Thursday, May 12, 2005
Freedom Fighters
You know, the term freedom fighters could be misconstrued as someone who fights freedom. Think of "crime fighters". They are usually somebody who goes in search of the evil doer and brings them to justice. But, when we say "freedom fighters" we are typically referring to those militant organizations that rise up against an oppressive regime. Why is that? Why do we not say that freedom fighters are those folks who rise up against the hallmarks of freedom? Why do crime fighters equate to "fighters of crime" and freedom fighters equate to "fighters for freedom"? To be honest in our application of english and its grammatical constructs, we should be saying "freedom's fighters". In that sense we are saying fighters for freedom. There can be no ambiguity with that statement. Perhaps in my next post, I will put forth my opinions as to why such incorrections are being promulgated in a "generally" literate society such as ours.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Popular confusion
Here is a question to ponder,
Is it possible for a law to be fair despite being unjust or even unfair despite being just?
Consider this; the question of fairness deals primarily in the execution of a law. To be considered fair, a law should provide for being applied equally to all subjects. Now, the question of "being just" depends upon what society will tolerate as law (in a democratic society).
Sunday, October 12, 2003
In my previous post, I ranted about the lack of a process whereby the voting citizenry could "gauge" the effectiveness of a policy makers' (or party's) legislation. On a recent flight home from San Diego, I purchased the October 2003 edition of "Discover Magazine". There on page 24 of the periodical was printed an article on a website known as "GIA" or Government Information Awareness. The name, according to the website, was inspired by the "TIA" or Terrorism Information Awareness. Followers of the DARPA project's progress might remember the name originally given to the project as Total Information Awareness. The GIA tracks information about the various branches of governments, the representatives, and the various sources of contribution that each representative has. There is a remarkable wealth of information available to one's browsing delight at this website. I will provide a hyperlink to the GIA website, as-well-as, other useful websites at the end of this post.
Having viewed the website and perused through the aggregations of data, I realized that this could be the beginnings of the fully automated "report card" system I had envisioned in my previous post. While this website doesn't provide a means to gauge the effectiveness of the policies and their policy makers, it does represent a "first step" towards such a system. Perhaps, this system could be a component or prototype for the fully automated reporting tool I imagined. I would encourage all readers of this blog to at least visit the GIA and give it a try. Perhaps, there are a few "inspired" readers out there who could contribute to this project.
As promised here are my useful links:
Having viewed the website and perused through the aggregations of data, I realized that this could be the beginnings of the fully automated "report card" system I had envisioned in my previous post. While this website doesn't provide a means to gauge the effectiveness of the policies and their policy makers, it does represent a "first step" towards such a system. Perhaps, this system could be a component or prototype for the fully automated reporting tool I imagined. I would encourage all readers of this blog to at least visit the GIA and give it a try. Perhaps, there are a few "inspired" readers out there who could contribute to this project.
As promised here are my useful links:
- THOMAS -- an excellent tool for searching and identifying legislation.
- GIA -- a wonderful tool for identifying and monitoring your government. Very broad in scope.
- U.S. Senate Voting -- this link connects you to a portion of the U.S. Senates homesite that allows you to track who voted on what bill, and how. It is useful unless the voting is done by voice and no record is kept.
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Welcome to the first post on "State of Mind". I hope that you find this blog stimulating or at least enjoyable.
The theory of government has always be interesting to me. Particularly, how each form of government (republic, communist, parliamentary, kingdom, etc...) justifies its existence. In nearly all forms, the government exists solely because the people over which it governs have sacrificed some of their individual freedoms for the benefit of the whole. The people have realized that an organized structure will create the best chance for human advancement over a disorganized conglomeration of households or indivduals. In order to advance humanity, we must have "successful" governments. How does one make an effective measure of the "success" of a government? What would the key performance indicators be for measuring the ROI of the government? Would they be simply protection, health care (in some societies), and education or perhaps how many of the populations' "needs" it has addressed?
Perhaps the answer lies in how we define government and the acceptable practices of government. Once we define the boundaries of our government, it then becomes possible to measure the effectiveness of the government. In the United States of America, the government and its boundaries were defined in a document known as "The Constitution of the United States of America". A remarkable document in its own right, however, the Constitution delineates no process for evaluating the effectiveness of government. There doesn't exist a means for a citizen of the United States to understand the progress and "success" of their government. While certainly the different departments of the government measure the effectiveness of policy via their own measures, their does not exist a means to aggregate that information and present the findings to the citizenry.
Perhaps, a method to solve this void would be to develop a fully automated system that receives reports from the various departments, aggregates the information and then disseminates that data to the voting public. I say voting public because an argument could be made that only those who voted (a civic duty) would have interest in the data. This system would be fully automated and the reports, once submitted, would not touch human hands. This would provide a level of security that would prevent the manipulation of the data to satisfy political agendas. The voter registration would list mailing addresses for the voting public. Alternatively (and cheaper), the information could be published onto a centrally maintained government website and downloaded for printing or view by the citizens. Imagine a citizen receiving a report on the effectiveness of government policy that was clear, concise, and informative. In order to minimize the "game of interpretation" played by many a policy maker in their attempts to further their political party, the report would present the data in a manner that is not open to interpretation. This will require the automated system be fairly sophisticated. I think the difficulty in programming this system could be minimized by requiring the various departments of the government to submti a standardized data form containing all of the raw data (relevant to the department) to the automated system. The real "trick" to effective reporting from this system would be linking the reports from the various departments back to a specific piece of legislation. No small task, yet one that apparently gets accomplished by the "distinguished" representatives and senators in their attempts to gain or keep political clout. The methods that they use are far from standardized and is not generally available to the public. Essentially, they provide you with their results, but not necessarilly their methodology. I would feel more comfortable knowing that the results of government could be more accurately and openly tracked by an impartial system, than from a politically motivated interest group, the media, or any politician.
The theory of government has always be interesting to me. Particularly, how each form of government (republic, communist, parliamentary, kingdom, etc...) justifies its existence. In nearly all forms, the government exists solely because the people over which it governs have sacrificed some of their individual freedoms for the benefit of the whole. The people have realized that an organized structure will create the best chance for human advancement over a disorganized conglomeration of households or indivduals. In order to advance humanity, we must have "successful" governments. How does one make an effective measure of the "success" of a government? What would the key performance indicators be for measuring the ROI of the government? Would they be simply protection, health care (in some societies), and education or perhaps how many of the populations' "needs" it has addressed?
Perhaps the answer lies in how we define government and the acceptable practices of government. Once we define the boundaries of our government, it then becomes possible to measure the effectiveness of the government. In the United States of America, the government and its boundaries were defined in a document known as "The Constitution of the United States of America". A remarkable document in its own right, however, the Constitution delineates no process for evaluating the effectiveness of government. There doesn't exist a means for a citizen of the United States to understand the progress and "success" of their government. While certainly the different departments of the government measure the effectiveness of policy via their own measures, their does not exist a means to aggregate that information and present the findings to the citizenry.
Perhaps, a method to solve this void would be to develop a fully automated system that receives reports from the various departments, aggregates the information and then disseminates that data to the voting public. I say voting public because an argument could be made that only those who voted (a civic duty) would have interest in the data. This system would be fully automated and the reports, once submitted, would not touch human hands. This would provide a level of security that would prevent the manipulation of the data to satisfy political agendas. The voter registration would list mailing addresses for the voting public. Alternatively (and cheaper), the information could be published onto a centrally maintained government website and downloaded for printing or view by the citizens. Imagine a citizen receiving a report on the effectiveness of government policy that was clear, concise, and informative. In order to minimize the "game of interpretation" played by many a policy maker in their attempts to further their political party, the report would present the data in a manner that is not open to interpretation. This will require the automated system be fairly sophisticated. I think the difficulty in programming this system could be minimized by requiring the various departments of the government to submti a standardized data form containing all of the raw data (relevant to the department) to the automated system. The real "trick" to effective reporting from this system would be linking the reports from the various departments back to a specific piece of legislation. No small task, yet one that apparently gets accomplished by the "distinguished" representatives and senators in their attempts to gain or keep political clout. The methods that they use are far from standardized and is not generally available to the public. Essentially, they provide you with their results, but not necessarilly their methodology. I would feel more comfortable knowing that the results of government could be more accurately and openly tracked by an impartial system, than from a politically motivated interest group, the media, or any politician.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)