Building common ground is difficult and not natural for many of us. On the other hand, common ground is one of the essentials of living together in tight spaces (cities) and increasingly politics and professions. Often the building of patriotism makes building common ground nearly impossible. We can spin our wheels looking at all the problems that face us when we're trying to build common ground. Instead, let's look at what we can do individually to increase common ground.
1) Since one of the of easy and comfortable things we do everyday is travel with people who think like we do and in fact do many of the same things we do. We can deliberately set out to find, listen to and ask questions of people who are clearly different from us.
2) Since it is quicker and easier to take the same route to work or to visit friends every time, think of ways that can vary that path. That might expose us to a different set of challenges causing us to think differently about the world immediately around us. That may cause us to rethink some things we held to be true when we view new sets of data.
3) Since we have limited resources in general we tend to read, view and discuss things that are clearly of importance and value to us and our kind. Periodically set out to read things that you expect/know you will disagree with. Try to do it with an open mind. Go to a movie that others seem to enjoy and you know you will hate. To better understand, even if it is so that you can better handle folk who think a certain way, why people do what they do, carry on a discussion the goal of which is to better understand rather than to persuade.
Put another way . . . seek information, a perception check if you will, rather than trying to change their mind or make them feel inferior. After you have gathered the information think about it. It can be very rewarding and it may very well lead us to encourage the building of common ground.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Thinking to Avoid Collapse
In a section of the book Collapse the author Jared Diamond calls "Signs of Hope," he lists the following, which on the surface seem like very sensible things of which to be aware.
“Thus, human societies and smaller groups may make disastrous decisions for a whole sequence of reasons: failure to anticipate a problem, failure to perceive it once it has arisen, failure to attempt to solve it after it has been perceived, and failure to succeed in attempts to solve it.”
Looking at the idea above that there is a "failure to attempt to solve it after it has been perceived," Diamond has pointed out that at times powerful people or groups don't want the problem solved because it won't be to their advantage.If we look for those who might be benefiting from a problem, then we might know better who the enemy is. That will make it easier to find a solution, because we will understand what, or who, we are fighting. Keeping a good thing going is not an easy job. It will take all of us thinking all the time to avoid what so many societies have failed to do: survive.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Creeping Normalcy
A great concept which can be used to help understand why we tend not to notice things that are happening right under our nose. In interpersonal relationships it sometimes produces a surprised partner who says quite truthfully, "I had no idea that we had any serious problems." In government we adopt laws that reflect where the constituents are, and to the "old folk" in our community there is amazement that our system could do such a stupid thing. In our everyday life we have shifted from party lines for telephone use to individual handheld phones that we wouldn't be caught dead without. All examples of creeping normalcy.
Jared Diamond uses this concept in his book Collapse to describe how we are able to overlook some of the most obvious things that are happening to us. A new normalcy creeps up on us so slowly that we don't even notice it. We fail to notice the importance of the everyday things which when we look back make is so clear where we left one era and entered another. This is where mass media should be playing a key role. They have themselves shifted from a set of goals which included keeping the electorate informed to a new and powerful one: maximize profits from quarter to quarter.
So it is up to us to learn what is necessary to know in order to build the world we want to live in and start building the world we hope our children will live in. Creeping normalcy is a risk to us all and the way we live.
Jared Diamond uses this concept in his book Collapse to describe how we are able to overlook some of the most obvious things that are happening to us. A new normalcy creeps up on us so slowly that we don't even notice it. We fail to notice the importance of the everyday things which when we look back make is so clear where we left one era and entered another. This is where mass media should be playing a key role. They have themselves shifted from a set of goals which included keeping the electorate informed to a new and powerful one: maximize profits from quarter to quarter.
So it is up to us to learn what is necessary to know in order to build the world we want to live in and start building the world we hope our children will live in. Creeping normalcy is a risk to us all and the way we live.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Things We Should Avoid
According to Jared Diamond in his book Collapse, the following items are present in the failure of the societies he has studied.
1) "A first set of factors involves damage that people inadvertently inflict on their environment, as already discussed"
2) "A next consideration in my five-point framework is climate change, a term that today we tend to associate with global warming caused by humans."
3) "A third consideration is hostile neighbors."
4) "The fourth set of factors is the converse of the third set: decreased support by friendly neighbors, as opposed to increased attacks by hostile neighbors."
5) "The last set of factors in my five-point framework involves the ubiquitous question of the society's responses to its problems, whether those problems are environmental or not."
Diamond's 560 page book seeks to determine why and how societies fail. The framework that he describes is worth our consideration. Applying the first item in the list we see the need for free and open discussion. When anyone spots a problem that might face us all sooner or later, they should be encouraged to "speak out" about what they are seeing. In a free and open discussion, it is not our job to silence those who are "speaking out" but to determine what they have to say and its possible impact on them and the rest of us.
In a society that says it is interested in free speech and also seeks to limit free speech, there is a problem. Some in our midst tell us that they are not being allowed to speak out. That should alarm all of us. But, it is time consuming and requires that we focus on the problem. If should be clear that basic to the preservation of a society there is high value placed on communication in all directions. Anything that gets in the way of that communication needs to be examined with great care. Then appropriate actions need to be taken. To avoid inadvertent death in our society we need to be free, willing and able to communicate. Anything less than full discussion/communication is to move toward damage to our society caused inadvertently. We must discuss.
1) "A first set of factors involves damage that people inadvertently inflict on their environment, as already discussed"
2) "A next consideration in my five-point framework is climate change, a term that today we tend to associate with global warming caused by humans."
3) "A third consideration is hostile neighbors."
4) "The fourth set of factors is the converse of the third set: decreased support by friendly neighbors, as opposed to increased attacks by hostile neighbors."
5) "The last set of factors in my five-point framework involves the ubiquitous question of the society's responses to its problems, whether those problems are environmental or not."
Diamond's 560 page book seeks to determine why and how societies fail. The framework that he describes is worth our consideration. Applying the first item in the list we see the need for free and open discussion. When anyone spots a problem that might face us all sooner or later, they should be encouraged to "speak out" about what they are seeing. In a free and open discussion, it is not our job to silence those who are "speaking out" but to determine what they have to say and its possible impact on them and the rest of us.
In a society that says it is interested in free speech and also seeks to limit free speech, there is a problem. Some in our midst tell us that they are not being allowed to speak out. That should alarm all of us. But, it is time consuming and requires that we focus on the problem. If should be clear that basic to the preservation of a society there is high value placed on communication in all directions. Anything that gets in the way of that communication needs to be examined with great care. Then appropriate actions need to be taken. To avoid inadvertent death in our society we need to be free, willing and able to communicate. Anything less than full discussion/communication is to move toward damage to our society caused inadvertently. We must discuss.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Avoiding National Collapse
Most of us would like to leave our homeland to our children the same as, or even better than we received it from our parents. But, there are many things that can go wrong along the way. In his book Collapse, Jared Diamond discusses the "tragedy of the commons." He explains: "Consider a situation in which many consumers are harvesting a communally owned resource, such as fishermen catching fish in an area of ocean, or herders grazing their sheep on a communal pasture. If everybody overharvests the resource, it will become depleted by overfishing or overgrazing and thus decline or even disappear, and all the consumers will suffer."
What Diamond is describing is happening all around us all the time. The oceans, forests, even our agricultural processes tend to use up the land so that in the long run we may not be able to depend on it for food. He points out that there are a couple of common ways we can look at the problem. One would be to say to ourselves, "If I don't force this crop, somebody else will and so I might as well." Another might be, "If I don't cut this land, somebody else will and so I might as well."
Diamond suggests, "The remaining solution to the tragedy of the commons is for the consumers to recognize their common interests and to design, obey and enforce prudent harvesting quotas themselves." None of that can happen without communication. A skill we must have and use if we hope to achieve success as individuals or as a nation. At least, we must be willing to talk (communicate) with others if we hope to successfully pass on to our children that which is best about the places we live.
What Diamond is describing is happening all around us all the time. The oceans, forests, even our agricultural processes tend to use up the land so that in the long run we may not be able to depend on it for food. He points out that there are a couple of common ways we can look at the problem. One would be to say to ourselves, "If I don't force this crop, somebody else will and so I might as well." Another might be, "If I don't cut this land, somebody else will and so I might as well."
Diamond suggests, "The remaining solution to the tragedy of the commons is for the consumers to recognize their common interests and to design, obey and enforce prudent harvesting quotas themselves." None of that can happen without communication. A skill we must have and use if we hope to achieve success as individuals or as a nation. At least, we must be willing to talk (communicate) with others if we hope to successfully pass on to our children that which is best about the places we live.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
How Can We Know?
The problem of an "informed American electorate" has been with us for a long time. But, in the past few years the problem has become even more acute. To a certain extent we all depend on the media to keep us informed. Now there is increasing evidence that we need help in knowing what is happening within our own country.
Reporters Without Boarders publish a freedom ranking each year which is very revealing. The USA is quite a way down the list. Perhaps it would be best if we spent more time with the media that ranks higher in our attempts to find out what is going on in our own country.
Reporters Without Boarders publish a freedom ranking each year which is very revealing. The USA is quite a way down the list. Perhaps it would be best if we spent more time with the media that ranks higher in our attempts to find out what is going on in our own country.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Reduce Conflict
We often use e-mail to get done quickly those things we are attempting. There can be problems. This item recently appeared in the Christian Science Monitor.
"The answer, the professors conclude, is sometimes "no." Though e-mail is a powerful and convenient medium, researchers have identified three major problems. First and foremost, e-mail lacks cues like facial expression and tone of voice. That makes it difficult for recipients to decode meaning well. Second, the prospect of instantaneous communication creates an urgency that pressures e-mailers to think and write quickly, which can lead to carelessness. Finally, the inability to develop personal rapport over e-mail makes relationships fragile in the face of conflict."
Next time you think of exploding on-line or think that you have just made an excellent point, take care.
"The answer, the professors conclude, is sometimes "no." Though e-mail is a powerful and convenient medium, researchers have identified three major problems. First and foremost, e-mail lacks cues like facial expression and tone of voice. That makes it difficult for recipients to decode meaning well. Second, the prospect of instantaneous communication creates an urgency that pressures e-mailers to think and write quickly, which can lead to carelessness. Finally, the inability to develop personal rapport over e-mail makes relationships fragile in the face of conflict."
Next time you think of exploding on-line or think that you have just made an excellent point, take care.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Keep This In Mind
The world that you know exists within your head. You are the one that is responsible for building and maintaining that world. We all know some folk that seem to live in a world that doesn't make any sense to us at all. It is very likely that it does make sense to them.
At first, our parents are very interested in helping us create a world that is very much like their own within us. As their influence is diluted with other influences we begin to create a world which is very much our own creation. But, the important thing to remember is that we have a responsibility to ourselves to build the best possible world making is more likely that we will be able to achieve our goals.
Be careful what you put into your world.
At first, our parents are very interested in helping us create a world that is very much like their own within us. As their influence is diluted with other influences we begin to create a world which is very much our own creation. But, the important thing to remember is that we have a responsibility to ourselves to build the best possible world making is more likely that we will be able to achieve our goals.
Be careful what you put into your world.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Communicating
One of the best ways to improve in an area is to be willing to go back over the things in that area that we believe to be true. In short, be willing to question the things we believe. If you are correct in your position you will reinforce the belief. And if any modification in your belief system might be useful, this process will show you what the modification might be.
When we were 18 months old there were many things that didn't bother us that would at this point in life would embarrass us. Not looking for change assumes that we are not only correct but there can be no improvement. By questioning some of our favored positions we run the risk of growing and becoming more effective in life.
When we were 18 months old there were many things that didn't bother us that would at this point in life would embarrass us. Not looking for change assumes that we are not only correct but there can be no improvement. By questioning some of our favored positions we run the risk of growing and becoming more effective in life.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Where Are The Headlines?
Why aren't the news agencies screaming about what is going on? Congressman Tom Delay, former House Majority leader, may or may not be innocent of the charges made against him. But, there is one thing we now know that should cause us all to scream. Congressman Delay has managed to confound justice in the United States by saying he didn't want a Democratic supporter to be his judge. Once we allow party affiliation to decide our guilt or innocence we will need two sets of law enforcement, two sets of prisons, and so on.
Justice should be based on law, much like the Republicans claim they want it work. When and if things don't work out the way you believe that they should, then you can appeal. If we can choose our mom to be our judge, of course we'll be found innocent. But, there will always be a question about mom's ability to judge the case based on the facts.
If Tom Delay has the right to choose his judge or their party affiliation then so do 285,000,000 other Americans. Justice is confounded. We don't have justice any more than any other country on earth if you and I can choose those who would judge us. Scream. Scream to everyone who will listen to you.
Justice should be based on law, much like the Republicans claim they want it work. When and if things don't work out the way you believe that they should, then you can appeal. If we can choose our mom to be our judge, of course we'll be found innocent. But, there will always be a question about mom's ability to judge the case based on the facts.
If Tom Delay has the right to choose his judge or their party affiliation then so do 285,000,000 other Americans. Justice is confounded. We don't have justice any more than any other country on earth if you and I can choose those who would judge us. Scream. Scream to everyone who will listen to you.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
How Can We Build Ourselves
One of the most important forms of communication is interpersonal communication. The more time and energy we spend in this area, the more likely that we will be able to reach the goals we set for ourselves. This is the area of abilities which makes it possible for us to live with the person of our choice and work at the job or our choice. Those are two of the most important considerations for anyone.
First, we must look at ourselves. Who are we and who do they think we are? Look at these areas carefully. Most of us have some idea of who we are. But, we make a simple mistake by assuming that what we think is what others think as well. Other people decide about you and me based on what we say and do. Clearly the most important of those two is what we do. We can clarify what we are doing by providing those around us with explanations of what we are doing and why. What we believe to be perfectly clear can be made much clearer by what we say. Those two must go together.
Second, we must look at others. Who are they and who do they think they are? We look at them and what they do and decide for ourselves how they mean. We often don't ask because there's no real need to have explanations for what we already "know to be true." Often we are wrong, at least in part. We must set aside the time and energy to do what is necessary for us to reach our goals.
Clearly, this is going to involve doing what we do, and then finding a way to talk to those around us so we can adjust their perceptions of what they think we're doing. For a start, this will give us a plan to begin building a future for ourselves that we can be happy about.
First, we must look at ourselves. Who are we and who do they think we are? Look at these areas carefully. Most of us have some idea of who we are. But, we make a simple mistake by assuming that what we think is what others think as well. Other people decide about you and me based on what we say and do. Clearly the most important of those two is what we do. We can clarify what we are doing by providing those around us with explanations of what we are doing and why. What we believe to be perfectly clear can be made much clearer by what we say. Those two must go together.
Second, we must look at others. Who are they and who do they think they are? We look at them and what they do and decide for ourselves how they mean. We often don't ask because there's no real need to have explanations for what we already "know to be true." Often we are wrong, at least in part. We must set aside the time and energy to do what is necessary for us to reach our goals.
Clearly, this is going to involve doing what we do, and then finding a way to talk to those around us so we can adjust their perceptions of what they think we're doing. For a start, this will give us a plan to begin building a future for ourselves that we can be happy about.
Friday, September 30, 2005
How Can We Protect Ourselves?
These are the ground rules: the job of the mass media is to create profits. In order to be able to do that as effectively as possible, they need the largest possible audiences. To create large audiences the media must give audiences what they want.
The need to know what is "really" going on in the world never goes away. So, what must we do in order to find out what is going on in the world so that we can make the best possible decisions.
We must first be aware that media no longer feels the responsibility to provide their audiences with what they need to know. Their responsibility is to assure their owners that they will get a return on their investment.
Each of us must setup our own system to determine what is really going on in the world. Then we must learn and act on what we learn. But, there aren't very many ways you can inform yourself quickly and easily. Here are some ways you can begin to inform yourself.
1. Use the internet. There's a wide range of excellent sources available to choose from and as you search you will be able to add to the list of sources you find.
2. Read widely and regularly. Don't decide what your position is or should be, but instead, decide that you need to know as miuch as possible about "reality" and follow the data where ever it leads.
The need to know what is "really" going on in the world never goes away. So, what must we do in order to find out what is going on in the world so that we can make the best possible decisions.
We must first be aware that media no longer feels the responsibility to provide their audiences with what they need to know. Their responsibility is to assure their owners that they will get a return on their investment.
Each of us must setup our own system to determine what is really going on in the world. Then we must learn and act on what we learn. But, there aren't very many ways you can inform yourself quickly and easily. Here are some ways you can begin to inform yourself.
1. Use the internet. There's a wide range of excellent sources available to choose from and as you search you will be able to add to the list of sources you find.
2. Read widely and regularly. Don't decide what your position is or should be, but instead, decide that you need to know as miuch as possible about "reality" and follow the data where ever it leads.
Friday, September 23, 2005
Now, Where Were We?
(Back in the office now. Now is the time to get back into the discussion of the various elements that make up our lives through communication. Our focus will be on what we can do to improve our communicaitons and through them our lives. While we're improving our lives, we must always keep an eye on what is happening to others. That way, we build a world through communications that not only we want to live in, but others can join us.)
Over the past few weeks it has become increasingly apparent that the information that we use to make decisions that are going to affect us and those we love, isn't always clear or accurate. In fact, there's a fairly large group of people whose sole task is to make us feel good about what they want us to do or think. Our job then is to be certain that we come as close as possible to "reality" so that the decision we make get us closer to our goals, rather than closer to somebody else's goals.
Newspaper less than radio and TV, make their living primarily by acquiring huge readership or listenership. The larger the number, the more you can charge for your product. That means, right out of the blocks we have to protect ourselves from thinking that what we see, hear and read are the heart and soul of news or public affairs. That would be foolish. These folk have to produce large audiences or they're looking for work. That, put simply, means that they will give you what they think you want.
It's true that once in a while, some news gets through because it can't be hidden. That tends to shake the confidence of many of us because we didn't like what we saw. Take the governmental reaction to Hurricane Katrina. Most Americans didn't like what they saw. Even the President of the United States didn't like what he saw. Many Americans had been lulled into a feeling that most conditions are reasonably safe where we live. After the hurricane, many of us had questions.
Why hadn't that sort of thing been discussed in all news agencies before? Why does it take a disaster to show us where we really stand? Now, what are some of the other areas that should be concern to us now? Do we know? Have we thought about it? Where are we getting our information and how reliable is it?
Our concern is not only how skillful and careful we can be when communicating, but what we are communicating and to whom. I really don't want a bunch of highly skilled commnicators running around our communities that really don't have anything to say. Communication has to involve not only those communication skills, but careful thought.
Over the past few weeks it has become increasingly apparent that the information that we use to make decisions that are going to affect us and those we love, isn't always clear or accurate. In fact, there's a fairly large group of people whose sole task is to make us feel good about what they want us to do or think. Our job then is to be certain that we come as close as possible to "reality" so that the decision we make get us closer to our goals, rather than closer to somebody else's goals.
Newspaper less than radio and TV, make their living primarily by acquiring huge readership or listenership. The larger the number, the more you can charge for your product. That means, right out of the blocks we have to protect ourselves from thinking that what we see, hear and read are the heart and soul of news or public affairs. That would be foolish. These folk have to produce large audiences or they're looking for work. That, put simply, means that they will give you what they think you want.
It's true that once in a while, some news gets through because it can't be hidden. That tends to shake the confidence of many of us because we didn't like what we saw. Take the governmental reaction to Hurricane Katrina. Most Americans didn't like what they saw. Even the President of the United States didn't like what he saw. Many Americans had been lulled into a feeling that most conditions are reasonably safe where we live. After the hurricane, many of us had questions.
Why hadn't that sort of thing been discussed in all news agencies before? Why does it take a disaster to show us where we really stand? Now, what are some of the other areas that should be concern to us now? Do we know? Have we thought about it? Where are we getting our information and how reliable is it?
Our concern is not only how skillful and careful we can be when communicating, but what we are communicating and to whom. I really don't want a bunch of highly skilled commnicators running around our communities that really don't have anything to say. Communication has to involve not only those communication skills, but careful thought.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
An article on the light side of dissidence
The New York Times > New York Region > No Need to Stew: A Few Tips to Cope With Life's Annoyances: "Work slowdowns are methods commonly used by labor unions to apply pressure without actually striking. During the Solidarity movement in Poland, people expressed their disapproval of the government-run news media by taking a walk with their hats on backward at exactly 6 p.m. when the state news program started. When the government noticed the trend, it issued curfews, but people then put their televisions in their windows facing outward so that only the police walking the streets would see the broadcasts."
Login with user name "unfortunately" and password "required."
petty
Login with user name "unfortunately" and password "required."
petty
The Culture of Secrecy
There is a clear need for some kinds of secrecy and our government should provide the safety that secrecy can give us. But, when the culture of secrecy is embedded in the administration we have and you add a war to it, there are huge potential problems.
Rick Blum writes a story which appears in the Provo, Utah Daily Herald. His lead paragraph spells out the problem: "Last year our government spent $ 6.5 billion -- or for every woman, man and child in the United States -- to classify and secure its millions of accumulated secrets. That is 60 percent more than it spent just two years before, and the most it has spent on secrecy for at least the past decade -- not even counting the cost of keeping the CIA's extensive records secret. Sorry, the CIA keeps that figure classified."
Blum's closing paragraph: "Openness, not secrecy, makes our democracy and economy strong. Information in the right hands can produce medical breakthroughs, advance technology, apprehend criminals, and make us safer, healthier and more productive. At best, excessive secrecy is an abuse of the fundamental trust that the public places in government. At worst, it puts uncounted lives and communities at risk, and wastes billions of taxpayers' dollars."
Democracy can and does flourish in a society that is open. One of the things we often say of other countries is that they need to have a free and open discussion of ideas. The culture I would prefer is one of openness.
Rick Blum writes a story which appears in the Provo, Utah Daily Herald. His lead paragraph spells out the problem: "Last year our government spent $ 6.5 billion -- or for every woman, man and child in the United States -- to classify and secure its millions of accumulated secrets. That is 60 percent more than it spent just two years before, and the most it has spent on secrecy for at least the past decade -- not even counting the cost of keeping the CIA's extensive records secret. Sorry, the CIA keeps that figure classified."
Blum's closing paragraph: "Openness, not secrecy, makes our democracy and economy strong. Information in the right hands can produce medical breakthroughs, advance technology, apprehend criminals, and make us safer, healthier and more productive. At best, excessive secrecy is an abuse of the fundamental trust that the public places in government. At worst, it puts uncounted lives and communities at risk, and wastes billions of taxpayers' dollars."
Democracy can and does flourish in a society that is open. One of the things we often say of other countries is that they need to have a free and open discussion of ideas. The culture I would prefer is one of openness.
The Culture of Secrecy
There is a clear need for some kinds of secrecy and our government should provide the safety that secrecy can give us. But, when the culture of secrecy is embedded in the administration we have and you add a war to it, there are huge potential problems.
Rick Blum writes a story which appears in the Provo, Utah Daily Herald. His lead paragraph spells out the problem: "Last year our government spent $ 6.5 billion -- or for every woman, man and child in the United States -- to classify and secure its millions of accumulated secrets. That is 60 percent more than it spent just two years before, and the most it has spent on secrecy for at least the past decade -- not even counting the cost of keeping the CIA's extensive records secret. Sorry, the CIA keeps that figure classified."
Blum's closing paragraph: "Openness, not secrecy, makes our democracy and economy strong. Information in the right hands can produce medical breakthroughs, advance technology, apprehend criminals, and make us safer, healthier and more productive. At best, excessive secrecy is an abuse of the fundamental trust that the public places in government. At worst, it puts uncounted lives and communities at risk, and wastes billions of taxpayers' dollars."
Democracy can and does flourish in a society that is open. One of the things we often say of other countries is that they need to have a free and open discussion of ideas. The culture I would prefer is one of openness.
Rick Blum writes a story which appears in the Provo, Utah Daily Herald. His lead paragraph spells out the problem: "Last year our government spent $ 6.5 billion -- or for every woman, man and child in the United States -- to classify and secure its millions of accumulated secrets. That is 60 percent more than it spent just two years before, and the most it has spent on secrecy for at least the past decade -- not even counting the cost of keeping the CIA's extensive records secret. Sorry, the CIA keeps that figure classified."
Blum's closing paragraph: "Openness, not secrecy, makes our democracy and economy strong. Information in the right hands can produce medical breakthroughs, advance technology, apprehend criminals, and make us safer, healthier and more productive. At best, excessive secrecy is an abuse of the fundamental trust that the public places in government. At worst, it puts uncounted lives and communities at risk, and wastes billions of taxpayers' dollars."
Democracy can and does flourish in a society that is open. One of the things we often say of other countries is that they need to have a free and open discussion of ideas. The culture I would prefer is one of openness.
The Culture of Secrecy
There is a clear need for some kinds of secrecy and our government should provide the safety that secrecy can give us. But, when the culture of secrecy is embedded in the administration we have and you add a war to it, there are huge potential problems.
Rick Blum writes a story which appears in the Provo, Utah Daily Herald. His lead paragraph spells out the problem: "Last year our government spent $ 6.5 billion -- or for every woman, man and child in the United States -- to classify and secure its millions of accumulated secrets. That is 60 percent more than it spent just two years before, and the most it has spent on secrecy for at least the past decade -- not even counting the cost of keeping the CIA's extensive records secret. Sorry, the CIA keeps that figure classified."
Blum's closing paragraph: "Openness, not secrecy, makes our democracy and economy strong. Information in the right hands can produce medical breakthroughs, advance technology, apprehend criminals, and make us safer, healthier and more productive. At best, excessive secrecy is an abuse of the fundamental trust that the public places in government. At worst, it puts uncounted lives and communities at risk, and wastes billions of taxpayers' dollars."
Democracy can and does flourish in a society that is open. One of the things we often say of other countries is that they need to have a free and open discussion of ideas. The culture I would prefer is one of openness.
Rick Blum writes a story which appears in the Provo, Utah Daily Herald. His lead paragraph spells out the problem: "Last year our government spent $ 6.5 billion -- or for every woman, man and child in the United States -- to classify and secure its millions of accumulated secrets. That is 60 percent more than it spent just two years before, and the most it has spent on secrecy for at least the past decade -- not even counting the cost of keeping the CIA's extensive records secret. Sorry, the CIA keeps that figure classified."
Blum's closing paragraph: "Openness, not secrecy, makes our democracy and economy strong. Information in the right hands can produce medical breakthroughs, advance technology, apprehend criminals, and make us safer, healthier and more productive. At best, excessive secrecy is an abuse of the fundamental trust that the public places in government. At worst, it puts uncounted lives and communities at risk, and wastes billions of taxpayers' dollars."
Democracy can and does flourish in a society that is open. One of the things we often say of other countries is that they need to have a free and open discussion of ideas. The culture I would prefer is one of openness.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
What Culture Do You Favor?
When it comes to secrecy, you might hate it or you might embrace it, depending on your background. Businessmen don't like having everybody know what they're doing and why. They want to be able to keep their "advantage" over the competition and will go to great lengths to protect "their territory." That is their mindset. That's the way they live and few see any reason to change that part of their culture.
When it comes to secrecy, we always must keep in mind that when we vote for any candidate we're voting for more than the positions they proclaim to support. We're voting for their cultural position as well. When you vote for managers, you're voting for folk who fear and mistrust the "press." When managers "sell" ideas and concepts they use the same culture they have used to "sell" processes and products. Its their culture, the way they view the world.
In Krugman's Op/Ed piece today in the New York Times, he points out that "The argument over Social Security privatization isn't about rival views on how to secure the program's future - even the administration admits that private accounts would do nothing to help the system's finances. It's a debate about what kind of society America should be." This is a debate over cultures.
What culture do you favor?
When it comes to secrecy, we always must keep in mind that when we vote for any candidate we're voting for more than the positions they proclaim to support. We're voting for their cultural position as well. When you vote for managers, you're voting for folk who fear and mistrust the "press." When managers "sell" ideas and concepts they use the same culture they have used to "sell" processes and products. Its their culture, the way they view the world.
In Krugman's Op/Ed piece today in the New York Times, he points out that "The argument over Social Security privatization isn't about rival views on how to secure the program's future - even the administration admits that private accounts would do nothing to help the system's finances. It's a debate about what kind of society America should be." This is a debate over cultures.
What culture do you favor?
Monday, March 14, 2005
When Can Secrecy Harm You?
In today’s USATODAY an Op/Ed piece points out a trend that should have everyone’s attention. “In 2004, the government created 16 million new secrets, 75% more than in the year ending in September 2001. Sixteen million! And each new ‘classification decision’ can involve many documents.”
Sunday, March 13, 2005
What To Watchout For
We all want and need dependable news sources, so that we can make the best possible decisions for ourselves, families and communities. Sometimes we overlook obvious indicators of actual and potential problems. For example, as businesses attempt to increase their profits, they do what is necessary to maintain their product, if possible, and to meet the target for profits set by their owners. This is a problem.
News people have to abide by the same rules other businesses do and they too have been under great pressure to increase or at least maintain profits. There's a limit to what businesses can cut and still maintain their product's integrity. As the cost of labor goes up, fewer can be hired and maintained, and that means potential and now probable problems for those who need reliable news.
When a reporter was expected to research and write three news stories a day and because of costs we now have half as many reporters to fill the news the clients are accustomed to receive. The organization either has to become more efficient or the reporters have to produce more stories each day. Unfortunately, there are lots of folk who are willing and able to supply the news. We call some of them public relations agencies. They package stories which often are very good and at times little more than propaganda.
The New York Times article in today's issue reports that we are in the era of prepackaged news which puts your ability to trust the news in deeper jeopardy.
News people have to abide by the same rules other businesses do and they too have been under great pressure to increase or at least maintain profits. There's a limit to what businesses can cut and still maintain their product's integrity. As the cost of labor goes up, fewer can be hired and maintained, and that means potential and now probable problems for those who need reliable news.
When a reporter was expected to research and write three news stories a day and because of costs we now have half as many reporters to fill the news the clients are accustomed to receive. The organization either has to become more efficient or the reporters have to produce more stories each day. Unfortunately, there are lots of folk who are willing and able to supply the news. We call some of them public relations agencies. They package stories which often are very good and at times little more than propaganda.
The New York Times article in today's issue reports that we are in the era of prepackaged news which puts your ability to trust the news in deeper jeopardy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)