Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

greenspringvalley

User Profile Image greenspringvalley
Member since : May-28-2009 (Verified)
2 Ideas, 22 Comments, 25 Votes

User Activity Stream

Ideas Posted

I'm not at all sure if this is a good idea myself, but it did cross my mind. Lots of people who live on shoestring budgets are stuck in jobs that don't exactly jive with their personal conscience. Everyone benefits from ethical factories. Unemployment gives people a chance to pursue other lines of work. Under the current system, if a minimum wage worker is asked to dump oil in a river, he may not feel that he has a choice. That's kind of a wierd system. If he quits for ethical reasons, he can't draw unemployment, and will likely end up jobless in an economy without jobs. Anyone who is stressed because of conflicting values is probably a fairly good person. I don't know the math, but I'm thinking that these kinds of subtle considerations will probably help the economy in the long run, since a house full of honest people will have more stuff than a house that doesn't give a darn.
"Blinking Words" (an MIT term) are words or phrases that take on many possible interpretations, and where definitions blink between different meanings depending upon who hears it. Ambiguities in language can lead to variation in public action.

A SIMPLE Open-to-the-Public Dialogue web project inviting the public to list ALL blinking words (surrounding specific areas of public action and public money) could make the extent of this problem visible. (Imagine a resource, all gathered from public input, that lists all ambiguous terms and contradictory definitions.)

This is a VERY simple thing to do.

For example, a public website announces the "Blinking Words Project".

For example, the first participant adds three entries as "blinking words":

"community building", "Dialogue", "engagement"

Other participants add additional interpretations to entries, or add new entries. Public discourse is an essential element.

An exploration of "Blinking words" is an excellent focus for this. Blinking words are NOT simply standard homonyms, since alternative interpretations can include unofficial definitions, sales speak, newspeak, etc.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 4205 Ideas
12345678910….168169Next »

Comments Posted

greenspringvalley 9 months ago
Speed limits save energy. The difference in consumption relative to speed is HUUUUGE, and almost no one knows how much of a difference it makes. If these figures were widely circulated (TV commercials) people would CHOOSE to drive slower.


greenspringvalley 9 months ago
Restore Democracy. Good idea. I'm glad someone thought of it.
greenspringvalley 9 months ago
No doubt! This is good for our nation, not just a "nice thing to do". I just visited Albuequerque, and discovered that the Natives are mostly poor. Every problem that we're facing as a Nation is addressed in a typical Indigenous education (ecology, language, Dialogue, inhumanity) and YET we leave them in poverty and pump grants into Contractors to "figure out what's wrong with our Nation".

We can learn a LOT from these groups. Native American learning styles (which tend to include a fuller learning spectrum (such as "senses", "context", "dialogue", "balance", "learning from nature" and "experiences") are EXACTLY what's needed to balance some of our nation's misguided ideas...such as "man as information processor", that I think is most of the problem. We're living like we were educated to live....Learning from diversity isn't just a nice thing to do, it's a way of learning, and balancing some of our own crazy ways of thinking.
greenspringvalley 9 months ago
This is an excellent idea.
greenspringvalley 9 months ago
The concept of "Thought Crimes" (that would have seemed insane a few years ago) has gained "acceptance" under the newly sold idea in Gov(sold by data-mining vendors) that people's minds are "computer processors" that are best understood by deputized computer code writers. Is that a fair assumption to replace Democracy with so quickly?

It's as if it starts with an unspoken "ok, so people's minds are obviously computer processor's right? And who better to interpret those minds than our groups of code writers?"

What percentage of Democracy still remains?
greenspringvalley 9 months ago
Regarding the comment:
So what if you worked for a drug manufacturing company and your boss honestly believed in homeopathy and thus greatly reduced the dosages of the manufactured drugs. This would certainly be illegal if the package lied about the dosage. Would it be unethical?

That's an EXCELLENT comment! I see your point. "Ethics" is open to interpretation, and a policy like this could turn into something bad.

Perhaps an emphesis then on specific Democratically elected public laws which are known to cause substantial harm, for example illegal pollution and corruption. Even then, as your comments suggest, employees would be screaming "unethical" at every turn, to get a free paycheck.

In this suggestion, I was suggesting a "turn my back and leaving something that I don't believe in" type of policy more than suggesting something that is aimed AT confronting situations, such as current whistleblower laws (which are more designed for confronting situations, which no one wants to do). There was a local incident years ago where chicken factory workers were asked to add chlorine bleach to old chickens to get rid of the smell. I respect that employees did NOT want to DO anything about it, they just wanted better jobs). NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE wants to get involved with whistleblower laws. Most people just want to work and live in good conscience with regard to what they produce by their work.

Perhaps "LAW", not "ethics" would be the factor then. ie, if someone is asked to do something that is illegal under Democratically elected law, OR CONTRIBUTES to something that is illegal (ie covering a crime), he has the choice of collecting unemployment, permitting him to turn his back on the situation, and making Government aware of illegal pollution and corruption, WITHOUT the employee having to become involved in the case....it is a mere necessary step in drawing unemployment.

My first consideration is that this would give Government a way of KNOWING when the law is being broken. Otherwise, the government is in the dark. Does anyone know of a better way to keep government informed specifically and only of activities of which Government itself disapproves?

The other side of the coin is that I could see this going bad in other ways, ie Big Brother Government oversight of businesses. A policy along these lines would have to consider all sides, and protect business interests too.

Supported laws could include only obvious laws that everyone agrees upon, such as illegal dumping in excess of such and such amount and the basic list of what constitutes corruption, for example (bribery, extortion, graft, illegal spying and embezzlement). To give this a concrete reference, consider a specific: an employee who is ordered to dump 50 gallons of oil into a river.

Thus, the unemployment office would be THE place where corporate ethics is made known to government, and it is made known ONLY in instances where employees CHOOSE to simply leave.

Again, not sure if this is a good idea. I can imagine it turning into another sour branch of Government.


greenspringvalley 9 months ago
I like the idea of direct Democracy, unfortunately, it can get mucky if people over simplify the process. Democracy, is a fairly complex set of guidelines that somehow maintains balance. A nation simply decreeing, "let's all be a group", has never worked out so well. The current confidential voting system for candidates is reliable. Internet voting, even for issues, is not reliable (because of wiretapping combined with the nation's current levels of fear about expressing opinions on certain issues. Remember, the entire nation of Iraq voted for Saddam. If an incident like this happened on one issue, it would be downhill from there. Unconfidential votes are 100% percent meaningless, even misleading, when people are scared, whether or not that fear is justified or legitimate.)
greenspringvalley 9 months ago
Good considerations. The science is there. It's possible to get Hydrogen for fuel from water with electricity. It's possible to produce electricity by Sustainable means to do this. I have no idea what the science is, or what the pollution issues are. They have battery and water powered toy rockets at department stores. Possibly low currents from low quality cells for long durations can produce lots of hydrogen. Beyond basic viability questions, the science questions should probably be discussed in other forums.
greenspringvalley 9 months ago
I like the whole systems ideas. There are various approaches. Peter Checkland, Flood and Jackson (critical systems thinking, system of systems methodology, Creative Holism), Fritjof Capra (nature as metaphor), the MIT Sustainability and Systems Thinking faculty, and others.

Sterman and Forrester's ideas seem more geared towards hard systems, such as roads, businesses, urban development etc. Even though these DO address people issues and ecology, the language and approaches aren't as thoughtful with regard to Dialogue, Fairness, Value Judgements, or the paradoxical nature of public problems, like hunger or unemployment. People work with and depend upon systems, and People are People, and I don't like the occasionally used phrase "human systems". I'm a person with rights first and foremost, as far as government is concerned. An Urban system is a system of roads, housing etc., upon which people depend. Capra is ecologically sensitive, and he uses that phrase, but then again he is a biologist, and he is speaking of Ecology as a metaphor.

Flood and Jackon's work mentions:

. systems approaches for improving goal seeking and viability
. systems approaches for exploring purposes
. systems approaches for ensuring fairness
. systems approaches for promoting diversity

A full range of literature on the subject will ensure that it doesn't degenerate into buzz words or propaganda, as always happens with good ideas. Whole Systems Thinking is common sense, as it's only natural to consider out-of-sight repercussions and impacts in a wholistic sense, but there's a thin line between these simple ideas and possible propaganda interpretations. For example, even Capra mentions that Fascists are fond of using the metaphor of society as an organism. Ecology does serve as a useful metaphor. Flood and Jackson's books explore MANY metaphors, and relate them to a wide range of systems approaches. Lots of literature, and lots of questions can keep these ideas in a proper context.
greenspringvalley 9 months ago
Obama IS a citizen. Here's his birth certificate.

It required a Google search, that is all. Released last year. The search returned 146,000 results.

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/

http://nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/obama-birth-certificate1.jpg

Google is a type of search engine, with which common people can search the internet. Even a child can do it. It works much better than spamming the discussion forums.
greenspringvalley 9 months ago
An official non-denominational "moment of silent prayer" would be nice.

What if, after 9/11, Bush had nothing to say, admitted his human limitations, and humbly asked the nation to take a private moment to "pray for guidance". Nope. That's not what happened.

Nope, he hopped on a bullhorn and acted on his own infinite wisdom and foresight.
greenspringvalley 9 months ago
What better time to research alternative energy than when we're paying the car company's bills. Why not expect this for our money.

Water's better than Biofuel, because I've heard that Biofuel will depete soil, dominate food farming and only increase food scarcity. Electricity only displaces the consumption and pollution.

H2O tech, I think, makes sense when natural energy provides the conversion process, like dams, solar, etc.

How many solar cells could we have built with the money that we spent on the war?
Why not put the car manufacturers into the solar business?



greenspringvalley 9 months ago
Work at restoring Democracy, when all else fails.
greenspringvalley 9 months ago
Democracy first. Work second.

Otherwise Government will build the wrong things. It's like saying that the way to get to Kansas is to "drive". In what direction?

Work.

Work on what? Work at building what?



greenspringvalley 9 months ago
I don't think immigration is a huge problem.

On another note, if you mean "immigration", then say "immigration".

If you mean "limiting households", then say "limiting households".

The phrase "population control" is ambiguous, with various interpretations being practiced throughout the world, and throughout history. I don't like the phrase. Don't assume common sense interpretations. If a national case for the "need" for population control were ever made, and if enough Federal money were made available for the project, there would be no shortage of sales people offering ways to reduce the population. It sounds rediculous, but look at what's happened to Democracy in the last few years.
greenspringvalley 9 months ago
I think the reference was "The Fifth Discipline Field Book" or "The Dance of Change". Both of these are good books, either way.

Whatever approach is taken to address the language issues, it will probably receive some opposition. If I were selling mud and calling it milk, I wouldn't be "for" any discussions about language.
greenspringvalley 9 months ago
I added a post under "blinking words" to address this. I should have posted it here.

http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4343-4049
greenspringvalley 9 months ago
On the other hand, a good search engine like Google will let people choose the words that they want to search. The less "processing" of input, the better.

I'm all about an informative websites, but they shouldn't distract from a library as a library....The traditional qualities of a public library (respect for others, silence while others are trying to think, freedom of press, community values) are good as-is.
greenspringvalley 9 months ago
I'm going to enter my considerations regarding Systems Sciences in general here.

The best place to introduce Systems Sciences in Government would be with Ecology and Sustainability where everyone is already familiar with how "one small change can have long term or indirect repercussions". Problems occur when conclusions are drawn from partial views (such as "the economic benefits" of a garbage dump). At best, systems approaches can balance the tendency towards "analysis by data".

The concept of interconnectedness is paradoxical, since it must also consider "Independence" AND "interdependence" (who would ever think to consider BOTH), "Rights", "Competition", and "Freedom". Rights, Freedom and those things have to come first. I'm not optimistic about how subtle ideas will be interpretted by not so subtle institutions. Holistic languages are subtle and filled with nuances, and can make people question sales logic. (A salesman doesn't want to hear "what are the long term or indirect repercussions of my product?") A lot of good literature is written on Holism and Systems Sciences. The fundamentals are easy to grasp. (In analysis, a whole frog has properties that you can't analyze from a cut up frog.) Unfortunately, add lots of money and it will turn stupid...with all sorts of variations, such as "to preserve a big computer system" that "must not be fragmented" and must be kept in "holistic completion".

No matter what little steps the government takes, it needs to keep stating and questioning the obvious...What is Freedom? What rights do we value? Otherwise, a big philosophy will be just another thing for the gov to mess up. We can't go too wrong if we focus on the basics first...ie RIGHTS, INDEPENDENCE and FREEDOM, and with those things intact, it seems possible to teach some new ideas.... It seems that System Sciences are most valuable where they take subtleties into consideration....and kind of go wrong where they get one sided.

The most Holistic thing that we could do with Democracy is to ensure that "everyone has a voice". That's simple enough. If it gets much more complicated than that, it will likely not communicate well, and end up with some official twists, like: "America is one organism" (Capra noted that Fascists are fond of this metaphor (The Web of Life)), or degenerate into ideas that "systems models can predict behavior" (Theodore Roszak warned against Modeling as a solution to information overload), or will degenerate into "building new communities" (Welcome to your new community). We will get further by hearing existing communities, than we will be building new ones that discredit the old ones. That way of listening requires Whole System approaches to ensure balance and diversity. That is a systems approach. Systems approaches like this are discussed in "Holism for Managers" (Flood and Jackson).
greenspringvalley 9 months ago
Wikipedia says: Civic engagement has been defined as "Individual and collective actions designed to identify and address issues of public concern."

The best way to clarify ambiguous terms may be to release an official narrative of a real community situation, wherein the terms were understood and used by an average American community in a proper context, and applied by real and diverse people (rich and poor, educated and non-educated, etc.), to achieve positive outcomes.

Perhaps one of Obama's past community building stories can serve as an official narrative.

Here's a book cover.
http://kempton.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/rockwell_freedom-of-speech.jpg
greenspringvalley 9 months ago
Excellent idea. I'm not certain that it's as good as it could be.

As for comments, given Murphy's law of how language can be misinterpretted, some things may need clarified or spelled out.

For example:

The later phrase: "unconstrained by predetermined outcomes"

adds clarity to the earlier phrase:

"Through adequate and inclusive planning, ensure that the design, organization, and convening of the process serve both a clearly defined purpose and the needs of the participants."

The phrase "clearly defined purpose" probably refers to open ended purposes like "better dialogue" or to address a specific issue, but it's open to interpretations.
greenspringvalley 9 months ago
It only makes sense.

Of course we should be doing this. The first two lines are very insightful:

"Our current system is based on the idea that good collective decisions arise from a competition among self-interested parties. But increasingly we face collective problems that require a spirit of cooperation while embracing individual wisdom and expression."