This is a blog dedicated to the Danish cartoons that began the riots over the Prophet Muhammed. You can see the cartoons here -
http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/2006/03/12-muhammed-cartoons.html
26 November 2006
24 November 2006
Oldie, but a goodie
Editorial Observer: Accounting for the Invisible Casualties of War
>Shouldn’t Be a Matter of Politics
>
>November 14, 2003
> By ANDREW ROSENTHAL
>
>
>
>One of the most enduring memories from the funeral of my
>friend Michael Kelly, who was killed covering the war in
>Iraq for Atlantic Monthly, was standing by his open grave
>in a cemetery in Cambridge, Mass., watching an Army officer
>in dress uniform make his way through the cold, persistent
>drizzle and up the small hill to Michael's wife and boys.
>He spoke to the family quietly and then got down on one
>knee on the wet artificial turf that had been placed there
>in a vain attempt to shield the mourners from the earth. He
>gave the boys a flag and a medal.
>
>Michael Kelly was not one of their own. He was brash and
>brave, but distinctly unmilitary. Yet the Army took pains
>to make this simple gesture that drove home the way the
>military honors death: it endows that inescapable but
>inescapably tragic part of their lives with a sense of
>moment, of ceremony and dignity, and most of all it faces
>death squarely and honestly.
>
>This is a central part of the warrior's culture, but it is
>all too often missing from the way President Bush is
>running the Iraq war. As the toll nears 400, the casualties
>remain largely invisible. Apart from a flurry of ceremonies
>on Veterans Day, this White House has done everything it
>
>can to keep Mr. Bush away from the families of the dead, at
>least when there might be a camera around.
>
>The wounded, thousands of them, are even more carefully
>screened from the public. And the Pentagon has continued
>its ban on media coverage of the return of flag-draped
>coffins to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, denying the
>dead soldiers and their loved ones even that simple public
>recognition of sacrifice. Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of
>the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained rather lamely that the
>ban had been in place since 1991 - when another President
>Bush wanted to avoid the juxtaposition of his face and
>words with pictures of soldiers' coffins.
>
>Some Republicans say it would take up too much of the
>president's time to attend military funerals or meet the
>coffins returning from Iraq. "They're coming back
>continually," the conservative commentator Bay Buchanan
>said on CNN on Tuesday. "The president cannot be flying up
>there every single week."
>
>
>But someone of rank from the White House could and should
>be at each and every military funeral. Ideally, Mr. Bush
>would shake the hand of someone who loved every person who
>dies in uniform - a small demand on his time in a war in
>which the casualties are still relatively small. And he has
>more than enough advisers, cabinet secretaries and other
>officials so attending funerals should not be such an
>inconvenience.
>
>The White House talks about preserving the privacy and
>dignity of the families of the war dead. But if this was
>really about the families, the president or Vice President
>Dick Cheney or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would be
>handing flags to widows and mothers in the time-honored
>way. And if protecting the privacy of Americans who are
>suffering was such a priority, the White House wouldn't
>call in the cameras to watch Mr. Bush embracing victims of
>every hurricane, earthquake or suburban California
>wildfire.
>
>Along with the coverage of these casualties, the coverage
>
>of combat in Iraq has virtually ceased. The "embedded"
>correspondents who reported on the stunningly swift march
>to Baghdad during the invasion are gone. The Pentagon has
>ended the program. The ever-upbeat Mr. Rumsfeld likes to
>say that the attacks on American soldiers are brief and
>relatively few in number, compared with the number of men
>in arms in the field in Iraq. But without real news
>coverage, it's hard to know the truth.
>
>Letters from American soldiers who have died in Iraq,
>published on the Op-Ed page on Tuesday, suggest that Mr.
>Rumsfeld's accounting may be highly selective. Shortly
>before he died on June 17, Pvt. Robert Frantz wrote this to
>his mother: "We've had random gunfire within a 100-meter
>radius all night, every night, since I have been here. It
>kinda scares you the first couple nights, but you tend to
>get used to it."
>
>The idea of a slow, painful and bloody holding action in
>which gunfire is a nightly occurrence contrasts sharply,
>
>perhaps too sharply for comfort, with the display of
>overwhelming force, low casualties and lightning-swift
>conclusions that Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld put on in the
>spring. The administration undoubtedly feels that showing
>coffins on television or having the president attend
>funerals would undermine public support for the war. (The
>ban on covering the arrival of coffins at Dover was in
>effect during the popular Afghanistan war, but was not
>enforced.) That seems like more of an acknowledgment of how
>fragile that support is than any poll yet taken.
>
>The Bush administration hates comparisons between Iraq and
>Vietnam, and many are a stretch. But there is a lesson that
>this president seems not to have learned from Vietnam. You
>cannot hide casualties. Indeed, trying to do so probably
>does more to undermine public confidence than any display
>of a flag-draped coffin. And there is at least one direct
>parallel. Thirty-five years ago, at the height of the
>
>Vietnam War, the Pentagon took to shipping bodies into the
>United States in the dead of night to avoid news coverage.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/14/opinion/14FRI4.html?ex=1069834045&ei=1&en=660f
>5cd6223c62e2
>Shouldn’t Be a Matter of Politics
>
>November 14, 2003
> By ANDREW ROSENTHAL
>
>
>
>One of the most enduring memories from the funeral of my
>friend Michael Kelly, who was killed covering the war in
>Iraq for Atlantic Monthly, was standing by his open grave
>in a cemetery in Cambridge, Mass., watching an Army officer
>in dress uniform make his way through the cold, persistent
>drizzle and up the small hill to Michael's wife and boys.
>He spoke to the family quietly and then got down on one
>knee on the wet artificial turf that had been placed there
>in a vain attempt to shield the mourners from the earth. He
>gave the boys a flag and a medal.
>
>Michael Kelly was not one of their own. He was brash and
>brave, but distinctly unmilitary. Yet the Army took pains
>to make this simple gesture that drove home the way the
>military honors death: it endows that inescapable but
>inescapably tragic part of their lives with a sense of
>moment, of ceremony and dignity, and most of all it faces
>death squarely and honestly.
>
>This is a central part of the warrior's culture, but it is
>all too often missing from the way President Bush is
>running the Iraq war. As the toll nears 400, the casualties
>remain largely invisible. Apart from a flurry of ceremonies
>on Veterans Day, this White House has done everything it
>
>can to keep Mr. Bush away from the families of the dead, at
>least when there might be a camera around.
>
>The wounded, thousands of them, are even more carefully
>screened from the public. And the Pentagon has continued
>its ban on media coverage of the return of flag-draped
>coffins to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, denying the
>dead soldiers and their loved ones even that simple public
>recognition of sacrifice. Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of
>the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained rather lamely that the
>ban had been in place since 1991 - when another President
>Bush wanted to avoid the juxtaposition of his face and
>words with pictures of soldiers' coffins.
>
>Some Republicans say it would take up too much of the
>president's time to attend military funerals or meet the
>coffins returning from Iraq. "They're coming back
>continually," the conservative commentator Bay Buchanan
>said on CNN on Tuesday. "The president cannot be flying up
>there every single week."
>
>
>But someone of rank from the White House could and should
>be at each and every military funeral. Ideally, Mr. Bush
>would shake the hand of someone who loved every person who
>dies in uniform - a small demand on his time in a war in
>which the casualties are still relatively small. And he has
>more than enough advisers, cabinet secretaries and other
>officials so attending funerals should not be such an
>inconvenience.
>
>The White House talks about preserving the privacy and
>dignity of the families of the war dead. But if this was
>really about the families, the president or Vice President
>Dick Cheney or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would be
>handing flags to widows and mothers in the time-honored
>way. And if protecting the privacy of Americans who are
>suffering was such a priority, the White House wouldn't
>call in the cameras to watch Mr. Bush embracing victims of
>every hurricane, earthquake or suburban California
>wildfire.
>
>Along with the coverage of these casualties, the coverage
>
>of combat in Iraq has virtually ceased. The "embedded"
>correspondents who reported on the stunningly swift march
>to Baghdad during the invasion are gone. The Pentagon has
>ended the program. The ever-upbeat Mr. Rumsfeld likes to
>say that the attacks on American soldiers are brief and
>relatively few in number, compared with the number of men
>in arms in the field in Iraq. But without real news
>coverage, it's hard to know the truth.
>
>Letters from American soldiers who have died in Iraq,
>published on the Op-Ed page on Tuesday, suggest that Mr.
>Rumsfeld's accounting may be highly selective. Shortly
>before he died on June 17, Pvt. Robert Frantz wrote this to
>his mother: "We've had random gunfire within a 100-meter
>radius all night, every night, since I have been here. It
>kinda scares you the first couple nights, but you tend to
>get used to it."
>
>The idea of a slow, painful and bloody holding action in
>which gunfire is a nightly occurrence contrasts sharply,
>
>perhaps too sharply for comfort, with the display of
>overwhelming force, low casualties and lightning-swift
>conclusions that Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld put on in the
>spring. The administration undoubtedly feels that showing
>coffins on television or having the president attend
>funerals would undermine public support for the war. (The
>ban on covering the arrival of coffins at Dover was in
>effect during the popular Afghanistan war, but was not
>enforced.) That seems like more of an acknowledgment of how
>fragile that support is than any poll yet taken.
>
>The Bush administration hates comparisons between Iraq and
>Vietnam, and many are a stretch. But there is a lesson that
>this president seems not to have learned from Vietnam. You
>cannot hide casualties. Indeed, trying to do so probably
>does more to undermine public confidence than any display
>of a flag-draped coffin. And there is at least one direct
>parallel. Thirty-five years ago, at the height of the
>
>Vietnam War, the Pentagon took to shipping bodies into the
>United States in the dead of night to avoid news coverage.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/14/opinion/14FRI4.html?ex=1069834045&ei=1&en=660f
>5cd6223c62e2
A Rebirth of "We the People"
By Jim Rough
Draft written for "The Good Society,"
a journal of PEGS, Committee on the Political Economy of the Good
Society
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/pegs/
A good system of governance needs to work for
both individuals and society as a whole. In the
eighteenth century the old forms of governance
headed by a king and hereditary aristocracy were
not working to the benefit of most people, and a
new system was needed. Through what we now call
the "U.S. Constitutional Convention," "We the
People" of the former colonies transformed
themselves from the rule of inherited privilege
to the rule of law. This transformation affected
governance, economics, and all aspects of life,
creating a new version of the "Good Society."
Today, that newer system is having problems, both
for us collectively and for us as individuals.
Another fundamental change is needed.
This article suggests how "We the People" might
transform ourselves once again, using a seemingly
innocuous U.S. Constitutional amendment. This
amendment borrows from the strategy of the
founders to facilitate all of us to become "We
the People" and to manage our system.
The Problem
Currently, our constitutional, rule of law,
majority-voting, free market system is on
automatic pilot managing both itself and us.
Because the system is based on competition, it
encourages each of us to maximize our own
"special interest," while the "general interest"
takes care of itself. When people were
independent farmers, fishers, and craftspeople on
a seemingly infinite planet, this self-oriented
approach automatically served the general
interest. It was a win/win game, where healthy
competition made things better for everyone.
But as we confront the limits of planetary
resources, as technology and trade link us
together, and as transnational corporations hold
sway, we are becoming more interdependent than
independent. Competition within an interdependent
whole does not serve the general interest. It's
more like the heart and lungs competing for blood
within one body. The body can't survive that way.
Consider one element within our system, a
hypothetical defense contractor. It competes for
money against other possible uses of tax dollars,
like education, protecting the environment, or
public health. With deeper pockets than its
competition, it can hire many lobbyists and make
large political donations to spread a message of
fear, emphasizing real and imaginary dangers. It
garners a big part of the budget in this country
and then sells its products to whichever client
can pay, whether or not they are a risk to our
country. The primary aim of this industry isn't
to maximize national security, but to grow the
market for its products.
By design, all companies aim more primarily for
profits than for citizen well being or a healthy
environment, or other human values. But this
design was made for a time when none of us was
powerful enough to manipulate the demand or
supply of labor or resources, ruin the commons,
or manipulate government to serve our ends. With
the shift from being independent to being
interdependent, the competitive stance of our
system now undermines local communities,
increases long-term health problems, exacerbates
global warming, promotes inequities of wealth,
risks war, crime and terrorism, and limits
individual freedoms.
To earn a living today, even if you work for
yourself, you must direct your attention, energy
and talents to serving a special interest. Those
who ignore this imperative and seek to serve
humanity directly, like to help preserve the
commons, will struggle financially.
Even our thinking process is affected by this
competition. Our political system doesn't
recognize the possibility of a "general-interest"
viewpoint, but enforces special interest
battling. Those who try to enact legislation in
the public interest, like most environmentalists,
must pretend they are a special-interest group,
and compete against well-organized, well-funded
groups who really do serve special interests.
Also, because of our competitive mind-frame, we
don't look too deeply at problems. Like someone
in an argument, rather than searching out the
underlying causes, we blame individuals like
"greedy" CEO's, "lazy" welfare recipients,
"bureaucratic" civil servants, "corrupt"
politicians, or "apathetic" citizens. We look to
non-systemic answers like better education,
active citizen involvement, better leaders, more
volunteerism, small group dialogues, fairer laws,
etc. These are vital, but for real change to
happen, we must take charge of our system.
Many people think human nature is a problem. They
imagine people to be naturally competitive and
unable to reach consensus in large groups. The
structure of our system makes it seem this way.
I've asked many people, for example, "Which set
of values should have priority in society:
Corporate values or human values?" I think
everyone has already reached consensus on
this-human values should predominate. But since
our system is in control of society, it directs
us to enact the opposite. Our job is to keep our
heads down, to serve corporate interests, and to
be in denial about what is happening in the big
picture.
"We the People" Are the Solution
How do we take charge of our system so that it
works for individuals, for all of us, for other
species, and for future generations? Key is that
we need to become "We the People." We need to
call "time out" from the system, convene everyone
together, face the big issues, dialogue
creatively, develop new options, and reach
consensus on a shared vision. If we can do this,
many of society's problems would just go away.
Accomplishing this is not as difficult as it
might seem. Once we escape from the
all-encompassing competitive stance imposed by
our system, and we are facilitated to hold a
general-interest conversation, we will find that
people are naturally attuned to this. Adding the
following "Citizens Amendment" to the U.S.
Constitution, would make the necessary change:
Each year, a lottery selects twenty-four
registered voters to form a "Wisdom
Council." This Wisdom Council is a symbol
and proxy for all the people of the United
States. It meets for up to one week to
choose issues, talk about them, and create
unanimous statements. A meeting facilitator
assures a creative, collaborative process.
At the end of the week, the Wisdom Council
presents its "Statements of the People"
to the nation in a new ceremony, like a State
of the Union message. The Wisdom Council
will then disband permanently and the next
year a new Wisdom Council will be randomly
selected.
Before considering how this Amendment would
establish an inclusive and wise "We the People,"
and how it would benefit society, notice that it
poses little risk. Congress, the Supreme Court,
laws, the media, government programs, elections,
lobbyists, and all the other elements of our
system remain unchanged. It makes no change to
our economic system either. Corporations, the
markets and the distribution of wealth are
untouched. The Citizens Amendment simply adds a
succession of different small groups that meet,
make statements, and disband. These groups have
no power of coercion, and there is little cost.
Policy continues to be set in the normal way,
through experts and elected representatives.
Transformational Conversation
Key to understanding how the Wisdom Council would
transform society is to recognize the
transformational quality of talking and thinking
it engenders, both within the Wisdom Council and
among the larger population.
I call it "choice-creating" rather than
"decision-making" because people seek progress
through breakthroughs more than through logic.
With choice-creating, diverse passionate voices
are assets rather than liabilities because they
make breakthroughs more likely. Just from talking
in this way, people change their minds and how
they feel, and they build a sense of community.
The best way for any group to reach consensus on
a difficult issue is for them to have a
breakthrough. Then consensus happens quickly,
individual views are respected, and all are
motivated to help implement the result. Debate
and deliberation, the ideals of our founders,
mute this possibility. These modes are oriented
toward critical thinking and winning the
competition, instead of creative thinking and
seeking what is best for all. Even
"consensus-building," where people are expected
to suppress their own individuality for the
benefit of the group, mutes the possibility for
breakthroughs.
The Wisdom Council is structured for choice-creating in a number of
ways.
* It is a "time out" from the usual political conversation.
* It is a diverse group of ordinary people who speak only for
themselves.
* The group must reach unanimity.
* The group has been symbolically anointed to speak as "We the People.
* And the group is aided by a facilitator-
hopefully, one who uses "Dynamic Facilitation."
Dynamic Facilitation (DF) is a new social
invention oriented to helping groups achieve
choice-creating. [1]
Tom Atlee, the author of "The Tao of Democracy:
Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World That
Works for All" (www.taoofdemocracy.com) says,
"Part of why I love Dynamic Facilitation so much
is that it works with people AS THEY ARE. It
doesn't require that they buy into a set of rules
about how they're going to talk together. They
can be [jerks[ and the facilitator makes sure (a)
that they don't get shut down because of that,
(b) that the people they target -- and the group
as a whole -- continue to feel safe and (c) that
whatever gift they bring gets heard and made
available to the group mind. This alone makes DF
incredibly useful in a pluralistic democracy. Add
to that its power to metabolize conflict into
useful insights and to engender co-creativity
among diverse people, and it's a real
treasure."[2]
The Wisdom Council Can Transform Society
At first glance, a Wisdom Council doesn't seem
like it would do very much. "OK, so the group
determines a unanimous conclusion and presents
it, then what?" The Wisdom Council would identify
a general-interest viewpoint, express it in a
powerful new way and enable all-of-us-together to
have more influence over legislation.
But this is only a minor influence. It would also
educate people about the important issues,
involve more citizens in current affairs, include
minority voices and those who are currently
underrepresented, help overcome the dominance of
corporate controlled media, raise the important
issues and put them on the national agenda, and
raise the quality of the political conversation.
One big impact of the Amendment would be in how
it opens the door to a transformation of how we
make collective decisions. Consider, for example,
what it would mean to have a legitimate,
thoughtful voice of an inclusive "We the People."
This would approximate a true democracy. For
example, as the Wisdom Council process continues,
the Supreme Court [might] build trust in the
dynamic views of "We the People" today. At some
point they [might well] hold those views to be a
more relevant standard for their judgements than
the static positions taken by "We the People" of
the eighteenth century.
Currently, we do not make collective decisions in
a thoughtful way. Special interests buy the
media, politicians, and expert voices to defeat
legislation that is in the public interest.
"Sound bites" generated by highly paid public
relations firms make bad proposals sound good,
and good ones sound costly, bureaucratic, or
stupid. But a Wisdom Council can help all of us
to examine, understand, and appreciate the
underlying issues more deeply, and build the
political will for thoughtful actions.
With the Amendment in place, you and I will
participate in creating a shared vision of what
all people want. To have such a vision is a shift
in leadership style from our current reactive
mode, stopping bad things from happening, to a
pro-active mode, helping good things to happen. A
visionary leadership style requires fewer laws.
It would transform government efficiency, how the
media reports the news, and how individuals
contribute to society.
The Wisdom Council promises to shift the basis of
society from competition for scarce resources,
like a scarcity of jobs, toward cooperation to
enhance our shared abundance. In my community,
for instance, there are limited jobs for teachers
in the local school and the schools are cutting
back because of lack of funds. Yet at the same
time, there are many people who may or may not
have teaching credentials, who would dearly love
to teach kids. Our present system impoverishes
individuals and society alike by keeping this
pressing need and these vital human resources
apart. With a Wisdom Council in place, common
sense can reassert itself over the dictates of
the system.
To enact the Citizens Amendment is to open the
door to a transformation of our selves, as well.
For instance, it would help us break out of our
collective denial about the big problems we face
and our feelings of powerlessness over them. It
provides a way for all of us to become creative
and empowered in serving others and life on this
planet.
An Example from History
The best example of how the Wisdom Council can
transform our society today is how something like
it initiated a world-transformation during the
years 1787-1791. The delegates to the U.S.
Constitutional Convention didn't think of
themselves as "We the People." Most believed in
the benefits of having an aristocracy and were
fearful of democracy. They didn't include slaves,
women, Native Americans, or those who had no
property in their design for governance. But
despite these non-democratic tendencies, the
founders described the U.S. Constitution as
having been written by "We the People."
This phrasing was not what they wanted to say. To
them, it was really the states that were
ordaining and establishing this Constitution. But
since the Convention had already decided that the
Constitution would go into effect after
ratification by nine of the thirteen states, and
no one knew which states would adopt it, the
document couldn't start with a list of states.
"We the People" was a grammatically convenient
phrase.
Besides representing itself as speaking for We
the People, the U.S. Constitutional Convention
was like a constitutionally anointed Wisdom
Council in many ways. It was a small group of
people who took "time out" from the normal course
of events for a high-visibility meeting. It
addressed the big issues of the day, established
a higher than normal quality of conversation,
sought consensus rather than a majority, issued a
near-unanimous proposal and then disbanded. The
final document was signed by 39 out of 42 present.
One might ask about the Constitutional
Convention, as people often do about the Wisdom
Council, "How could there be any real change
without follow-up?" It just presented its
conclusion and disbanded. Action happened because
its conclusions sparked a widespread conversation
throughout the land and initiated a
self-organizing dynamic of change. It was from
this larger conversation that the Constitution
was implemented and the Bill of Rights was added.
The whole process took only one Wisdom
Council-like meeting, plus four and a half years
of talking and thinking. In the end, "We the
People" really did "ordain and establish" the new
system.
The Citizens Amendment would establish annual
symbolic meetings of "We the People." Those
selected for Wisdom Councils would be given more
power to affect change than were the original
founders. These citizens are anointed by the U.S.
Constitution to speak for "We the People." They
are not beholden to various states or
constituencies, but can speak their minds and
hearts freely. They are not limited in what they
can talk about or recommend, but can pick any
issue, and frame it in their own way. In fact,
they need not even propose an answer. They can
just describe a problem and ask their fellow
citizens to solve it. They have the advantage of
a facilitator, the mass media and the Internet to
generate citizen resonance.
Plus, these "constitutional conventions" are not
just one-time phenomena. They are ongoing.
You and I were born into a system that we didn't
design. Nor did we have the chance to critically
examine and approve it before we came under its
control. We say that we live in a democracy
because we live in a rule-of-law system, we have
a large measure of freedom, and we vote for
elected representatives to make the laws.
Although this may be the best system on earth,
without us choosing it, it is not a democracy.
Thomas Jefferson pointed this out in a letter he
wrote to his friend, James Madison. From the
actuarial tables of his time, he had calculated
that a majority of any given generation would be
dead after about nineteen years. With this
statistic in mind, he wrote: "It may be proved
that no society can make a perpetual
constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth
belongs always to the living generation. . . .
Every constitution, then, and every law naturally
expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced
longer, it is an act of force and not of
right."[3]
Going Forward
The Wisdom Council is a new concept that needs
testing. Schools, unions, towns, cities,
counties, states, nations and all large systems
that seek democratic governance can use it.
Consultant, Nancy Rosanoff, established one
Wisdom Council experiment in Pleasantville, NY.
Nine citizens were randomly selected with the
blessing of the Town Trustees. They met for eight
hours-four hours on each of a Saturday and
Sunday. They were dynamically facilitated to
achieve unanimity. In the last half-hour, they
made a presentation to the Town Trustees. A quick
summary of their unanimous conclusions
illustrates how creative and thoughtful such a
group can be:
Theme: We need to have more pride in
Pleasantville. We can't just be a bedroom
community but need to be a real community.
There were three subheadings:
1) We need to set up a community infrastructure
to separate New York City commuter parking from
downtown parking and to redirect traffic. (They
had a design for how to do it and how to pay for
it.)
2) We need to create community spirit by
establishing a real center to the town. (The
group suggested using awnings, landscaping and
lighting, and an ongoing committee to encourage
more diverse kinds of downtown businesses.)
3) Youth should be a priority. (The group
identified an abandoned building that should be
an activity center and described ideas for its
funding. They proposed a weekend bus for youth
activities.)
So far this experiment is missing crucial pieces
that create a "We the People." The people of
Pleasantville should enact the Wisdom Council
through a citizens' initiative. The random
selection should be done in a public ceremony,
everyone in town should be invited to a
large-scale presentation of the results, and
there should be organized opportunities for
people to dialogue about the ideas and add their
views. A more complete experiment is planned for
Ashland, OR in the fall of 2003. [4] [This has
now been successfully held. - Tom Atlee] A
non-profit organization, the Center for Wise
Democratic Processes has been formed to help
communities organize Wisdom Councils.[5]
There is interest from a TV producer in a Wisdom
Council experiment for national television. One
way this might happen is to randomly select
sixteen people each quarter to meet for three
days and to have them present their unanimous
findings to a live local and national audience.
Viewers would be encouraged to watch the show
with friends or in churches and community
centers, and to comment on the results through
the Web. This allows people to experience the
Wisdom Council process and to start building a
general-interest perspective. If the timing is
right, this TV show can help establish a
"people's agenda" for the Presidential debates
and the next election.
A common response of many people when they first
hear about the Citizens Amendment is to dismiss
the concept as unworkable. But it is our current
system that will soon prove itself to be
unworkable without this change. It is on
automatic pilot, programmed with
eighteenth-century assumptions about the nature
of human beings and what is needed in the world.
It directs us to keep our heads down, to stay in
denial about our collective situation, while it
drives us toward a world we didn't choose and
that is unsustainable. The Wisdom Council offers
a way for us to call "time out," to come together
as We the People, and to take charge of our
destiny. The potential benefits are immense and
the risk is low. I hope you will investigate
further and experiment with this proposal.
Draft written for "The Good Society,"
a journal of PEGS, Committee on the Political Economy of the Good
Society
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/pegs/
A good system of governance needs to work for
both individuals and society as a whole. In the
eighteenth century the old forms of governance
headed by a king and hereditary aristocracy were
not working to the benefit of most people, and a
new system was needed. Through what we now call
the "U.S. Constitutional Convention," "We the
People" of the former colonies transformed
themselves from the rule of inherited privilege
to the rule of law. This transformation affected
governance, economics, and all aspects of life,
creating a new version of the "Good Society."
Today, that newer system is having problems, both
for us collectively and for us as individuals.
Another fundamental change is needed.
This article suggests how "We the People" might
transform ourselves once again, using a seemingly
innocuous U.S. Constitutional amendment. This
amendment borrows from the strategy of the
founders to facilitate all of us to become "We
the People" and to manage our system.
The Problem
Currently, our constitutional, rule of law,
majority-voting, free market system is on
automatic pilot managing both itself and us.
Because the system is based on competition, it
encourages each of us to maximize our own
"special interest," while the "general interest"
takes care of itself. When people were
independent farmers, fishers, and craftspeople on
a seemingly infinite planet, this self-oriented
approach automatically served the general
interest. It was a win/win game, where healthy
competition made things better for everyone.
But as we confront the limits of planetary
resources, as technology and trade link us
together, and as transnational corporations hold
sway, we are becoming more interdependent than
independent. Competition within an interdependent
whole does not serve the general interest. It's
more like the heart and lungs competing for blood
within one body. The body can't survive that way.
Consider one element within our system, a
hypothetical defense contractor. It competes for
money against other possible uses of tax dollars,
like education, protecting the environment, or
public health. With deeper pockets than its
competition, it can hire many lobbyists and make
large political donations to spread a message of
fear, emphasizing real and imaginary dangers. It
garners a big part of the budget in this country
and then sells its products to whichever client
can pay, whether or not they are a risk to our
country. The primary aim of this industry isn't
to maximize national security, but to grow the
market for its products.
By design, all companies aim more primarily for
profits than for citizen well being or a healthy
environment, or other human values. But this
design was made for a time when none of us was
powerful enough to manipulate the demand or
supply of labor or resources, ruin the commons,
or manipulate government to serve our ends. With
the shift from being independent to being
interdependent, the competitive stance of our
system now undermines local communities,
increases long-term health problems, exacerbates
global warming, promotes inequities of wealth,
risks war, crime and terrorism, and limits
individual freedoms.
To earn a living today, even if you work for
yourself, you must direct your attention, energy
and talents to serving a special interest. Those
who ignore this imperative and seek to serve
humanity directly, like to help preserve the
commons, will struggle financially.
Even our thinking process is affected by this
competition. Our political system doesn't
recognize the possibility of a "general-interest"
viewpoint, but enforces special interest
battling. Those who try to enact legislation in
the public interest, like most environmentalists,
must pretend they are a special-interest group,
and compete against well-organized, well-funded
groups who really do serve special interests.
Also, because of our competitive mind-frame, we
don't look too deeply at problems. Like someone
in an argument, rather than searching out the
underlying causes, we blame individuals like
"greedy" CEO's, "lazy" welfare recipients,
"bureaucratic" civil servants, "corrupt"
politicians, or "apathetic" citizens. We look to
non-systemic answers like better education,
active citizen involvement, better leaders, more
volunteerism, small group dialogues, fairer laws,
etc. These are vital, but for real change to
happen, we must take charge of our system.
Many people think human nature is a problem. They
imagine people to be naturally competitive and
unable to reach consensus in large groups. The
structure of our system makes it seem this way.
I've asked many people, for example, "Which set
of values should have priority in society:
Corporate values or human values?" I think
everyone has already reached consensus on
this-human values should predominate. But since
our system is in control of society, it directs
us to enact the opposite. Our job is to keep our
heads down, to serve corporate interests, and to
be in denial about what is happening in the big
picture.
"We the People" Are the Solution
How do we take charge of our system so that it
works for individuals, for all of us, for other
species, and for future generations? Key is that
we need to become "We the People." We need to
call "time out" from the system, convene everyone
together, face the big issues, dialogue
creatively, develop new options, and reach
consensus on a shared vision. If we can do this,
many of society's problems would just go away.
Accomplishing this is not as difficult as it
might seem. Once we escape from the
all-encompassing competitive stance imposed by
our system, and we are facilitated to hold a
general-interest conversation, we will find that
people are naturally attuned to this. Adding the
following "Citizens Amendment" to the U.S.
Constitution, would make the necessary change:
Each year, a lottery selects twenty-four
registered voters to form a "Wisdom
Council." This Wisdom Council is a symbol
and proxy for all the people of the United
States. It meets for up to one week to
choose issues, talk about them, and create
unanimous statements. A meeting facilitator
assures a creative, collaborative process.
At the end of the week, the Wisdom Council
presents its "Statements of the People"
to the nation in a new ceremony, like a State
of the Union message. The Wisdom Council
will then disband permanently and the next
year a new Wisdom Council will be randomly
selected.
Before considering how this Amendment would
establish an inclusive and wise "We the People,"
and how it would benefit society, notice that it
poses little risk. Congress, the Supreme Court,
laws, the media, government programs, elections,
lobbyists, and all the other elements of our
system remain unchanged. It makes no change to
our economic system either. Corporations, the
markets and the distribution of wealth are
untouched. The Citizens Amendment simply adds a
succession of different small groups that meet,
make statements, and disband. These groups have
no power of coercion, and there is little cost.
Policy continues to be set in the normal way,
through experts and elected representatives.
Transformational Conversation
Key to understanding how the Wisdom Council would
transform society is to recognize the
transformational quality of talking and thinking
it engenders, both within the Wisdom Council and
among the larger population.
I call it "choice-creating" rather than
"decision-making" because people seek progress
through breakthroughs more than through logic.
With choice-creating, diverse passionate voices
are assets rather than liabilities because they
make breakthroughs more likely. Just from talking
in this way, people change their minds and how
they feel, and they build a sense of community.
The best way for any group to reach consensus on
a difficult issue is for them to have a
breakthrough. Then consensus happens quickly,
individual views are respected, and all are
motivated to help implement the result. Debate
and deliberation, the ideals of our founders,
mute this possibility. These modes are oriented
toward critical thinking and winning the
competition, instead of creative thinking and
seeking what is best for all. Even
"consensus-building," where people are expected
to suppress their own individuality for the
benefit of the group, mutes the possibility for
breakthroughs.
The Wisdom Council is structured for choice-creating in a number of
ways.
* It is a "time out" from the usual political conversation.
* It is a diverse group of ordinary people who speak only for
themselves.
* The group must reach unanimity.
* The group has been symbolically anointed to speak as "We the People.
* And the group is aided by a facilitator-
hopefully, one who uses "Dynamic Facilitation."
Dynamic Facilitation (DF) is a new social
invention oriented to helping groups achieve
choice-creating. [1]
Tom Atlee, the author of "The Tao of Democracy:
Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World That
Works for All" (www.taoofdemocracy.com) says,
"Part of why I love Dynamic Facilitation so much
is that it works with people AS THEY ARE. It
doesn't require that they buy into a set of rules
about how they're going to talk together. They
can be [jerks[ and the facilitator makes sure (a)
that they don't get shut down because of that,
(b) that the people they target -- and the group
as a whole -- continue to feel safe and (c) that
whatever gift they bring gets heard and made
available to the group mind. This alone makes DF
incredibly useful in a pluralistic democracy. Add
to that its power to metabolize conflict into
useful insights and to engender co-creativity
among diverse people, and it's a real
treasure."[2]
The Wisdom Council Can Transform Society
At first glance, a Wisdom Council doesn't seem
like it would do very much. "OK, so the group
determines a unanimous conclusion and presents
it, then what?" The Wisdom Council would identify
a general-interest viewpoint, express it in a
powerful new way and enable all-of-us-together to
have more influence over legislation.
But this is only a minor influence. It would also
educate people about the important issues,
involve more citizens in current affairs, include
minority voices and those who are currently
underrepresented, help overcome the dominance of
corporate controlled media, raise the important
issues and put them on the national agenda, and
raise the quality of the political conversation.
One big impact of the Amendment would be in how
it opens the door to a transformation of how we
make collective decisions. Consider, for example,
what it would mean to have a legitimate,
thoughtful voice of an inclusive "We the People."
This would approximate a true democracy. For
example, as the Wisdom Council process continues,
the Supreme Court [might] build trust in the
dynamic views of "We the People" today. At some
point they [might well] hold those views to be a
more relevant standard for their judgements than
the static positions taken by "We the People" of
the eighteenth century.
Currently, we do not make collective decisions in
a thoughtful way. Special interests buy the
media, politicians, and expert voices to defeat
legislation that is in the public interest.
"Sound bites" generated by highly paid public
relations firms make bad proposals sound good,
and good ones sound costly, bureaucratic, or
stupid. But a Wisdom Council can help all of us
to examine, understand, and appreciate the
underlying issues more deeply, and build the
political will for thoughtful actions.
With the Amendment in place, you and I will
participate in creating a shared vision of what
all people want. To have such a vision is a shift
in leadership style from our current reactive
mode, stopping bad things from happening, to a
pro-active mode, helping good things to happen. A
visionary leadership style requires fewer laws.
It would transform government efficiency, how the
media reports the news, and how individuals
contribute to society.
The Wisdom Council promises to shift the basis of
society from competition for scarce resources,
like a scarcity of jobs, toward cooperation to
enhance our shared abundance. In my community,
for instance, there are limited jobs for teachers
in the local school and the schools are cutting
back because of lack of funds. Yet at the same
time, there are many people who may or may not
have teaching credentials, who would dearly love
to teach kids. Our present system impoverishes
individuals and society alike by keeping this
pressing need and these vital human resources
apart. With a Wisdom Council in place, common
sense can reassert itself over the dictates of
the system.
To enact the Citizens Amendment is to open the
door to a transformation of our selves, as well.
For instance, it would help us break out of our
collective denial about the big problems we face
and our feelings of powerlessness over them. It
provides a way for all of us to become creative
and empowered in serving others and life on this
planet.
An Example from History
The best example of how the Wisdom Council can
transform our society today is how something like
it initiated a world-transformation during the
years 1787-1791. The delegates to the U.S.
Constitutional Convention didn't think of
themselves as "We the People." Most believed in
the benefits of having an aristocracy and were
fearful of democracy. They didn't include slaves,
women, Native Americans, or those who had no
property in their design for governance. But
despite these non-democratic tendencies, the
founders described the U.S. Constitution as
having been written by "We the People."
This phrasing was not what they wanted to say. To
them, it was really the states that were
ordaining and establishing this Constitution. But
since the Convention had already decided that the
Constitution would go into effect after
ratification by nine of the thirteen states, and
no one knew which states would adopt it, the
document couldn't start with a list of states.
"We the People" was a grammatically convenient
phrase.
Besides representing itself as speaking for We
the People, the U.S. Constitutional Convention
was like a constitutionally anointed Wisdom
Council in many ways. It was a small group of
people who took "time out" from the normal course
of events for a high-visibility meeting. It
addressed the big issues of the day, established
a higher than normal quality of conversation,
sought consensus rather than a majority, issued a
near-unanimous proposal and then disbanded. The
final document was signed by 39 out of 42 present.
One might ask about the Constitutional
Convention, as people often do about the Wisdom
Council, "How could there be any real change
without follow-up?" It just presented its
conclusion and disbanded. Action happened because
its conclusions sparked a widespread conversation
throughout the land and initiated a
self-organizing dynamic of change. It was from
this larger conversation that the Constitution
was implemented and the Bill of Rights was added.
The whole process took only one Wisdom
Council-like meeting, plus four and a half years
of talking and thinking. In the end, "We the
People" really did "ordain and establish" the new
system.
The Citizens Amendment would establish annual
symbolic meetings of "We the People." Those
selected for Wisdom Councils would be given more
power to affect change than were the original
founders. These citizens are anointed by the U.S.
Constitution to speak for "We the People." They
are not beholden to various states or
constituencies, but can speak their minds and
hearts freely. They are not limited in what they
can talk about or recommend, but can pick any
issue, and frame it in their own way. In fact,
they need not even propose an answer. They can
just describe a problem and ask their fellow
citizens to solve it. They have the advantage of
a facilitator, the mass media and the Internet to
generate citizen resonance.
Plus, these "constitutional conventions" are not
just one-time phenomena. They are ongoing.
You and I were born into a system that we didn't
design. Nor did we have the chance to critically
examine and approve it before we came under its
control. We say that we live in a democracy
because we live in a rule-of-law system, we have
a large measure of freedom, and we vote for
elected representatives to make the laws.
Although this may be the best system on earth,
without us choosing it, it is not a democracy.
Thomas Jefferson pointed this out in a letter he
wrote to his friend, James Madison. From the
actuarial tables of his time, he had calculated
that a majority of any given generation would be
dead after about nineteen years. With this
statistic in mind, he wrote: "It may be proved
that no society can make a perpetual
constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth
belongs always to the living generation. . . .
Every constitution, then, and every law naturally
expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced
longer, it is an act of force and not of
right."[3]
Going Forward
The Wisdom Council is a new concept that needs
testing. Schools, unions, towns, cities,
counties, states, nations and all large systems
that seek democratic governance can use it.
Consultant, Nancy Rosanoff, established one
Wisdom Council experiment in Pleasantville, NY.
Nine citizens were randomly selected with the
blessing of the Town Trustees. They met for eight
hours-four hours on each of a Saturday and
Sunday. They were dynamically facilitated to
achieve unanimity. In the last half-hour, they
made a presentation to the Town Trustees. A quick
summary of their unanimous conclusions
illustrates how creative and thoughtful such a
group can be:
Theme: We need to have more pride in
Pleasantville. We can't just be a bedroom
community but need to be a real community.
There were three subheadings:
1) We need to set up a community infrastructure
to separate New York City commuter parking from
downtown parking and to redirect traffic. (They
had a design for how to do it and how to pay for
it.)
2) We need to create community spirit by
establishing a real center to the town. (The
group suggested using awnings, landscaping and
lighting, and an ongoing committee to encourage
more diverse kinds of downtown businesses.)
3) Youth should be a priority. (The group
identified an abandoned building that should be
an activity center and described ideas for its
funding. They proposed a weekend bus for youth
activities.)
So far this experiment is missing crucial pieces
that create a "We the People." The people of
Pleasantville should enact the Wisdom Council
through a citizens' initiative. The random
selection should be done in a public ceremony,
everyone in town should be invited to a
large-scale presentation of the results, and
there should be organized opportunities for
people to dialogue about the ideas and add their
views. A more complete experiment is planned for
Ashland, OR in the fall of 2003. [4] [This has
now been successfully held. - Tom Atlee] A
non-profit organization, the Center for Wise
Democratic Processes has been formed to help
communities organize Wisdom Councils.[5]
There is interest from a TV producer in a Wisdom
Council experiment for national television. One
way this might happen is to randomly select
sixteen people each quarter to meet for three
days and to have them present their unanimous
findings to a live local and national audience.
Viewers would be encouraged to watch the show
with friends or in churches and community
centers, and to comment on the results through
the Web. This allows people to experience the
Wisdom Council process and to start building a
general-interest perspective. If the timing is
right, this TV show can help establish a
"people's agenda" for the Presidential debates
and the next election.
A common response of many people when they first
hear about the Citizens Amendment is to dismiss
the concept as unworkable. But it is our current
system that will soon prove itself to be
unworkable without this change. It is on
automatic pilot, programmed with
eighteenth-century assumptions about the nature
of human beings and what is needed in the world.
It directs us to keep our heads down, to stay in
denial about our collective situation, while it
drives us toward a world we didn't choose and
that is unsustainable. The Wisdom Council offers
a way for us to call "time out," to come together
as We the People, and to take charge of our
destiny. The potential benefits are immense and
the risk is low. I hope you will investigate
further and experiment with this proposal.
America's Abu Ghraibs
May 31, 2004
By BOB HERBERT
Most Americans were shocked by the sadistic treatment of
Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison. But we shouldn't
have been. Not only are inmates at prisons in the U.S. frequently
subjected
to similarly grotesque treatment, but Congress passed a law in 1996 to
ensure that in most cases they were barred from receiving any financial
compensation for the abuse.
We routinely treat prisoners in the United States like
animals. We brutalize and degrade them, both men and women.
And we have a lousy record when it comes to protecting well-behaved,
weak
and mentally ill prisoners from the predators surrounding them.
Very few Americans have raised their voices in opposition
to our shameful prison policies. And I'm convinced that's primarily
because
the inmates are viewed as less than human.
Stephen Bright, director of the Southern Center for Human Rights,
represented several prisoners in Georgia who sought compensation in the
late-1990's for treatment that was remarkably similar to the abuses at
Abu
Ghraib. An undertaker named Wayne Garner was in charge of the prison
system
at the time, having been appointed in 1995 by the governor, Zell
Miller, who
is now a U.S. senator.
Mr. Garner considered himself a tough guy. In a federal
lawsuit brought on behalf of the prisoners by the center,
he was quoted as saying that while there were some inmates
who "truly want to do better . . . there's another 30 to 35
per cent that ain't fit to kill. And I'm going to be there
to accommodate them."
On Oct. 23, 1996, officers from the Tactical Squad of the Georgia
Department
of Corrections raided the inmates' living quarters at Dooly State
Prison, a
medium-security facility in Unadilla, Ga. This was part of a series of
brutal shakedowns at prisons around the state that were designed to
show the
prisoners that a new and tougher regime was in charge.
What followed, according to the lawsuit, was simply sick. Officers
opened
cell doors and ordered the inmates, all males, to run outside and
strip.
With female prison staff members looking on, and at times laughing,
several
inmates were subjected to extensive and wholly unnecessary body cavity
searches. The inmates were ordered to lift their genitals, to squat, to
bend
over and display themselves, etc.
One inmate who was suspected of being gay was told that if
he ever said anything about the way he was being treated,
he would be locked up and beaten until he wouldn't "want to
be gay anymore." An officer who was staring at another
naked inmate said, "I bet you can tap dance." The inmate
was forced to dance, and then had his body cavities
searched.
An inmate in a dormitory identified as J-2 was slapped in
the face and ordered to bend over and show himself to his cellmate. The
raiding party apparently found that to be hilarious.
According to the lawsuit, Mr. Garner himself, the commissioner of the
Department of Corrections, was present at the Dooly Prison raid.
None of the prisoners named in the lawsuit were accused of
any improper behavior during the course of the raid. The suit
charged that the inmates' constitutional rights had been violated
and sought compensation for the pain, suffering, humiliation and
degradation they had been subjected to.
Fat chance.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act, designed in part to limit "frivolous"
lawsuits by inmates, was passed by Congress and signed into law by Bill
Clinton in 1996. It specifically prohibits the awarding of financial
compensation to prisoners "for mental or emotional injury while in
custody
without a prior showing of physical injury."
Without any evidence that they had been seriously physically
harmed, the inmates in the Georgia case were out of luck.
The courts ruled against them.
This is the policy of the United States of America.
Said Mr. Bright: "Today we are talking about compensating prisoners in
Iraq
for degrading treatment, as of course we should. But we do not allow
compensation for prisoners in the United States who suffer the same
kind of
degradation and humiliation."
The message with regard to the treatment of prisoners in the U.S.
has been clear for years: Treat them any way you'd like. They're
just animals.
The treatment of the detainees in Iraq was far from an aberration.
They, too, were treated like animals, which was simply a logical
extension of the way we treat prisoners here at home.
---
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
By BOB HERBERT
Most Americans were shocked by the sadistic treatment of
Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison. But we shouldn't
have been. Not only are inmates at prisons in the U.S. frequently
subjected
to similarly grotesque treatment, but Congress passed a law in 1996 to
ensure that in most cases they were barred from receiving any financial
compensation for the abuse.
We routinely treat prisoners in the United States like
animals. We brutalize and degrade them, both men and women.
And we have a lousy record when it comes to protecting well-behaved,
weak
and mentally ill prisoners from the predators surrounding them.
Very few Americans have raised their voices in opposition
to our shameful prison policies. And I'm convinced that's primarily
because
the inmates are viewed as less than human.
Stephen Bright, director of the Southern Center for Human Rights,
represented several prisoners in Georgia who sought compensation in the
late-1990's for treatment that was remarkably similar to the abuses at
Abu
Ghraib. An undertaker named Wayne Garner was in charge of the prison
system
at the time, having been appointed in 1995 by the governor, Zell
Miller, who
is now a U.S. senator.
Mr. Garner considered himself a tough guy. In a federal
lawsuit brought on behalf of the prisoners by the center,
he was quoted as saying that while there were some inmates
who "truly want to do better . . . there's another 30 to 35
per cent that ain't fit to kill. And I'm going to be there
to accommodate them."
On Oct. 23, 1996, officers from the Tactical Squad of the Georgia
Department
of Corrections raided the inmates' living quarters at Dooly State
Prison, a
medium-security facility in Unadilla, Ga. This was part of a series of
brutal shakedowns at prisons around the state that were designed to
show the
prisoners that a new and tougher regime was in charge.
What followed, according to the lawsuit, was simply sick. Officers
opened
cell doors and ordered the inmates, all males, to run outside and
strip.
With female prison staff members looking on, and at times laughing,
several
inmates were subjected to extensive and wholly unnecessary body cavity
searches. The inmates were ordered to lift their genitals, to squat, to
bend
over and display themselves, etc.
One inmate who was suspected of being gay was told that if
he ever said anything about the way he was being treated,
he would be locked up and beaten until he wouldn't "want to
be gay anymore." An officer who was staring at another
naked inmate said, "I bet you can tap dance." The inmate
was forced to dance, and then had his body cavities
searched.
An inmate in a dormitory identified as J-2 was slapped in
the face and ordered to bend over and show himself to his cellmate. The
raiding party apparently found that to be hilarious.
According to the lawsuit, Mr. Garner himself, the commissioner of the
Department of Corrections, was present at the Dooly Prison raid.
None of the prisoners named in the lawsuit were accused of
any improper behavior during the course of the raid. The suit
charged that the inmates' constitutional rights had been violated
and sought compensation for the pain, suffering, humiliation and
degradation they had been subjected to.
Fat chance.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act, designed in part to limit "frivolous"
lawsuits by inmates, was passed by Congress and signed into law by Bill
Clinton in 1996. It specifically prohibits the awarding of financial
compensation to prisoners "for mental or emotional injury while in
custody
without a prior showing of physical injury."
Without any evidence that they had been seriously physically
harmed, the inmates in the Georgia case were out of luck.
The courts ruled against them.
This is the policy of the United States of America.
Said Mr. Bright: "Today we are talking about compensating prisoners in
Iraq
for degrading treatment, as of course we should. But we do not allow
compensation for prisoners in the United States who suffer the same
kind of
degradation and humiliation."
The message with regard to the treatment of prisoners in the U.S.
has been clear for years: Treat them any way you'd like. They're
just animals.
The treatment of the detainees in Iraq was far from an aberration.
They, too, were treated like animals, which was simply a logical
extension of the way we treat prisoners here at home.
---
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
