Beyond the Petty Politics (Partisanship)
The original great idea for establishing government, was to create a body and forum for the discussion of the larger vision of life -- and not so that every special interest group could dominate and tyrannize any and every other. Those were the reasons, the founders of the new society of freedoms, dissolved the old tyranny -- in which one group had the right to subjugate every other, even if they claimed that as the divine will of God(s).
For about two hundred years, that idea held sway and largely seemed to work, until some decided they could appear to be the “will” of the people, by suppressing all the voices not in on the current conspiracy to seize exclusive power and control. Now that special interest, is not surprisingly, the government workers themselves -- who no longer see themselves as the servants, but have come to regard themselves as the new masters of the government that should exist to serve primarily themselves.
Such abuses come easily when there is a notion of “entitlement” -- to be in power and control as long as one lives, and it no longer matters how they got there in the first place. It is now just their right to continue for as long as they wish to -- at the top, without answering to any review. “Power is its own right,” they are fond to say -- until one day, for some known and unknown reasons, they themselves find themselves powerless and at the mercy of (capricious) others -- and then they realize the terror of abuse of power and betrayal of trust. So every generation tries to protect itself -- from the exploitation of others, by keeping those who might do so, as weak and disabled as possible, not realizing they may be dependent on such abilities themselves, and really should be empowering that generation rather than exploiting and subjugating the weak so that a self-designated few can remain in control.
Only in that manner, is it possible to empower themselves also -- beyond the expectations they have constrained for themselves. In petty politics, the objective is to make everyone less powerful than oneself -- which has no limit, to how petty it can become until finally, the only activity and work done, is to cancel out everybody else in society -- so they cannot get ahead. Nobody gets ahead in that scheme.
A winning strategy would be to see everyone win -- even more so than oneself, because those are the people one will eventually deal or trade with, and it doesn’t hurt if they can offer the gifts of their talents unrestrained and corrupted. This is the new age of government and society -- not to keep everyone else less empowered than those in power, so that they can remain on the top forever, but to envision a society in which people are allowed and encouraged to win -- rather than they can’t be allowed to win because "it would make everybody else look bad."
Then “looking bad” becomes outlawed rather than acknowledged as the bad it truly is -- which enables one to discriminate and discover the truly good and useful, and unfailingly move in that direction. But under current advice and policies, one is told, not to be able to make such distinctions and discriminations -- which are now only allowed, to the properly designated “authorities,” who will henceforth, decide what it is everyone should think is “correct” and true -- and they will pass laws to see that it is so exclusively for their benefit.
10 Comments:
Now playing at your local political forum:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/clinton.planted/index.html
Student describes how she became a Clinton plant
From Chris Welch and David Schechter
CNN
GRINNELL, Iowa (CNN) -- The college student who was told what question to ask at one of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign events says "voters have the right to know what happened" and she wasn't the only one who was planted.
Student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff said a staffer told her what to ask at a campaign event for Sen. Hillary Clinton.
In an exclusive on-camera interview with CNN, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, a 19-year-old sophomore at Grinnell College in Grinnell, Iowa, said that giving anyone specific questions to ask is "dishonest," and the whole incident has given her a negative outlook on politics.
Gallo-Chasanoff, whose story was first reported in the campus newspaper, said what happened was really pretty simple: She says a senior Clinton staffer asked if she'd like to ask the senator a question after an energy speech the Democratic presidential hopeful gave in Newton, Iowa, on November 6.
"I sort of thought about it, and I said 'Yeah, can I ask how her energy plan compares to the other candidates' energy plans?'" Gallo-Chasanoff said Monday night.
"'I don't think that's a good idea," the staffer said, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, "because I don't know how familiar she is with their plans." Video Watch the student describe how she was approached »
He then opened a binder to a page that, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, had about eight questions on it.
"The top one was planned specifically for a college student," she added. " It said 'college student' in brackets and then the question."
Topping that sheet of paper was the following: "As a young person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?" Video Watch the student ask the planted question »
And while she said she would have rather used her own question, Gallo-Chasanoff said she generally didn't have a problem asking the campaign's because she "likes to be agreeable," adding that since she told the staffer she'd ask their pre-typed question she "didn't want to go back on [her] word."
Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee said Clinton had "no idea who she was calling on."
"This is not acceptable campaign process moving forward. We've taken steps to ensure that it never happens again," she said in a written response to CNN.
Gallo-Chasanoff wasn't so sure.
"I don't know whether Hillary knew what my question was going to be, but it seemed like she knew to call on me because there were so many people, and ... I was the only college student in that area," she said.
In a separate statement in response to the campus article, the campaign also added, "On this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Senator Clinton's energy plan at a forum. ... This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again."
Gallo-Chasanoff may have some doubts about that one as well.
"After the event," she said, "I heard another man ... talking about the question he asked, and he said that the campaign had asked him to ask that question."
The man she references prefaced his question by saying that it probably didn't have anything to do with energy, and then posed the following: "I wonder what you propose to do to create jobs for the middle-class person, such as here in Newton where we lost Maytag."
A Maytag factory in Newton recently closed, forcing hundreds of people out of their jobs.
During the course of the late-night interview on Grinnell's campus, Gallo-Chasanoff also told CNN that the day before the school's newspaper, Scarlet and Black, printed the story, she wanted the reporter to inform the campaign out of courtesy to let them know it would be published.
She said the "head of publicity for the campaign," a man whose name she could not recall, had no factual disputes with the story. But, she added, a Clinton intern spoke to her to say the campaign requests she "not talk about" the story to any more media outlets and that if she did she should inform a staffer.
"I'm not under any real obligation to do that, and I haven't talked to [the campaign] anymore," Gallo-Chasanoff said, adding that she also doesn't plan to.
"If what I do is come and just be totally truthful, then that's all anyone can ask of me, and that's all I can ask of myself. So I'll feel good with what I've done. I'll feel like I've done the right thing."
The Clinton campaign's acknowledgment that it planted a question re-enforces a widely held criticism of the senator -- that she is not entirely honest, said Bill Schneider, CNN's senior political analyst.
"It's the same criticism often made of her husband," Schneider said. "Most Americans never felt Bill Clinton was honest and trustworthy, even when he got elected in 1992 -- with only 43 percent of the vote. His critics called him 'Slick Willy.' ... Will her critics start referring to the New York senator as `Slick Hillary?'"
Asked if this experience makes her less likely to support Clinton's presidential bid, Gallo-Chasanoff, an undecided voter, said, "I think she has a lot to offer, but I -- this experience makes me look at her campaign a little bit differently."
"The question and answer sessions -- especially in Iowa -- are really important. That's where the voters get to ... have like a real genuine conversation with this politician who could be representing them."
While she acknowledged "it's possible that all campaigns do these kind of tactics," she said it still doesn't make it right.
"Personally I want to know that I have someone who's honest representing me."
Gallo-Chasanoff's story comes at a time when a second person has also come forward with a similar one. Geoffrey Mitchell of Hamilton, Illinois, a town located on the Iowa border, told CNN the Clinton campaign also wanted him to ask a certain question at an Iowa event in April.
"He asked me if I would ask Sen. Clinton about ways she was going to confront the president on the war in Iraq, specifically war funding," said Geoffrey Mitchell, a supporter of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois. "I told him it was not a question I felt comfortable with."
advertisement
No questions were taken at the event. Elleithee said this incident was different than what happened with Gallo-Chasanoff in Newton. Elleithee said the staffer "bumped into someone he marginally knew" and during a conversation with Mitchell, "Iraq came up." Elleithee denied the campaign tried to plant him as a friendly questioner in the audience.
Mitchell said he had never met the staffer before the event.
Here’s another suppression (removal) of a very valid comment in the shameful and sad demise of the local newspapers -- trying to maintain their control of limited thinking in Hawaii:
http://www.topix.net/forum/source/honolulu-advertiser/T8VS03NRU1IH0NJRT
Hawaii gas prices could rise another 20 cents
“Gasoline prices could rise as much as 20 cents in the next few weeks as the price at the pump catches up with the recent surge in oil costs, the head of the Energy Department's analytical arm said yesterday.”
(My comment)
The national headline is that gas prices will go up 20 cents -- everywhere, and not just in Hawaii as the 'Tiser's headline demagogues.
Look, if gas prices are too high, don't buy any, or drive to wherever you think it's cheaper and buy all you want.
But exploiting the ignorance and gullibility of the readers of Hawaii, is unforgivable, no matter how stupid the editors think they are.
Hawaii's limitations have never been a lack of talent, competence or good intentions -- except that those who wish to remain at the top of the social (political) hierarchies and in exclusive authority, deceive and manipulate the people unscrupulously -- to do their bidding, as though it was their own free choice to do so -- presuming they have all the information to make an intelligent decision and choice.
But when that "information" is only what those self-designated authorities and privleged want people to "know," then of course people have to make the stupid choices Hawaii (government) is renowned for.
So as much as I think we have crooked politicians who lie, cheat and steal their way into public office, some of their "innocent" confederates in the media, schools, universities, unions, public information offices, are even more destructive to a society of hoesty and integrity.
Misinformed and manipulated people can obviously not make the right decisions -- and that is the greatest evil of them all.
So when people ask, What killed the newspapers and mainstream media?, it was themselves -- they drove out every honest person of integrity until there was nobody else left but themselves.
Why are these people in the "news" business if they can't stand the truth?
The charge was raised why John McCain did not admonish a citizen
opinion to the politically correct one demanded by a jouranlist:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=176083
Is it OK to call Hillary a bitch?
It’s the journalist’s job to report what he said, and not to tell him what to say, and think.
That’s their own arrogance and abuse of power — which is much more damaging and destructive than anything else that was said.
That’s the abrogation of the First Amendment freedom of speech (and thought) that the mainstream media has taken upon itself to destroy for everybody else as their own exclusive right and privilege, that only they have a right to have, as the self-designated “superior” people in our society.
Hillary, whatever she is and is called, is just a pawn to these ends — just as they regard everybody else who stands in their way of their own ambition to get to the top in their cutthroat world. So one just needs to hear what they are saying beyond their words to what they mean and would like others to think — that they have a right to “dictate” what everybody else SHOULD BE thinking and saying — as our new self-proclaimed dictators and tyrants.
I'm glad somebody has instigated as study on it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21820808/
Do-gooders can become the worst cheats
Study: Sense of moral superiority might lead to rationalizing bad behavior
LiveScience
By Jeanna Bryner
updated 10:07 a.m. HT, Thurs., Nov. 15, 2007
Morally upstanding people are the do-gooders of society, right? Actually, a new study finds that a sense of moral superiority can lead to unethical acts, such as cheating. In fact, some of the best do-gooders can become the worst cheats.
Stop us if this sounds familiar.
When asked to describe themselves, most people typically will rattle off a list of physical features and activities (for example, "I do yoga" or "I'm a paralegal"). But some people have what scientists call a moral identity, in which the answer to the question would include phrases like "I am honest" and "I am a caring person."
Past research has suggested that people who describe themselves with words such as honest and generous are also more likely to engage in volunteer work and other socially responsible acts.
But often in life, the line between right and wrong becomes blurry, particularly when it comes to cheating on a test or in the workplace. For example, somebody could rationalize cheating on a test as a way of achieving their dream of becoming a doctor and helping people.
In the new study, detailed in the November issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, researchers find that when this line between right and wrong is ambiguous among people who think of themselves as having high moral standards, the do-gooders can become the worst of cheaters.
The results recall the seeming disconnect between the words and actions of folks like televangelist and fraud convict Jim Bakker or admitted meth-buyer Ted Haggard, former president of the National Evangelical Association, an umbrella group representing some 45,000 churches.
"The principle we uncovered is that when faced with a moral decision, those with a strong moral identity choose their fate (for good or for bad) and then the moral identity drives them to pursue that fate to the extreme," said researcher Scott Reynolds of the University of Washington Business School in Seattle. "So it makes sense that this principle would help explain what makes the greatest of saints and the foulest of hypocrites."
Why cheat? Why not?
Why would a person who thinks of himself as honest cheat? The researchers suggest an "ethical person" could view cheating as an OK thing to do, justifying the act as a means to a moral end.
As Reynolds put it: "If I cheat, then I'll get into graduate school, and if I get into graduate school, then I can become a doctor and think about all the people I'm going to help when I'm a doctor."
A competitive playing field, whether at a university or business, can also motivate cheating behaviors.
"Cheating is a way to get ahead in a competitive environment where there are rewards for winning or getting ahead of others," said Daniel Kruger, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Michigan, who was not involved in the current study. "It seems like there is an increasing desire and expectation in our society to 'be the best.' "
Even if a person doesn't justify his unethical behaviors, "cheating can save lots of time and energy and take advantage of the knowledge and reasoning of others who are more adept, but could be disastrous if one is caught," Kruger said. He added, "I am not surprised that some of the extreme examples of cheating — ripping the relevant pages out of library books so other students cannot see them — happen in intensely competitive environments, law school in this example (of ripping out book pages)."
Cheating basics
Reynolds and University of Washington colleague Tara Ceranic surveyed about 230 college students with an average age of 21 who were enrolled in an upper-level business course. The survey measured moral identity with 12 questions about the importance of certain characteristics — such as generosity, willingness to work hard, honesty and compassion — and whether things like clothing, books, activities and friends were associated with the moral characteristics.
Students were also asked whether they had engaged in each of 13 cheating behaviors, including using cheat sheets (crib notes), copying from another student and turning in work completed by someone else.
Overall, cheating was rampant.
* More than 90 percent reported having committed at least one of the 13 cheating behaviors.
* More than 55 percent reported saying nothing when they had benefited from an instructor's grading error.
* Nearly 50 percent reported having inappropriately collaborated on an individual assignment.
* Nearly 42 percent indicated copying from another student during a test.
Students who scored high on moral identity and also considered cheating to be morally wrong were the least likely to cheat. In contrast, the worst cheaters were the "moral" students who considered cheating to be an ethically justifiable behavior in certain situations.
"If they think it's wrong, they'll never do it," Reynolds told LiveScience. "If they think it's OK, they do it in spades."
The researchers found similar results when they surveyed 290 managers, asking them whether they had engaged in 17 workplace "no-no's," including using company services for personal use, padding an expense account and taking longer than necessary to do a job. The managers with moral identities were also most likely to engage in the sketchy office behavior.
"When people have a strong moral identity, they think of themselves as great moral people, their behavior tends to go to the extremes," Reynolds said.
Cheat-proof tactics
In order to encourage students and managers to forego cheating in exchange for ethical behaviors, Reynolds suggests ethics education. Classes, newsletters and other means of communication should help organizations to communicate which behaviors are morally acceptable and which are not.
The old-school method of rewards and punishments could help. "We learn through rewards and punishments so to the extent that schools crack down when they need to crack down, we'd all be better off," Reynolds said.
For managers recruiting new employees, just because a person identifies himself or herself as honest doesn't mean they won't cut corners.
"If you can recruit people with a moral identity and then train them appropriately, you'll get some of the best behavior you can imagine," Reynolds said.
This is the whole root of the problem -- and not its solution, quite obviously -- so apparently, the researchers have learned nothing from their studies.
The old-school method of rewards and punishments could help. "We learn through rewards and punishments so to the extent that schools crack down when they need to crack down, we'd all be better off," Reynolds said.
That's the old rewarding and reinforcing behaviors with something other than the behavior itself -- as a reward and fulfillment in itself. Because of that erroneous method of conditioning, people can justify something other than ethical behavior because it rewards them -- and so they've made the problem even worse by deceiving themselves
that they are seeing truly ethical behaviors -- instead of the faked to get the reward (avoiding the punishment).
Wake up you guys -- otherwise you may lose that multi-million grant for study "honesty" and "ethical behavior," of which you still don't have a clue about -- and that's why you'll need ever-increasing millions as the problem escalates out of control.
This is the whole root of the problem -- and not its solution, quite obviously -- so apparently, the researchers have learned nothing from their studies.
The old-school method of rewards and punishments could help. "We learn through rewards and punishments so to the extent that schools crack down when they need to crack down, we'd all be better off," Reynolds said.
That's the old rewarding and reinforcing behaviors with something other than the behavior itself -- as a reward and fulfillment in itself. Because of that erroneous method of conditioning, people can justify something other than ethical behavior because it rewards them -- and so they've made the problem even worse by deceiving themselves
that they are seeing truly ethical behaviors -- instead of the faked to get the reward (avoiding the punishment).
Wake up you guys -- otherwise you may lose that multi-million grant for study "honesty" and "ethical behavior," of which you still don't have a clue about -- and that's why you'll need ever-increasing millions as the problem escalates out of control.
Post a Comment
<< Home