Saying is over, time for doing.
We have all commented online at newspaper’s web site and message boards, complaining about everything. We call people names; we point accusatory fingers and write about the bad behaviors of powerful people. We even come up with ideas and suggest needed changes. Do they listen? No.
Did you hear the latest political campaign rhetoric? The candidates are once again running on the same messages of “cleaning up corruption and waste” that the last candidates ran on and ultimately failed to complete. How many campaign cycles have we been through hearing that same message?
What can we do about it?
Ralph Nader’s been talking about this for decades. Nobody takes him or any other independent political candidate seriously for the simple reason that none have moved outside the box and simply created an entire functional government structure that can be manned at a moment’s notice. A future candidate will need to have his complete cabinet in advance of his run for office. Not just the politicians, but the entire bureaucracy must be replaced, all the way from the bottom up.
This is going to require a massive and complete shift in loyalty by law enforcement and military personnel away from the current industrial plutocracy, back to a real democratic form of government. No, a republic is a plutocracy.
You’re not going to get any businesses to support such a radical change because they are the real power behind the curtain of politics. Washington D.C. is merely an illusory Emerald City with the Wizard pulling the levers and puppet strings all the way from Wall Street.
How many times have you heard that old cliché? Everyone knows it but nobody knows what to do about it. The banks have a strangle-hold on small businesses and consumer credit card holders.
The strangle-hold is only effective as long as people value the extra car, the S.U.V., the boat in the driveway, the extra thousand feet of storage space in the house, the finished basement, the riding mower, caring about monthly or weekly fashion updates, etc.
How do you crush the system? Stop spending. Seems impossible? Try these links for helpful hints:
http://myyearwithoutspending.blogspot.com/
http://fruwiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
http://www.stopspendingmoney.net/
https://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/bnd
Consumer spending isn’t enough. The government is more completely owned by the industrial complexes of Military, Legal, Medical, Energy, Food, Insurance, and Mass Media. All of theses have always been subsidized by taxes and reinforced by Patent regulations that suppress innovation and technological progress that might compete with them. We never heard much about this before the Internet allowed freedom of speech to expand around the world.
All of the aforementioned industrial complexes operate through Lobbyists in D.C. and often literally write our legislation. Do you need evidence? Just Google this: “legislation written by lobbyists”
Find out which legislators have been caught doing favors of one kind or another for lobbyists, and scratch them off your list. The best we can do right now is colossal non-cooperation.
Complaining and protesting has failed. Freedom of speech is only good for attracting the attention of those who can make you disappear. If things get worse for us because we speak up, we can act in silence and go underground.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The High Price of Free Speech
Tuesday night I went to Capital City Bar and Grill to watch the film “Shouting Fire: Stories from edge of free speech.”
It was a good film. It taught me to open my eyes, clench my fists, and shut my mouth. There were numerous incidents where free speech was used to make the public render a verdict at election polls. There were more incidents where free speech got people into trouble.
After the 9/11/2001 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, freedom of the press was used to vilify, condemn, or persecute anyone who pointed out the reasons for the attack, anyone remotely associated with Islam and anyone who dared question the validity of the War in Iraq.
The film discussed the USA Patriot Act and demonstrated how free speech is being used as a tool against the public.
It was suggested that the goal of the ACLU is to defend any speech no matter how offensive. Free speech should be defended as long as it’s truthful. Deliberately deceptive speech on the other hand should be criminalized.
The McCarthy hearings were a small part of the film. I got an overall impression that Senator Joseph McCarthy’s mistake was using free speech to bring his concerns to the court of public opinion. He and J. Edgar Hoover both believed they could bring the public to their side with their ideas.
Speech has a funny way of working against you while you are in power, no matter the message. The glorious leaders of our society have taken a Machiavellian approach and promoted freedom of speech for the rest of us, while they themselves quietly go about listening and watching for the malcontents.
Theses mistakes have been remedied by government agents quietly infiltrating protest groups.
Peaceful anti-war protesters are regularly blocked from parading, moments after they arrive. Agents who infiltrate protest groups try to provoke the groups into actions that allow police to stop the groups and have members arrested.
Typically the first members of the group to be arrested are the infiltrating provocateurs. Their arrest is handled with such drama, shock and awe, that the arrest is intended to frighten other protesters into disbanding or surrendering.
Without free speech of our enemies we will never know who they are. This has become the mantra of the government. Defenders of free speech are provoking people into exposing themselves as dissidents.
My friends, public speech is no longer effective. Free speech is bait for a trap. We are done with speech. Nobody is paying attention.
Do not fear the clamoring throng, fear the silence.
It was a good film. It taught me to open my eyes, clench my fists, and shut my mouth. There were numerous incidents where free speech was used to make the public render a verdict at election polls. There were more incidents where free speech got people into trouble.
After the 9/11/2001 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, freedom of the press was used to vilify, condemn, or persecute anyone who pointed out the reasons for the attack, anyone remotely associated with Islam and anyone who dared question the validity of the War in Iraq.
The film discussed the USA Patriot Act and demonstrated how free speech is being used as a tool against the public.
It was suggested that the goal of the ACLU is to defend any speech no matter how offensive. Free speech should be defended as long as it’s truthful. Deliberately deceptive speech on the other hand should be criminalized.
The McCarthy hearings were a small part of the film. I got an overall impression that Senator Joseph McCarthy’s mistake was using free speech to bring his concerns to the court of public opinion. He and J. Edgar Hoover both believed they could bring the public to their side with their ideas.
Speech has a funny way of working against you while you are in power, no matter the message. The glorious leaders of our society have taken a Machiavellian approach and promoted freedom of speech for the rest of us, while they themselves quietly go about listening and watching for the malcontents.
Theses mistakes have been remedied by government agents quietly infiltrating protest groups.
Peaceful anti-war protesters are regularly blocked from parading, moments after they arrive. Agents who infiltrate protest groups try to provoke the groups into actions that allow police to stop the groups and have members arrested.
Typically the first members of the group to be arrested are the infiltrating provocateurs. Their arrest is handled with such drama, shock and awe, that the arrest is intended to frighten other protesters into disbanding or surrendering.
Without free speech of our enemies we will never know who they are. This has become the mantra of the government. Defenders of free speech are provoking people into exposing themselves as dissidents.
My friends, public speech is no longer effective. Free speech is bait for a trap. We are done with speech. Nobody is paying attention.
Do not fear the clamoring throng, fear the silence.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Good Service
I was cleaning off my dresser this morning and I found an old receipt from County Market folded around another piece of paper. The receipt was from last week some time. The message with the receipt said:
“Did you receive excellent service from the cashier? If so, please turn this note in to the customer service desk. Cashier name: ___________...”
Wow. When I go to the grocery store I never really look at the receipt because I usually buy few items. I began to wonder if anybody else paid attention to the note when they got it. I’m sure some did but probably not most.
I began to wonder if someone’s employment was riding on that note. The cashier with the most notes turned in must have received some award or was spared expulsion, but what about the cashier with the least?
I imagine some manager got the idea from watching Survivor or some other reality program. The next phase might be a style change in uniform, like oversized tan cotton Gatsby style hats with matching overalls, accented with a lime and orange striped long-sleeve turtleneck shirt and white steel-toed patent-leather Boondockers.
And then what, pieces of flair? Well. How many ways can you vet your staff by humiliating them?
I’m sure the note was meant to be an incentive for employees to be more pleasant than usual. It would work well in the right context. There should be only a positive reward associated with the note and no punishment associated with it.
This means making sure the employees don’t have an opportunity to draw negative conclusions on their own about the incentive program. They should be notified that having the fewest notes turned in doesn’t mean they are the worst at customer service and will suffer for it. They should be told that most customers might not even look at the notes until they get home, if ever, and the program is actually more effective at gathering information about the customer’s habits than the employee’s behavior anyway.
Also, if you are going to post statistics on a board in the break-room about which employee is ahead of the game in this challenge, you’re really not doing the employees any favors, only fomenting animosity among them.
Don’t post the actual number of notes that were turned in for any employees. This way, when the prize is handed out, nobody will know who came in last place, including the person who actually came in last place.
“Did you receive excellent service from the cashier? If so, please turn this note in to the customer service desk. Cashier name: ___________...”
Wow. When I go to the grocery store I never really look at the receipt because I usually buy few items. I began to wonder if anybody else paid attention to the note when they got it. I’m sure some did but probably not most.
I began to wonder if someone’s employment was riding on that note. The cashier with the most notes turned in must have received some award or was spared expulsion, but what about the cashier with the least?
I imagine some manager got the idea from watching Survivor or some other reality program. The next phase might be a style change in uniform, like oversized tan cotton Gatsby style hats with matching overalls, accented with a lime and orange striped long-sleeve turtleneck shirt and white steel-toed patent-leather Boondockers.
And then what, pieces of flair? Well. How many ways can you vet your staff by humiliating them?
I’m sure the note was meant to be an incentive for employees to be more pleasant than usual. It would work well in the right context. There should be only a positive reward associated with the note and no punishment associated with it.
This means making sure the employees don’t have an opportunity to draw negative conclusions on their own about the incentive program. They should be notified that having the fewest notes turned in doesn’t mean they are the worst at customer service and will suffer for it. They should be told that most customers might not even look at the notes until they get home, if ever, and the program is actually more effective at gathering information about the customer’s habits than the employee’s behavior anyway.
Also, if you are going to post statistics on a board in the break-room about which employee is ahead of the game in this challenge, you’re really not doing the employees any favors, only fomenting animosity among them.
Don’t post the actual number of notes that were turned in for any employees. This way, when the prize is handed out, nobody will know who came in last place, including the person who actually came in last place.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Important Service Announcement
This commercial advertisement was rejected by Fox News
Commercial Breakers from Douglas Haddow on Vimeo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)