Monday, May 23, 2011
So things could be finally turning around...
Today was my first day on the job. New spot at a call center, after quite a bit of searching! I'll add more to this post later, but it's late and I'm tired. :)
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
So I was thinking....
I think one of the things that needs to change in this world are peoples' attitudes about other people. The way you present yourself to another human being is evident, in my eyes, immediately. If you don't care about someone, it shows. This, then, makes the other person defensive, and so on and so forth. In the end you have two people aggressive and for what? That doesn't do anybody any good. It's ridiculous. If the first person comes with an attitude of respect towards this person, just as a fellow human being, then the entire scenario would play out differently.
I wonder if anyone has had that same issue, where someone just comes at you wrong? What happened? How might the encounter have gone if you were approached differently?
I wonder if anyone has had that same issue, where someone just comes at you wrong? What happened? How might the encounter have gone if you were approached differently?
Monday, October 25, 2010
How to fix elections in 2 easy steps....not like that....
Bi-partisan elections are flawed, by nature. There is even empirical, mathmatically-supported evidence of this. While I don't agree with everything said by "Tea Party" candidates, the one thing that adding a separate political party does is allow us more options. That, in and of itself, does not help the cause of fixing elections. In fact, it could very well cause more confusion than clarification if the same type of candidate marketing is allowed to continue. I loathe the word 'campaign' because it's part of the make-up that these candidates put on their mud-slinging to try and steal your ability to rationally decide who would be better for our country/state/etc.
(I do want to interject here, stating that I will not support one candidate or the other via this blog, and will continue my search for the closest thing to the truth I can find right up until voting day)
Take for example Rick Scott's new marketing campaign. He states that Alex Sink's company was fined millions of dollars. Completely true! When Alex Sink was the president of the Florida branch of NationsBank, the corporation was fined approximately $67 million in fines and settlements. However, Alex Sink had nothing to do with the decisions that led to those payments. All of those decisions were made by people above her head. That is NOT how Rick Scott portrays the facts, even though he is not saying anything slanderous/libelous. That is why I use the term 'candidate marketing' because they are using facts in a way that distorts their true meaning, and if you, as a voter, take them at face value you are setting yourself and the country up for failure.
Step 1 - Clean up the candidate marketing by imposing strict guidelines that only allow candidates to speak about themselves, and require proof of things being said such as voting records.
Next, and a closely related tie-in, the public needs to have one source for information about the candidates. This source needs to be owned and operated independent of the government, and the parties running should be mandated to provide a percentage of their campaign funds to provide for the upkeep of this database. That percentage should be regulated in that, if the amount to be given is 5%, that no candidate gives more or less than 5%. This firm could be a foreign entity, which would further attest it's impartiality. Put it in a country that has no real holdings in the US, but has the infrastructure to be able to carry out such a task (Sweden comes to mind). This way, a research company could put together a comprehensive biography, both personal and professional, of each candidate, and have this information available to all Americans. This information would be backed by solid information (records, documentation, etc.) also made available via links or digital imaging. Also, allow candidates to dispute any and all information made available, and a reasonable amount of time to provide documentation stating their case. By reasonable, I mean no longer than a month.
Step 2 - Provide clear, impartial information about candidates from a source that has no obligation to anything but the truth.
(I do want to interject here, stating that I will not support one candidate or the other via this blog, and will continue my search for the closest thing to the truth I can find right up until voting day)
Take for example Rick Scott's new marketing campaign. He states that Alex Sink's company was fined millions of dollars. Completely true! When Alex Sink was the president of the Florida branch of NationsBank, the corporation was fined approximately $67 million in fines and settlements. However, Alex Sink had nothing to do with the decisions that led to those payments. All of those decisions were made by people above her head. That is NOT how Rick Scott portrays the facts, even though he is not saying anything slanderous/libelous. That is why I use the term 'candidate marketing' because they are using facts in a way that distorts their true meaning, and if you, as a voter, take them at face value you are setting yourself and the country up for failure.
Step 1 - Clean up the candidate marketing by imposing strict guidelines that only allow candidates to speak about themselves, and require proof of things being said such as voting records.
Next, and a closely related tie-in, the public needs to have one source for information about the candidates. This source needs to be owned and operated independent of the government, and the parties running should be mandated to provide a percentage of their campaign funds to provide for the upkeep of this database. That percentage should be regulated in that, if the amount to be given is 5%, that no candidate gives more or less than 5%. This firm could be a foreign entity, which would further attest it's impartiality. Put it in a country that has no real holdings in the US, but has the infrastructure to be able to carry out such a task (Sweden comes to mind). This way, a research company could put together a comprehensive biography, both personal and professional, of each candidate, and have this information available to all Americans. This information would be backed by solid information (records, documentation, etc.) also made available via links or digital imaging. Also, allow candidates to dispute any and all information made available, and a reasonable amount of time to provide documentation stating their case. By reasonable, I mean no longer than a month.
Step 2 - Provide clear, impartial information about candidates from a source that has no obligation to anything but the truth.
By implementing these two steps, the American public would truly be able to be informed, cognizant voters without being bombarded by the marketing garbage that clutters all forms of media today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)