words ate at Voter’s ego until he faced himself. He was not a Supporter. Voter reluctantly adopted A free thinking voter as his new definition of himself.
Voter remembers who he is
Next, Realist walked by. “Oh, look,” Realist said. “A Voter. A supporter and A free thinking voter depending on how we look at it.”
When Voter heard Realist’s words, he remembered who he was. He was a Voter. Whether that was a good thing or a bad thing all depended on the person looking. It had no bearing on his true nature. Suddenly, Voter realized he had tried to shape, distort, and present himself according to perceptions of others – perceptions that had nothing to do with who he was. Relieved, Voter rested comfortably on the bench, sweetly enjoying the weather and the singing of the birds.
Voter is not fooled again
Then Proactive walked by. “Oh, look,” Proactive exclaimed. “A Voter. A supporter and A free thinking voter. I want your Vote, I could bribe Voter to get his Vote.”
There was a time when Voter would have been beside himself with horror from hearing Proactive’s words. There was a time when Voter’s ego would have puffed with visions of Supporter greatness. But now, Voter heard Proactive’s words with equilibrium. Voter wouldn’t mind a bit if Proactive bribed him.
Voter continued resting comfortably on the bench, sweetly enjoying the weather and the singing of the birds.
A new Life
Proactive filled Voter with promises. Voter became a Supporter. Proactive got the Vote. Voter was immediately abandoned after the Vote.
That’s when Voter had a new realization. He exclaimed, “I’m still me!” Not only was he not defined by other’s perceptions of him, he was not defined by his form in the moment. Voter had been bribed and used, but he was still himself.
Free of ego limitations, Voter continued sitting on the bench the weather had changed and the birds stopped singing. It would never be the same as before.
Notes:Perspectives:
Negative negates the good and only sees bad.
Pessimist sees things as they are, but interprets to emphasize bad.
Positive negates bad and only sees good.
Optimist sees things as they are, and interprets to emphasize good.
Realist sees things as they are and knows anything beyond that is a matter of perspective and opinion.
Proactive sees things as they want them to be and shapes them into what they need them to be…according to Proactive’s perceptions and opinions.
Voter is a Voter no matter who looks at him.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Hijacking opposition to Government with a Tea Party
As I have said before we live in a world of story telling and spin so much so that nobody knows how to tell which way is up.
In the USA they have a grass roots movement the Tea Party which started I am sure as a general protest about the way modern America is governed. It is interesting to see how it has spun out of control and has now been hijacked as a right wing gun toting revolutionary party. The crazy right has rushed to support it and the crazy left has responded to demonize it. It is all battleground politics driven by a mass media controlled to exploit us simple folks who just want to lead a safe and harmonious life. Where did all the love go!
Watch this video and see the hate in the land of the free. I suppose you are free to hate!!
Could it be keep the people divided keep them subjugated
In the USA they have a grass roots movement the Tea Party which started I am sure as a general protest about the way modern America is governed. It is interesting to see how it has spun out of control and has now been hijacked as a right wing gun toting revolutionary party. The crazy right has rushed to support it and the crazy left has responded to demonize it. It is all battleground politics driven by a mass media controlled to exploit us simple folks who just want to lead a safe and harmonious life. Where did all the love go!
Watch this video and see the hate in the land of the free. I suppose you are free to hate!!
Could it be keep the people divided keep them subjugated
Sunday, April 25, 2010
UK BBC and the Establishment
It is interesting to see the denial of the UK BBC who just happen to forget to include in two constituencies that a None of the Above candidate actually exists.
see the BBC report
Now look at the returning Officers actual List
Not once but twice thus far guess they are a little nervous about all this!
UPDATE: The BBC has amended its report to now include the None of the Above candidate.
The BBC also included the NOTA group with the lunatic fringe political movements in this Report
see the BBC report
Now look at the returning Officers actual List
Not once but twice thus far guess they are a little nervous about all this!
UPDATE: The BBC has amended its report to now include the None of the Above candidate.
The BBC also included the NOTA group with the lunatic fringe political movements in this Report
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
None of the Above Party
It seems I am not the only one disillusioned with party politics. Check out the blog NOTA I think the video pretty well sums up why we desperately need a change. I wish them well.
There is also a website campaigning for the option of a protest vote on the ballot paper. They have a petition with over 5000 signatures. Is this the dawn of a new realization for change we can only hope. Friends lets all hold hands and step into a brave new world vote None of the Above on your ballot and respond to polls you support NOTA!
There is also a website campaigning for the option of a protest vote on the ballot paper. They have a petition with over 5000 signatures. Is this the dawn of a new realization for change we can only hope. Friends lets all hold hands and step into a brave new world vote None of the Above on your ballot and respond to polls you support NOTA!
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
The modern politician and the use of Polylogism
We are plainly talking about mind control fed by a distorted and manipulated educational system. Polylogism is a road paved with disaffection and hatred which has created a world that is now fractured and broken. Polylogism is the doctrine that there is not one correct logic, one correct method of reasoning necessarily binding on all human beings, but that there are many logics, each valid for some and invalid for the others. The polylogist divides peoples into groups, and holds that each group has by nature (or creates for itself by choice) its own distinctive method of inference based on its own distinctive logical laws, so that the inferences that are entirely logical for one group are entirely illogical for the others . . .
A polylogist holds, there is no common or universal logic to serve as the objective standard and arbiter when people disagree. There is no way for members of opposing groups, with opposing views, to resolve their disputes; it is useless to appeal to facts or to evidence for this purpose, since the minds which engage in the process of reasoning obey different rules of thinking.
The movement that first launched the doctrine of polylogism in a culturally influential form was Marxism. Aware of the fact that communism cannot be defended by reason, the Marxists proceeded to turn the fallacy of polylogism into a formal philosophic doctrine, claiming that logic varies with men’s economic class, and that objections to communist doctrine may be dismissed as expressions of “bourgeois logic.” Thus, vilification of an opponent replaces analysis of his argument . . . . The father of polylogism, Kant, is credited as the first philosopher to deliberately sever logic from reality.
Actually, polylogism is not a theory of logic—it is a denial of logic. Close inspection of the term suggests, it means: many logics. One logic for the rich and one for the poor (this was how the Marxists characterized the "bourgeois class consciousness" / "proletariat class consciousness" dichotomy in classical Marxism), one kind of logic for men and another for women, one for blacks, one for whites, one for Asians, one for Moslem's, a different logic for every identifiable group. Of course, it will follow that no one’s statements are objectively true, following the path of a single correct logic. The most anyone can produce is ideological rationalizations for his own group using its provincial logic. The role of polylogism in multiculturalism is also clear if we think about it. Polylogists assert that because of their different origins and cultural collective experiences, different ethnic groups live in different cultural universes. Blacks’ having had ancestors who were slaves, for example, gives them a different collective experience than whites. What is true according to one culture isn’t necessarily true for another. And the way you think is culturally determined. Hence the T shirt: "It’s a black thing; you wouldn’t understand."
So what’s the solution? There isn’t a single, easy or quick solution. We didn’t get into our present morass overnight, and we won’t get out of it overnight. polylogism is not a household word. I am all for making it so. It may be unfamiliar, but it can be made clear, as the doctrine that different groups think according to fundamentally different logical principles and so live in fundamentally different worlds is a fallacy. The answer is that this doesn’t make sense – but nothing short of a potentially demanding excursion into the laws of logic will explain this. Education is the key for a more logical viewpoint. We need to understand the foundations of correct human thought. This is as important as any form of moral or intellectual instruction.
A polylogist holds, there is no common or universal logic to serve as the objective standard and arbiter when people disagree. There is no way for members of opposing groups, with opposing views, to resolve their disputes; it is useless to appeal to facts or to evidence for this purpose, since the minds which engage in the process of reasoning obey different rules of thinking.
The movement that first launched the doctrine of polylogism in a culturally influential form was Marxism. Aware of the fact that communism cannot be defended by reason, the Marxists proceeded to turn the fallacy of polylogism into a formal philosophic doctrine, claiming that logic varies with men’s economic class, and that objections to communist doctrine may be dismissed as expressions of “bourgeois logic.” Thus, vilification of an opponent replaces analysis of his argument . . . . The father of polylogism, Kant, is credited as the first philosopher to deliberately sever logic from reality.
Actually, polylogism is not a theory of logic—it is a denial of logic. Close inspection of the term suggests, it means: many logics. One logic for the rich and one for the poor (this was how the Marxists characterized the "bourgeois class consciousness" / "proletariat class consciousness" dichotomy in classical Marxism), one kind of logic for men and another for women, one for blacks, one for whites, one for Asians, one for Moslem's, a different logic for every identifiable group. Of course, it will follow that no one’s statements are objectively true, following the path of a single correct logic. The most anyone can produce is ideological rationalizations for his own group using its provincial logic. The role of polylogism in multiculturalism is also clear if we think about it. Polylogists assert that because of their different origins and cultural collective experiences, different ethnic groups live in different cultural universes. Blacks’ having had ancestors who were slaves, for example, gives them a different collective experience than whites. What is true according to one culture isn’t necessarily true for another. And the way you think is culturally determined. Hence the T shirt: "It’s a black thing; you wouldn’t understand."
So what’s the solution? There isn’t a single, easy or quick solution. We didn’t get into our present morass overnight, and we won’t get out of it overnight. polylogism is not a household word. I am all for making it so. It may be unfamiliar, but it can be made clear, as the doctrine that different groups think according to fundamentally different logical principles and so live in fundamentally different worlds is a fallacy. The answer is that this doesn’t make sense – but nothing short of a potentially demanding excursion into the laws of logic will explain this. Education is the key for a more logical viewpoint. We need to understand the foundations of correct human thought. This is as important as any form of moral or intellectual instruction.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Electoral Systems: A Primer for Decision Makers
The paper http://www.aei.org/docLib/20051206_ElectoralSystemsHorowitz.pdf
has some good points but needs to be paralleled with real life situations. Presenting options and intentions of electoral systems in isolation is both dry and boring. Unfortunately
there has to be some explaining and to bring about change it cannot all be done by storytelling. There are two issues with changing or modifying anything, the first is "from what to what" which has to be followed by a “how can” we bring about change. The first part needs the mental buy in from most everyone the second is a war of minds and a subsequent battle of storytelling (media). I watched a BBC Christmas special “The Thick of It- The Rise of the Nutters” very funny if not so true. At least there is someone out there trying to show up what a farce the current system has degenerated into. The show was storytelling at its finest.
has some good points but needs to be paralleled with real life situations. Presenting options and intentions of electoral systems in isolation is both dry and boring. Unfortunately
there has to be some explaining and to bring about change it cannot all be done by storytelling. There are two issues with changing or modifying anything, the first is "from what to what" which has to be followed by a “how can” we bring about change. The first part needs the mental buy in from most everyone the second is a war of minds and a subsequent battle of storytelling (media). I watched a BBC Christmas special “The Thick of It- The Rise of the Nutters” very funny if not so true. At least there is someone out there trying to show up what a farce the current system has degenerated into. The show was storytelling at its finest.
Cognitive Dissonance
I read a very interesting article on this subject. Unfortunately, most people have no idea that this technique is deliberately used against them and it may account for the earlier BBC report as to why people vote against their own best interests. It takes a logical mind to fight the deliberate misinformation, and logic is no longer taught or encouraged. Circular thinking seems to be all the rage - it allows for justification of whatever action a person may take. If you saw the testimony last week of Tony Blair and his justification to embark on the Iraq war the following may just open your eyes as to the nonsensical claptrap he trotted out for a few hours. I urge the chairman of the Inquiry to review the following:
"Human beings often are presented with opposing thoughts , but our brains have developed a way of resolving these conflicts through a process call cognitive dissonance.
We are taught, that killing is prohibited -- but what about war? And many anti-abortionists support the death penalty... conflicting behavior is all around us. So how exactly does that work? Simply put, congitive dissonance theory states that when you have two opposing ideas (or ideologies) at the same time, you will act upon the one that causes the least pain to your ego.
A classic example of the use of Cognitive dissonance was the Bernie Madoff scandal. He bilked hundreds of wealthy people out of an estimated 50-billion dollars by manipulating the same mental process.
So how is it that people are able to convince others to give them access to their funds or to willingly follow them to war? Here is the gypsy lady example which I am sure many folk have experienced.
You're walking down a busy street deep in your own private thoughts. All of a sudden a smiling woman jumps out of nowhere, stands in front of you, and puts a flower in your hand. "Hello dear... isn't it a wonderful day today? I want you to have this flower!," she says.
Now you have a beautiful flower in your hand. It's a nice gift and she seems friendly. She begins to walk with you, telling you that you have nice, kind eyes. She says she noticed right away that you were special and so wanted to meet you. You forget your previous thoughts about work, bills or your own life. Suddenly you feel good... appreciated... uplifted. Then, in the same friendly voice and bright smile, she says, "I know you are a good person and you can help me by giving me a something for the beautiful flower -- right?"
What happens inside your head at that moment is cognitive dissonance.
The dissonance or dis-harmony comes from two conflicting ideas or decision paths. One path tells you that you should just say "No thanks!" and keep on walking; maybe return the flower and feel insulted even if it means she will become disappointed with you. The other path tells you that she has made you feel good and has earned your friendship and a couple of bucks. She has been friendly and you don't want to ruin the brief relationship you have formed. Heck, you should probably even give her back the flower so she can use it on the next victim. Which decision will cause the least damage to your ego?
In cognitive dissonance theory the outcome of these opposing thought paths will be the one that requires the least emotional stress. Most victims will pay up rather than feel they are being cruel or disrespectful to someone who has made them feel so good.
Psychologists refer to this vulnerability as the "willful suspension of disbelief," where one can easily see the potential manipulations and evil motives of their perpetrator, but, because they have already made some prior commitment to go along with this, it is easier to continue than to back out.
The investors of Mr. Madoff knew that a 10% to 12% annual return on an investment, especially in the bear market, was impossible. Something dishonest or illegal had to be going on. But because they had been made to work so hard to let him take their money -- often begging him to please allow them to invest millions of dollars -- they had made the psychological investment that "locks in" the cognitive dissonance. After that, it was more stressful to admit that this was a ponzy scheme than to just avoid worrying about it.
In for a dime, in for a dollar
Cognitive dissonance has been shown as an excellent tool to control larger groups and populations also. In World War II there was a famous campaign where citizens were asked to donate all their old pots and pans, supposedly to be melted down to make tanks, munitions and war planes. The collection was highly effective and the psychological "investment" initiated solidarity and nationalism for the war effort. Of course, all those pots and pans ended up buried in landfills. "
And if you think it is not being used today what about the appeal that went out when the US invaded Afghanistan, ex-President Bush came on the television asking families to donate whatever they could to help the school children in Afghanistan who needed paper and pencils. Thousands of school kids collected coins in classrooms across the US and sent the donations to the White House. The funds ended up being put in to some vague account that never did what it was donated to do. But the "investment" was enough to gain support for a far-away war in an obscure land for vague reasons.
"Human beings often are presented with opposing thoughts , but our brains have developed a way of resolving these conflicts through a process call cognitive dissonance.
We are taught, that killing is prohibited -- but what about war? And many anti-abortionists support the death penalty... conflicting behavior is all around us. So how exactly does that work? Simply put, congitive dissonance theory states that when you have two opposing ideas (or ideologies) at the same time, you will act upon the one that causes the least pain to your ego.
A classic example of the use of Cognitive dissonance was the Bernie Madoff scandal. He bilked hundreds of wealthy people out of an estimated 50-billion dollars by manipulating the same mental process.
So how is it that people are able to convince others to give them access to their funds or to willingly follow them to war? Here is the gypsy lady example which I am sure many folk have experienced.
You're walking down a busy street deep in your own private thoughts. All of a sudden a smiling woman jumps out of nowhere, stands in front of you, and puts a flower in your hand. "Hello dear... isn't it a wonderful day today? I want you to have this flower!," she says.
Now you have a beautiful flower in your hand. It's a nice gift and she seems friendly. She begins to walk with you, telling you that you have nice, kind eyes. She says she noticed right away that you were special and so wanted to meet you. You forget your previous thoughts about work, bills or your own life. Suddenly you feel good... appreciated... uplifted. Then, in the same friendly voice and bright smile, she says, "I know you are a good person and you can help me by giving me a something for the beautiful flower -- right?"
What happens inside your head at that moment is cognitive dissonance.
The dissonance or dis-harmony comes from two conflicting ideas or decision paths. One path tells you that you should just say "No thanks!" and keep on walking; maybe return the flower and feel insulted even if it means she will become disappointed with you. The other path tells you that she has made you feel good and has earned your friendship and a couple of bucks. She has been friendly and you don't want to ruin the brief relationship you have formed. Heck, you should probably even give her back the flower so she can use it on the next victim. Which decision will cause the least damage to your ego?
In cognitive dissonance theory the outcome of these opposing thought paths will be the one that requires the least emotional stress. Most victims will pay up rather than feel they are being cruel or disrespectful to someone who has made them feel so good.
Psychologists refer to this vulnerability as the "willful suspension of disbelief," where one can easily see the potential manipulations and evil motives of their perpetrator, but, because they have already made some prior commitment to go along with this, it is easier to continue than to back out.
The investors of Mr. Madoff knew that a 10% to 12% annual return on an investment, especially in the bear market, was impossible. Something dishonest or illegal had to be going on. But because they had been made to work so hard to let him take their money -- often begging him to please allow them to invest millions of dollars -- they had made the psychological investment that "locks in" the cognitive dissonance. After that, it was more stressful to admit that this was a ponzy scheme than to just avoid worrying about it.
In for a dime, in for a dollar
Cognitive dissonance has been shown as an excellent tool to control larger groups and populations also. In World War II there was a famous campaign where citizens were asked to donate all their old pots and pans, supposedly to be melted down to make tanks, munitions and war planes. The collection was highly effective and the psychological "investment" initiated solidarity and nationalism for the war effort. Of course, all those pots and pans ended up buried in landfills. "
And if you think it is not being used today what about the appeal that went out when the US invaded Afghanistan, ex-President Bush came on the television asking families to donate whatever they could to help the school children in Afghanistan who needed paper and pencils. Thousands of school kids collected coins in classrooms across the US and sent the donations to the White House. The funds ended up being put in to some vague account that never did what it was donated to do. But the "investment" was enough to gain support for a far-away war in an obscure land for vague reasons.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Electoral Reform Society
There exists an electoral reform society and a recent post Speakers Conference: A lesson in how to ignore a crisis further confirms the failure of the current political system hijacked by self interested pot bellied vultures. Hey perhaps we need another Thomas Paine to write a story to bring about change, anyone out there want to have a go?
Stories Over Facts
The BBC has an interesting read on the reasons why people vote against their own best interests. Voters' preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument allows the more extreme political parties to blind them to their own real interests. Psycho-analysts postulate that voters believe authentic politicians are the ones who sound like they are speaking from the gut, not the cerebral cortex. All too often they are faking it, and it is no joke to say that in contemporary politics, if you can fake sincerity, you have got it made.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Gerrymandering
Following on from a piece about single country constituencies this article Conservatives and Labour prepare to drum up the expat vote openly suggests “Expats can make a difference, there are many marginal seats where the expat vote could help deliver change." Surely if you choose to live somewhere else many of whom are choosing this to avoid paying taxes and evade contributing to the structure of a country you should not have the right to vote in that country. This is particularly disturbing when these folks can choose to strategically affect the outcome of the whole election process. This is so wrong on so many levels!
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Creating an Organisation for Change
Here is avery interesting piece written in response to a small island corrupt gvernment.
IMHO in order to succeed a new political system/organisation needs the following:
Membership Management
Know who your supporters are. Once you have that information then you can 1) ask them for money, 2) communicate with them directly, 3) Ask for volunteers, 4) Take lobbying action.
Volunteer Management
If your organisation has a worthwhile reason to exist and goal then it’s not difficult to find people who are willing to devote a few hours a week to help a cause they believe in. Then use their unique skills – better yet, produce a database of people, their skills, and their availability and call on them to help you. Suddenly you end up with a staff of several hundred part-time finance professionals, graphic designers, writers, administrators, proofreaders, and coffee makers.
Donation Management
In order to fund your organisation you need to use your volunteers and your membership and contact lists to continually ask for donations, then put them to good use. The value of an $5 donation is not the money, it’s having someone buy into your mission financially and personally. They become invested and they are more likely to join your volunteer army.
CommunicationsProduce good talking points for the different levels of argumentation, from the very simple headline for the entire organisation to the bullet point breakdowns of specific policy points and spreadsheets for sophisticated readers. Directly mail your supporters and ask them to help you lobby, raise funds, or recruit new supporters.
These are the things that Obama did better than his competitors.
To effect political change it’s a matter of:
1. Developing a platform and strong identity.This same process happens in the US, where the Republicans own the brand of “individual freedoms and fiscal responsibility”. Their performance in these areas is irrelevant, it’s the branding that matters.
2. Communicating effectively.Use talking points communicating the headlines of the platform. Get everyone involved on board and publicly saying the same things about the same topics. This will both lower the constant infighting that generally plagues opposition parties, and produce an us vs. them where simple truisms of talking points make it very hard to oppose the organisation saying them because people find themselves agreeing with them.A lie repeated loudly and often enough becomes truth. In many durisdictions the ruling party invariably uses this , that’s why they repeatedly smear their opposition using the same language over and over again. No matter how crazy it would seem if said once, it becomes very effective when the whole team is up on a pulpit spouting the same rhetoric. To combat this, an organisation must shout the truth loudly, stick to places where it can be impeccable with its word, and constantly put the current corrupt political party system on its back foot by both combating their attempts to spin their record and attacking them for the things they haven’t done – which presumably would be addressed in #1.
3. Using the above two to build an army. When all voices of reason are coming from one defined source and one brand then it becomes powerful. There is more than enough wrong with the current political system to get everyone on the same page (see #1 and #2).
IMHO in order to succeed a new political system/organisation needs the following:
Membership Management
Know who your supporters are. Once you have that information then you can 1) ask them for money, 2) communicate with them directly, 3) Ask for volunteers, 4) Take lobbying action.
Volunteer Management
If your organisation has a worthwhile reason to exist and goal then it’s not difficult to find people who are willing to devote a few hours a week to help a cause they believe in. Then use their unique skills – better yet, produce a database of people, their skills, and their availability and call on them to help you. Suddenly you end up with a staff of several hundred part-time finance professionals, graphic designers, writers, administrators, proofreaders, and coffee makers.
Donation Management
In order to fund your organisation you need to use your volunteers and your membership and contact lists to continually ask for donations, then put them to good use. The value of an $5 donation is not the money, it’s having someone buy into your mission financially and personally. They become invested and they are more likely to join your volunteer army.
CommunicationsProduce good talking points for the different levels of argumentation, from the very simple headline for the entire organisation to the bullet point breakdowns of specific policy points and spreadsheets for sophisticated readers. Directly mail your supporters and ask them to help you lobby, raise funds, or recruit new supporters.
These are the things that Obama did better than his competitors.
To effect political change it’s a matter of:
1. Developing a platform and strong identity.This same process happens in the US, where the Republicans own the brand of “individual freedoms and fiscal responsibility”. Their performance in these areas is irrelevant, it’s the branding that matters.
2. Communicating effectively.Use talking points communicating the headlines of the platform. Get everyone involved on board and publicly saying the same things about the same topics. This will both lower the constant infighting that generally plagues opposition parties, and produce an us vs. them where simple truisms of talking points make it very hard to oppose the organisation saying them because people find themselves agreeing with them.A lie repeated loudly and often enough becomes truth. In many durisdictions the ruling party invariably uses this , that’s why they repeatedly smear their opposition using the same language over and over again. No matter how crazy it would seem if said once, it becomes very effective when the whole team is up on a pulpit spouting the same rhetoric. To combat this, an organisation must shout the truth loudly, stick to places where it can be impeccable with its word, and constantly put the current corrupt political party system on its back foot by both combating their attempts to spin their record and attacking them for the things they haven’t done – which presumably would be addressed in #1.
3. Using the above two to build an army. When all voices of reason are coming from one defined source and one brand then it becomes powerful. There is more than enough wrong with the current political system to get everyone on the same page (see #1 and #2).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)