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).
Monday, October 26, 2009
World Federation
An interesting read A GLOBAL PARLIAMENT - Principles of World Federation by C. HAMER can be found online.
In his introduction he starts by saying “Everybody knows that the world has become a “global village”, in the famous phrase of Marshall McLuhan. We all have to live together and work together on one small planet Earth, which seems to grow smaller and more fragile with every passing year. What we need now is a properly constituted ‘village council’, to deal with the global problems that confront all of us in common, and to move us towards a safer and more prosperous future. That is the argument for world federation in a nutshell, and the basic premise of this book.”
The concept of world citizenship is by no means new:
“I am not an Athenian, or a Greek, but a citizen of the world”, said Socrates.
The command and control model the way one runs an army is not well suited to new ideas and in countries where this thinking dominates the human spirit is literally suffocated. We need some new thinking outside the box. A new viewpoint often comes about through a network of ideas – some borrowed some stolen – or a simple light bulb moment that cross pollinates from one field of endeavor to another. The result can be remarkable. It took 500 years to cobble together St Mark’s Basilica in Venice. Traders and crusaders going east and west brought columns, friezes, statues and mosaics from all corners of the globe to create a magnificent tribute to human endeavor. Surely we can cross-pollinate some ideas to give us all a better form of governance.
In his introduction he starts by saying “Everybody knows that the world has become a “global village”, in the famous phrase of Marshall McLuhan. We all have to live together and work together on one small planet Earth, which seems to grow smaller and more fragile with every passing year. What we need now is a properly constituted ‘village council’, to deal with the global problems that confront all of us in common, and to move us towards a safer and more prosperous future. That is the argument for world federation in a nutshell, and the basic premise of this book.”
The concept of world citizenship is by no means new:
“I am not an Athenian, or a Greek, but a citizen of the world”, said Socrates.
The command and control model the way one runs an army is not well suited to new ideas and in countries where this thinking dominates the human spirit is literally suffocated. We need some new thinking outside the box. A new viewpoint often comes about through a network of ideas – some borrowed some stolen – or a simple light bulb moment that cross pollinates from one field of endeavor to another. The result can be remarkable. It took 500 years to cobble together St Mark’s Basilica in Venice. Traders and crusaders going east and west brought columns, friezes, statues and mosaics from all corners of the globe to create a magnificent tribute to human endeavor. Surely we can cross-pollinate some ideas to give us all a better form of governance.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Storytelling and Taking Control
We live in a world of stories. Stories are invented to help us understand everything that is around us. The unpredictability of life has from the dawn of time encouraged human beings to be very creative in their narratives from the wall paintings of prehistoric times the hieroglyphics of Egyptians to the History Channel documentaries of today.
Although we dismiss as ignorance that primitive people actually believed the myths they created about everything, from the weather to the afterlife, it is more probable that early religions were understood on a much more metaphoric basis. The ancients didn't believe that the wind or rains were gods. They invented characters whose personalities reflected the properties of the elements. The characters and their stories served more as ways of remembering that it would be cold for four months before spring returns than as genuinely accepted explanations for nature's changes.
History shows that stories were discovered to be vital tools to influence the courses of politics, economics and power. The first steps along the path to a more civilized society was really just a process in which older, weaker people used stories to keep younger, stronger people from vying for their power. By the time the young were old enough to know what was going on, they were too invested in the system, or too physically weak themselves, to risk exposing the stories as myths.
Since Biblical times we have been living in a world where stories are used to describe and predict our reality and have been presented as truth or mistaken for fact. These narratives, and their tellers, compete for believers in two ways: through the content of the stories and through the medium or tools through which the stories are told. We don't call the stuff on television 'programming' for nothing. The people making television are not programming our TV sets or their evening schedules; they are programming us.
The programmer creates a character we like and with whom we can identify. As a series of plot developments bring that character into some kind of danger, we follow him and within us a sense of tension arises. This is what Aristotle called the rising arc of dramatic action. The storyteller brings the character, and his audience, into as much danger as we can tolerate before inventing a solution, the rescue. Back in Aristotle's day, the solution was called Deus ex machina (God from the machine). One of the Greek gods would literally descend on a mechanism from the rafters and save the day. TV commercials have honed this storytelling technique into the perfect 30-second package. A man is at work when his wife calls to tell him she's crashed the car. The boss comes in to tell him he just lost a big account, his bank statement shows he's in the red and his secretary quits. Now his head hurts. We've followed the poor guy all the way up Aristotle's arc of rising tension. We can feel the character's pain. What can he do? He opens the top desk drawer and finds his bottle of Tylenol and swallows the pills. He, and us, are released from our torture.
The computer mouse and keyboard have ended the power TV programming changing a receive-only monitor into a portal. Packaged programming is no longer any more valuable, or valid, than the words we can type ourselves. The addition of a modem has added the dimension of turning the computer into a broadcast facility. We are no longer solely dependent on the content of Newspapers or corporate TV/Radio stations, but we now have the power to create and disseminate our own content. You are reading my blog right now and you can respond with your own comment for everyone to see. The Internet revolution is a do-it-yourself revolution. We can now deconstruct the content of media's stories, demystify its modes of transmission and do it all for ourselves.
For transformation there must be three stages in our redevelopment: deconstruction of content, demystification of technology and finally do-it-yourself or participatory authorship. Can these three steps see a programmed/manipulated world population become an autonomous thinking world where everyone can influence the way we live?
Perhaps we can rescue ourselves from the arc of rising tension that dooms us to stressful conflict.
Although we dismiss as ignorance that primitive people actually believed the myths they created about everything, from the weather to the afterlife, it is more probable that early religions were understood on a much more metaphoric basis. The ancients didn't believe that the wind or rains were gods. They invented characters whose personalities reflected the properties of the elements. The characters and their stories served more as ways of remembering that it would be cold for four months before spring returns than as genuinely accepted explanations for nature's changes.
History shows that stories were discovered to be vital tools to influence the courses of politics, economics and power. The first steps along the path to a more civilized society was really just a process in which older, weaker people used stories to keep younger, stronger people from vying for their power. By the time the young were old enough to know what was going on, they were too invested in the system, or too physically weak themselves, to risk exposing the stories as myths.
Since Biblical times we have been living in a world where stories are used to describe and predict our reality and have been presented as truth or mistaken for fact. These narratives, and their tellers, compete for believers in two ways: through the content of the stories and through the medium or tools through which the stories are told. We don't call the stuff on television 'programming' for nothing. The people making television are not programming our TV sets or their evening schedules; they are programming us.
The programmer creates a character we like and with whom we can identify. As a series of plot developments bring that character into some kind of danger, we follow him and within us a sense of tension arises. This is what Aristotle called the rising arc of dramatic action. The storyteller brings the character, and his audience, into as much danger as we can tolerate before inventing a solution, the rescue. Back in Aristotle's day, the solution was called Deus ex machina (God from the machine). One of the Greek gods would literally descend on a mechanism from the rafters and save the day. TV commercials have honed this storytelling technique into the perfect 30-second package. A man is at work when his wife calls to tell him she's crashed the car. The boss comes in to tell him he just lost a big account, his bank statement shows he's in the red and his secretary quits. Now his head hurts. We've followed the poor guy all the way up Aristotle's arc of rising tension. We can feel the character's pain. What can he do? He opens the top desk drawer and finds his bottle of Tylenol and swallows the pills. He, and us, are released from our torture.
The computer mouse and keyboard have ended the power TV programming changing a receive-only monitor into a portal. Packaged programming is no longer any more valuable, or valid, than the words we can type ourselves. The addition of a modem has added the dimension of turning the computer into a broadcast facility. We are no longer solely dependent on the content of Newspapers or corporate TV/Radio stations, but we now have the power to create and disseminate our own content. You are reading my blog right now and you can respond with your own comment for everyone to see. The Internet revolution is a do-it-yourself revolution. We can now deconstruct the content of media's stories, demystify its modes of transmission and do it all for ourselves.
For transformation there must be three stages in our redevelopment: deconstruction of content, demystification of technology and finally do-it-yourself or participatory authorship. Can these three steps see a programmed/manipulated world population become an autonomous thinking world where everyone can influence the way we live?
Perhaps we can rescue ourselves from the arc of rising tension that dooms us to stressful conflict.
How about a Country constituency?
Gerrymandering is a direct attack on representative democracy and typically concentrates opposition votes into a few districts to gain more seats for the majority in surrounding districts (called packing), or diffuses minority strength across many districts (called dilution).There is no doubt that electoral districts in any country are drawn in favour of the ruling political party. In a small island where less than 100 votes can determine who picks up a nice fat Members salary it is not uncommon for die hard political party members to have families and friends registered in their homes to distort the outcome. Also in the transient world in which we live citizens who no longer reside in their mother country can further complicate it. These folks can choose to register in a constituency that would favour their political views. They can literally inflict a negative government on a people without any recourse to themselves. If there is a way to cheat people will always find a way.
The British Parliament, has commented, "One of the most important things in an electoral and voting system is that, as far as possible, there is equality in how people vote, and how their votes are expressed. This should cut across class and race."
Most countries have a Boundaries Commission to counter the influences of Gerrymandering. Here is a thought rather than fiddle with the inherently defective constituency boundaries, they could do us all a favour, and do themselves out of a job, by consolidating the country into a single constituency. A single, constituency would make much sense. It would eliminate the racial and cultural bias inherent in historical boundaries. It would soften the insensitive class and partisan divide. Here is a vain hope it may encourage candidates of integrity to stand for election instead of some of the obvious racial/political partisans we now see who stand on the back of the popularity of the party rather than their own ability.
The British Parliament, has commented, "One of the most important things in an electoral and voting system is that, as far as possible, there is equality in how people vote, and how their votes are expressed. This should cut across class and race."
Most countries have a Boundaries Commission to counter the influences of Gerrymandering. Here is a thought rather than fiddle with the inherently defective constituency boundaries, they could do us all a favour, and do themselves out of a job, by consolidating the country into a single constituency. A single, constituency would make much sense. It would eliminate the racial and cultural bias inherent in historical boundaries. It would soften the insensitive class and partisan divide. Here is a vain hope it may encourage candidates of integrity to stand for election instead of some of the obvious racial/political partisans we now see who stand on the back of the popularity of the party rather than their own ability.
Lets Talk Without Hindrance
As the world comes to terms with the impact of globalism, the pervasive threats of fundamentalism, and the surfacing of seemingly irreconcilable value systems, it is vital for us to generate a new reason to believe that living at peace interdependently is not only possible, but preferable to the competitive individualism characterized as the holy grail of success in modern living. Much of the 20th century thinking and culture was characterized by ethnocentrism, nationalism and particularism. How many more fellow humans have to suffer war starvation subjugation and the evil of people seeking power over others before we say enough is enough.
The internet as a self-organising community, may serve as a ray of hope in the birth of a new age of enlightenment. The battle for control over this new and little understood communication system has actually exposed many of the agendas in the current political and cultural controls that pervade the world today.
While the technology itself gives you and me the power to take part in the creation of new form of governance there is a full spectrum of opposing forces, from lobbyists empowering special interests to exaggerated calls for national security, that have hijacked our representational democracy with one intent; prevent free discourse of all peoples at all costs. The internet offers us a ray of hope for a new spirit of genuine civic discourse that may free us all from the confines of the national and cultural prison walls we live in today.
In short, the internet may actually offer us a new way of understanding civilisation itself, and a new set of good reasons for engaging with each other more fully in the face of what are often perceived (or taught) to be the many risks and compromises associated with cooperative behaviour. Sadly, thanks to the proliferation of traditional top-down media and propaganda, both marketers and politicians have succeeded in their efforts to turn neighbour against neighbour, city against city, nation against nation and continent against continent. While such strategies sell more products, earn more votes and inspire a sense of exclusive salvation (we can't share, participate, or heaven forbid collaborate with people whom we've been taught not to trust) they imperil what is left of civil society. The government control of the internet could actually threaten the last small hope for averting the prophetic armageddon or the millions that will perish in the next set of faith-justified fundamentalist wars.
The internet as a self-organising community, may serve as a ray of hope in the birth of a new age of enlightenment. The battle for control over this new and little understood communication system has actually exposed many of the agendas in the current political and cultural controls that pervade the world today.
While the technology itself gives you and me the power to take part in the creation of new form of governance there is a full spectrum of opposing forces, from lobbyists empowering special interests to exaggerated calls for national security, that have hijacked our representational democracy with one intent; prevent free discourse of all peoples at all costs. The internet offers us a ray of hope for a new spirit of genuine civic discourse that may free us all from the confines of the national and cultural prison walls we live in today.
In short, the internet may actually offer us a new way of understanding civilisation itself, and a new set of good reasons for engaging with each other more fully in the face of what are often perceived (or taught) to be the many risks and compromises associated with cooperative behaviour. Sadly, thanks to the proliferation of traditional top-down media and propaganda, both marketers and politicians have succeeded in their efforts to turn neighbour against neighbour, city against city, nation against nation and continent against continent. While such strategies sell more products, earn more votes and inspire a sense of exclusive salvation (we can't share, participate, or heaven forbid collaborate with people whom we've been taught not to trust) they imperil what is left of civil society. The government control of the internet could actually threaten the last small hope for averting the prophetic armageddon or the millions that will perish in the next set of faith-justified fundamentalist wars.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Party Politics the modern Evil
They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.
—GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796
The statement above was made by one of the Founding Fathers, and the first President, of the United States of America, George Washington. He also stated at that time.
“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
I bring these statements by George Washington to your attention and consideration of citizens and residents in all countries.
One can see how these statements by George Washington apply not just to the United States as Washington warned, but we can see their relevance in many countries throughout the world where one or two political contributors can come to control and influence an entire political party. In an extreme case political parties can destroy a Country by their focus on gaining and maintaining political power and not on truthfulness or service to the people.
In this 21st century , there is no reason we cannot address the weaknesses in our current political system.
As I have suggested before:
1. That a person seeking to stand for election as an individual must do so as an individual. That they stand on the strength of their own intellect, compassion and character, committing themselves to doing what is best for their district and their Country, and to do away with the corrupting and competing aspects of party politics.
2. The influence of money and indebtedness in governance must be outlawed. A start would be public funding of elections. No more smear campaigns and ugly tv ads.
Look around the world and the death and destruction on a daily basis must tell us things are not working. We have the rare opportunity that always comes with the costly price of transiting through a time of destruction and pain; to consciously decide how we will now choose to govern ourselves.
As George Washington stated, there are better ways to govern ourselves, and we as a people CAN do better.
—GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796
The statement above was made by one of the Founding Fathers, and the first President, of the United States of America, George Washington. He also stated at that time.
“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
I bring these statements by George Washington to your attention and consideration of citizens and residents in all countries.
One can see how these statements by George Washington apply not just to the United States as Washington warned, but we can see their relevance in many countries throughout the world where one or two political contributors can come to control and influence an entire political party. In an extreme case political parties can destroy a Country by their focus on gaining and maintaining political power and not on truthfulness or service to the people.
In this 21st century , there is no reason we cannot address the weaknesses in our current political system.
As I have suggested before:
1. That a person seeking to stand for election as an individual must do so as an individual. That they stand on the strength of their own intellect, compassion and character, committing themselves to doing what is best for their district and their Country, and to do away with the corrupting and competing aspects of party politics.
2. The influence of money and indebtedness in governance must be outlawed. A start would be public funding of elections. No more smear campaigns and ugly tv ads.
Look around the world and the death and destruction on a daily basis must tell us things are not working. We have the rare opportunity that always comes with the costly price of transiting through a time of destruction and pain; to consciously decide how we will now choose to govern ourselves.
As George Washington stated, there are better ways to govern ourselves, and we as a people CAN do better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)