Do You Live in Texas…or Just Exist There?

I could have asked the same question substituting the name of any of the other 49 states or even the United States as a whole.  The issue of truly “living” or just “existing” would have pertained equally well in any case.  Most people are totally oblivious to the extent to which their individual freedom has been eroded in the USA and thus they are truly existing rather than fully living, which, of course, is the nature of the “freedom follies” in which we are all collectively participating.

However, I chose Texas, because as an expatriate Texan now living in Hawaii, I have become interested in the Texas Governor’s race for the first time in my life.  I suspect that the main reason for my interest is its “David and Goliath” nature with a citizen candidate, namely Debra Medina, presuming to challenge the consummate pols, viz. Governor Rick Perry and United States Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.  And, perhaps, it is because what she is saying is resonating with people all across the state and because she won both of the post-debate text polls by rather overwhelming margins.  But, the primary reason is that she is one of the “Liberty Candidates 2010.”  And, given her positive showing in the debates, she has a very real chance of taking the governorship for the people instead of the elite.

For more information about the Medina campaign go here, and particularly view the second video where she talks about her experience.  Her post-debate comments, following the first debate, are also particularly interesting as shown in the following.

Technorati Tags: Texas,governor,primary,freedom follies,Debra Medina,Rick Perry,Kay Bailey Hutchison,senator,David and Goliath,Liberty Candidates 2010,elite,debate

Freedom Follies in a Frolicsome Way

Recently, I happened on an interesting blog that has taken me in some very interesting directions, which articulate with my current thinking and which have provided multiple resonances. 

One whimsical resonance continues to reverberate hauntingly in my mind’s eye and ear, viz., a video entitled, “Miss Sarah Chan’s Two-Wheeled Adventures.”

Perhaps, the reason for the persisting mental echoes is the sense of freedom that is induced by the image of a young woman flying happily along on a bicycle in an airy, summer frock and high heels.  She smiles playfully as the wind blows up her dress to expose her thighs.  This is all going on while the music whimsically describes a childlike experience of living in  a pelican, “whose beak had opened wide” to reveal “a staircase that was winding down inside.”  The singer then describes meeting an elephant that “never tells me that I peli-can or peli-can’t.”  Then, the elephant “lifted up his trunk; he opened wide, and I could see a staircase winding down inside….And, thus he welcomed us, and we flew inside.”  So, now the singer finds himself living inside a pelican inside an elephant, which he calls living inside a “peleckel” where his feet “never need touch the ground.”  How more free can the imagination become? 

Sarah Chan made this video in order to promote bicycle riding, especially for women.  She set out to show that they can ride dressed in whatever fashion is appropriate for their day.  No need to gear up in riding dress.  She has a blog for this purpose.  She writes:

I'm here because...

I believe people powered transportation can contribute to vibrant communities. Bicycles aren't just for kids and hippies. I'm a girl that likes good food, interesting people, and pretty dresses. I ride a bike.

So here I am. Up in Canada. Trying to change the way women think about transportation while enjoying each day with my urban and biological families.

She, certainly, hooked me.  The video makes me want to resuscitate the experience of riding a bicycle so many years ago.  How about you?  Anyone for some true “freedom follies?”

Technorati Tags: freedom follies,Miss Sarah Chan,bicycle,whimsical,Edmonton,pelican

We Need “Political Artists” in Government, Not “Political Hacks”

"It is the artists of the world….who will ultimately save us; [those] who can articulate, educate, defy, insist, sing and shout the big dreams." -- Leonard Bernstein, Conductor

Bernstein’s comment succinctly spells out the role of the artist in society.  And, by artist, I mean more than the common understanding of artist as merely someone gifted in the graphic arts.  Artistry extends, as well, into many areas of life--music, poetry, photography, the dramatic arts, even the culinary arts, just to name a few.

The artist is one who perceives what the ordinary person fails to perceive, who articulates what the common person fails to articulate.  Thus, the artist is a leader in the sense of challenging us to look for new understanding in previously unexamined areas and with previously unrecognized awareness.

“What if the best artists are also leaders, and the best leaders are also artists?”  This is the central question posed by Yamaha artist Kevin Asbjörnson, MIM, in his distinctive executive education experience, Artistry of Leadership - Creating Meaningful Connections®.

Asbjörnson asks further: “What if there are parallel creative competencies between leaders and artists?”

On a very interesting site called “The Artist’s Path,” Barbara Erickson  has written:

Being an artist, a person of creativity, expands the whole person. An artist thinks outside a box created by the collective thought. An artist sees more, hears more, perceives more [possibilities], and makes Life larger, greater, and new.

One can be an artist in business or in society or in government. Allowing time within the hustle and bustle of today’s lifestyle, to be quiet and to visualize unexplored ideas, colors, shapes, rhythms, movements, negotiations, etc. brings forth the greatest contributions to Living. The artist develops a greater awareness of any and everything of Life [Emphasis added]

She goes on to state:

The function of an artist in society is to bring about positive change, stimulate thoughts outside the normal collective thought, introduce new methods of doing a task, operating a business, or handling a project. The artist may create beauty where it had not existed [Emphasis added].

How often do our so-called civil servants serve the purpose of creating beauty “where it had not existed” before?  Should this not be their function?  And, if so, are we very remiss in electing individuals without the mentality of the artist to leadership roles in our government?  Is this failure, perhaps, the origin of our many government woes at present?

Consider the young Ukrainian woman (Kseniya Simonova)  in the following remarkable video.  She is the Ukraine Got Talent 2009 winner.

Watching her perform, we become mindful of her extraordinary capacity to move an audience nonverbally.  In doing so, she manifests not only her talent as an artist, but her capacity as a kind of modern-day shaman as well.  Observe the dramatic flourishes that she uses, which are reminiscent of the magician on stage.

In Neolithic, hunter-gather groups, leaders were, reputedly, of four types:

…the big man, who was usually the most important hunter; the chief, who was usually an older man or woman who was respected because of years of experience; the medicine man or woman, or shaman, who worked with plants and minerals to cure the illnesses and injuries of the tribe; and the artisan, who was particularly skilled at manufacturing goods necessary to the tribe's survival such as spears, baskets or clothing.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ancient_History/Human_Evolution/Neolithic_Age

Certainly, Kseniya Simonova, uses her artistic talent to expand perception and to heal.  Might such an individual be more effective as a political leader than the current political hacks who occupy positions of power?

FreeDictionary.com defines “political hack” as:

…a politician who belongs to a small clique that controls a political party for private rather than public ends.

Such individuals are prone to “hacking” away at the Constitution unremorsefully.  They are not leaders of people.  They are “users” of people.  They are con-artists who have chosen politics rather than sales as a profession.  Thus, they manipulate us into electing them based on promises that they never intend to keep.

So, who would you prefer in a government leadership role—an artist like Kseniya Simontova or a Barack Obama, who, like her, certainly has the charisma to attract a large following but who lacks her perceptive, whole-brained way of operating in the world [note that her video has attracted over 11 million views]?

Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Barbara Erickson,leader,political artists,political hacks,artists,Leonard Bernstein,society,artistry,leadership,Kyseniya Simontova,Ukaraine Got Talent 2009,Barack Obama,whole-brained,creativity,Neolithic,Kevin Asbjörnson

The Consent of the Governed: More Follies

"Consent of the governed" is a wonderful, iconic phrase enshrined in the history of the American experiment in representative democracy.  It has been articulated as kind of guarantee of freedom, a protection against tyranny.   But, does it really exist, did it ever actually exist, or is it simply a "feel good" slogan for masking a grotesque failure of the human intellect to create a truly effective and functional model of social organization and governance?

An individual, who writes under the name of Doctor Zero, recently posted a piece on the website, Hot Air, that speaks directly to this issue. 

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/11/29/the-consent-of-the-governed/

He [I shall presume with some measure of trepidation that Doctor Zero is a he] writes about the "ineffective legislation produced by the quest for the middle ground" and he wonders "how truly desirable these uncompromising contests between capitalism and socialism are."  He goes on to ask:

Aren’t elected officials, especially Congress and the President, supposed to represent all of their constituents? Wouldn’t that mean listening to the concerns of both liberals and conservatives, and trying to craft legislation that satisfies both sides to some degree? Are the members of a winning political coalition supposed to have absolute power to do whatever they want, even if they won with only about half the popular vote, while the other side sits in obedient silence until their next chance at the ballot box?"

He quotes Jon Meacham's Newsweek endorsement of Dick Chaney for President in 2012.

One of the problems with governance since the election of Bill Clinton has been the resolute refusal of the opposition party (the GOP from 1993 to 2001, the Democrats from 2001 to 2009, and now the GOP again in the Obama years) to concede that the president, by virtue of his victory, has a mandate to take the country in a given direction.

And, he responds, thoughtfully,

I don’t think most Americans are under the impression they’re voting for a dictator every four years. Bill Clinton won the Presidency with a mere 43% of the popular vote. What sort of “mandate” did that give him to “take the country in a given direction?”

Doctor Zero continues:

If close elections don’t produce miniature Presidents who just keep the seat warm until the next election, then landslide victories don’t produce super-Presidents with turbocharged authority. A President who carries 49 states, and wins 70% of the popular vote, is not entitled to stuff the opposing 30% of the electorate in the trunk and take America out for a joy ride.

And, Zero points out quite perceptively:

The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The American understanding of democracy does not envision voters as slaves who enjoy the privilege of voting for a new master every few years. When the Declaration speaks of the right – and, later the duty – of the people to abolish tyrannical governments, it renders the notion of “mandates” to impose radical change on unwilling citizens absurd.

Further, Zero writes:

The vital role of consent in the structure of a just government is one of the most powerful ideas ever advanced by the human race. On the other hand, the belief that consent can be manufactured by democratic majorities is one of the most cherished illusions of activist government. The dissent of a minority is not rendered irrelevant by victory in a popular vote… but the health-care debate in the Senate proceeds on the assumption that victory in a parliamentary struggle between a hundred elected officials will compel the consent of the millions of citizens – now a sizable majority of the population, based on the latest polls – who strenuously object to ObamaCare. If Senate Democrats win this debate, huge amounts of your liberty will be destroyed, and vast sums of money will be seized from taxpayers… and you will not be allowed to object. Any attempt to withhold your consent from this economy-shattering, life-changing radical legislation will end with you sitting in a prison cell [Emphasis added].

Doctor Zero concludes with the following pivotal points that illuminate the fundamental problem in our current political system and raise the very important question as to how this conflict can be resolved.

The consent of the governed cannot be expressed solely through a semi-annual (sic,  biannual) vote for elected representatives. It can only be respected by placing strict limits on what those representatives can vote for. Some would argue that requiring the consent of the entire population to authorize massive government programs would effectively render those programs impossible, because 100% agreement is virtually impossible to achieve. Exactly. The entire apparatus of socialist government is a Constitutional violation that would never receive the total support of those who are controlled by its regulations, or compelled to pay for its agenda. For this reason, its agenda should never even reach the serious discussion stage, never mind legislative implementation.

Americans concerned about the size of their government should not be forced into a permanent defensive posture against an endless series of aggressive initiatives. If the needs and desires of some can transcend the liberty of others, then liberty itself is a meaningless concept. Freedom is not what you have left after everyone else is finished making demands of you. The need for your consent is not respected when your only hope of withholding it lies in historic midterm electoral victories and the rapid construction of huge Congressional majorities. The patriots who declared their independence from England perceived an essential truth about the nature of just government, which we have become almost afraid to contemplate [Emphasis added].

Unfortunately, after very effectively highlighting the central flaw in the current notion of "majority-rule," representative democracy, Doctor Zero remains sequestered in the current political-philosophical-psychological box in which the preponderant majority of citizens cognitively reside.  The question that begs for an answer is:  How do we orchestrate a system of social organization and governance that permits giving true attention to consent by addressing rather than overwhelming objections to a particular, proposed policy?  Or, to put it in another way:  How do we use objections of those in minority positions to create a true consensus that virtually eliminates divisive, partisan politics?

In another venue, I have made a start in pulling together ideas that can lead us in a new direction--toward what I call "Synocracy" rather than simply "Democracy."  By "Synocracy" I mean a kind of synergistic democracy which gives credence to the value of "win-win" solutions to conflicts or resolution of differences in perspective.

http://synocracy.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/synocracy-the-novalia-model-part-i/

http://synocracy.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/synocracy-the-novalia-model-part-ii/

Beyond Representative Democracy

Our current struggles to preserve our freedom from the encroachment of an ever-increasing and more powerful, federal government are, indeed, nothing more than follies.  Mired as we are in divisive, partisan thinking, we have ceased to be accelerators of human, social evolution and have become, instead, millstones around the ankles of humankind's march upward out of the prehistoric slime.  Elsewhere, I have written rather extensively about conceptual efforts to reconstrue the nature of governance in society to form a "synocracy" that transcends the representative democracy bequeathed to us by the Founders of the Republic.  Further discussion can be found here and here.

As the late novelist, Kurt Vonnegut, pointed out, the American Constitution, as revolutionary as it may have been at the time of its creation, provides "no practical machinery which would tend to make the people, as opposed to their elected representatives, strong."  In other words, "We the People" have become little more than the subject of "lip service" to a worthy ideal, and the Constitution sits languishing like a titular monarch who has lost all power to influence or control the populace.

Jim Gough has echoed this criticism in saying that "there is no ‘We the People’ to take charge to make the changes that are needed.”  John Buck, a proponent of sociocracy, which represents an egalitarian approach to business organization and governance that has been extended into the realm of public governance, has countered that

...right now it’s not easy for people to have your voices heard. In the physical neighborhood, you may not talk to your neighbor more than once or twice a year. You may have a neighborhood of people that you are emotionally connected to, but you don’t do any governing that way, exactly. And, so what if we started to organize at the neighborhood level so that…there was like economic activity based in the neighborhood going on and cultural activity, and this was coordinated on a citywide basis, so that if people had needs for daycare or they had needs for a nearby doctor or whatever and they weren’t there, [then] that could be coordinated.

As I have pointed out previously in another blog, Buck's suggestion sounds a lot like the idea of artificial extended families suggested by Kurt Vonnegut in 1976.  And, his ideas harken back to a conceptual framework that I developed in the early eighties which I called "The Novalian Society."  This was before the advent of home computers, and thus I never published anything regarding my thoughts at the time.  I was principally involved in trying entrepreneurially to develop a new source of income and had started out organizing a singles network to counter the loneliness and isolation inherent in the walled-off society that was Southern California at the time.  Exemplary of this fortress mentality was the desire of my neighbor in a recently constructed community of Tudor homes near the beach, to construct a cinder block wall, seven feet tall to separate our properties that were built in quite close proximity of each other, and which would extend all the way to the street.  Fortunately, I was able to prevail upon him to settle for a wall six feet in height and which would gradually diminish to two feet by the time it reached the front sidewalk.  This effort eventually did not produce the grandiose results which I had idealistically envisioned, but it did eventuate in the development of the conceptual framework for "The Novalian Society" or "Novalia," which is a word deriving from the Latin meaning "new land."

Recently, I have excavated "The Novalian Society" and have begun its restoration, like the social structures from antiquity which I saw being restored during recent trips to Turkey and Israel.  I commend it to your attention and solicit your comments, criticisms, and suggestions that will contribute to the development of a synocracy that will give force to the will of "We the People."  The posts referenced here are the first two in a multipart essay in progress.

Proposed Health Care Legislation is "ObamaSCARE."

[Note: This post is a copy of my letter of this date to Senator Daniel Kahikina Akaka, the junior senator (albeit an octogenarian) from Hawaii.]

Senator Akaka,

Thank you for your reply to my concerns regarding the health care reform bills pending in Congress. You wrote: "These bills were crafted in each chamber by combining reform proposals developed by the committees that share jurisdiction over health care and national finance issues." However, I must insist that these bill were not "crafted," as you have said, but rather they were "grafted," as in the following definition of "graft."

"Graft is a form of political corruption in which an official gains something due to a position of power, trust, or insider knowledge. Many governments have systems in place to prevent graft, and a discovery of graft can mark the end of a politician's career. These measures are designed to ensure that public officials perform their duties fairly and responsibly, and that they make decisions for the benefit of the people, rather than for a select few." (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-graft.htm)

The health care reform bills do not represent making decisions for the benefit of the American people as a whole. They, indeed, benefit only the "select few" who will profit enormously. In this respect, they are abominations.

Your justification for voting for these bills ignores the fact that these bills are monstrosities that will not create meaningful health care reform. I may have mentioned before the old story of the definition of a camel. It is said to be a horse designed by a committee. In a similar fashion, so-called, health care reform ("Obamascare") is rather like a grotesque product of genetic engineering, created by a group of individuals who have little knowledge of molecular biology. It will not bring down costs. It will burden taxpayers making less than $250,000 with additional expenses. Furthermore, it will still leave millions of Americans uncovered. And, most importantly, it will create penalties that will turn average Americans into criminals subject to 1-5 years of prison and up to $250,000 in fines, simply because they choose not to buy health insurance or choose to pay for health care expenses out of pocket if they are incurred. The latter provision is an affront to our American way of life. And, if for no other reason, you should NOT continue to support this monstrous, proposed legislation.

Finally, I should appreciate your addressing my concerns specifically and not with a form letter. Your last letter represents one of the clearest examples of political Pollyannaism. If you continue in this myopic pursuit, I assure you that I shall do all that I can to mobilize my colleagues in the health care professions to oppose your re-election to the Senate.