Archive for the ‘tyranny’ Category
Could be. That would be what we would all like to happen each time we made a decision. It would be nice to be done with it – that little extra weight gain, that little financial loss, that persistent patch of weeds in our lawn, or that inconsistent politician that claimed to be a statesman. If only that was the last time we had to deal with them we could get on with business and then hurry off on our vacation….. STOP !!
You overlooked something and there is an emergency meeting that your boss (or wife or Congress) just called to sort out why it didn’t work as you intended. That is not just the problem – it is also the solution. But in our stressed minds and fault-finding attitudes we often overlook that the “media is the message”. If you get it, stop. If not I’ll explain.
“You overlooked something and there is an emergency meeting and you now need to sort it out to see why it didn’t work as you intended”. That’s all. And that is the message and the process and the answer. All you need are the right questions – to get to that answer. With the right questions you can get past the blame-game and win the real prize. You can get past the guesswork and get to the real work. You can get off your “But” of reluctance and past the restraints of “Because” and onto the critical path that is hidden just behind the “overgrowth” of root cause (like those weeds that keep showing up in our lawn).
So what’s the best question? (that one of course). “Because” until we ask the right questions the real issue will remain just out of sight – hidden in the details – that are only known by someone that we overlooked because they aren’t in charge, they are just impacted (again).
“But” we had such good intentions(?). Good. “But” that is not good enough – for you or for me or for us – and somehow (“Because” of you) we are now all in this together..
and that’s life.
The challenge (and opportunity), which is ongoing, is to manage the results of our latest decision. So the only way we can do that is to use an approach that takes what we know (or should have learned), compares that to where we want(ed) to go instead, determines why we are where we are instead of where we want(ed) to be, and how we can get there (instead). That process now becomes our “life” and makes our life better – and better -and better.
I don’t have to convince you to do that. You and I (and everyone else) want something better. Unless we are completely selfish we also want that for others so long as our portion is still equitable. We want to be equitably rewarded according to our effort (not according to the entitlement schedule imposed by some imposing authority that re-distributes what we should have received). Absent that equitable system we resort to getting ours first – making the result of our last decision worse and worse and worse – for everyone.
The result of that (selfish) approach starts to look a lot like the outcomes of the United Nations – well intentioned and overgrown with inequality. It starts to look like the failed corporations whose leaders took a disproportionate share of our efforts. It starts to look like politics, overgrown with special favors – taken from our taxes and then redistributed (under the guise of “equal” rights) to others who voted to support that “selfish” system. It starts to look like the broken families where love was not understood, or shared, or received. It starts to look a lot like our job, our government, our world. It all starts to look too familiar.
And that’s LIFE… unless we change something…
We (each) must change the way we continuously change our minds – about the results of our latest decision. We (all) must change the way we continuously manage the ongoing change that can make our lives better and better – by cooperatively managing the results of OUR latest decisions.
How can we do that ? – I thought you’d never ASK…
“You overlooked something and now you need to step back ONLY one decision
and sort it out to see why it didn’t work as you intended”.
That’s all you and I and we have to do, globally!
Tomorrow is the first day of the rest of your life –
unless you want to get started early – today.
Let us know what part you want to enjoy – with us!!
NOTE: While this website is my personal initiative, the ASK4™ approach is aparticipant-managed collaboration platform and the U-Netted Nations™ is the result of our ‘Collaboration On Purpose’. My voice becomes one in a million – immediately.
Written by gsbigger
August 16, 2010 at 7:26 am
Posted in accountability, bailout, co-creation, collaboration, Congress, crowdsourcing, design thinking, Distributed innovation platforms, election, Global Redesign Initiative, Idea platform, innovation, politics, Prediction markets, Process Improvement, social capital, social collaboration, social media, social networking, transparency, tyranny, voting
Just when the cold war finally ended and we felt somewhat secure, things started to heat up again. The internet now echoes or amplifies our insecurity around the world in a matter of seconds, affecting everyone within global earshot.
The mechanics of that web are also changing from 1.0 to 2.0 to 3.0 and beyond. “We’re moving from documents to data, from pages to triples, from HTML to RDF, from keyword to context.”
Our new means of communication has now made everything more relevant to everyone else – everywhere – and instantly.
For us to be able to turn all that relevance into something other than chaos, a consistent frame of reference must be established through which any issue can be viewed and analyzed by anyone, anywhere. Within that frame of reference, the constructs of the data that is being processed must also be normalized to its lowest structural elements so that it can be aggregated, filtered, and then disbursed to any interested participant or impacted party, across a global scale.
Simplification must come first in order to enable a subsequent expansion of scale. A primary example of that basic data structure is RDF – at the core of all things web:
RDF is a W3C standard for modeling and sharing distributed knowledge based on a decentralized open-world assumption. Any knowledge about anything can be decomposed into triples (3-tuples) consisting of subject, predicate, and object; essentially, RDF is the lowest common denominator for exchanging data between systems.
Beyond each basic web principle are the more complex technical functions that are being added daily to increase the benefits of improved information and to expand the community of knowledge users. I certainly am unqualified to build in or on that current technology. My limited coding ability now qualifies for the museum of almost forgotten computer languages.
But I would offer a reflection from past data management principles, and a minimalist structure for this new “frame of relevance“. It is also a simple ‘triple ‘, and while perhaps not worthy of a patent, it is patently obvious and will be useful to frame our ongoing discussions within the capacity afforded by the layer upon layer of new technology. Perhaps such a concept can be thought of as:
“Semantics 001” – for modeling and sharing distributed RELEVANCE based on a decentralized open-world viewpoint, wherein any SITUATION can be decomposed into triples, essentially the lowest common denominator for exchanging IDEAS between HUMANS so they discover the mutual benefits of sustainable solutions.
What if any situation we face could be considered through this logical lens and then processed through its objective framework (aka “ASK4”)?. What if we could each have equitable representation in its discourse and equitable remuneration from its results? Who would not want to be a part of that “syndication” of knowledge? Who would not want to enjoy the “interoperability” of true cooperation ?
One simple way to frame our issues and create new shared opportunity is that we must:
- first examine what we HAVE (documents/information)
- then compare that against what we WANT (meaning/insight)
- and discover what we all truly NEED (relevance/sustainability)
As we move from the web of words (documents) to the web of meaning (relevance), the structure of information has also evolved to first become normalized toward each new structure and then become consistently conformed to that new structure. That evolution is expected and necessary for us to benefit from what each revision of technology has to offer and what we all desire as the eventual outcome. Unless we also amend to each new version, we would have no added capacity to move toward interpolation (between diverse languages and contexts) and toward needed interoperability (the cooperative results of our convergent collaboration).
The mechanics of our evolution toward this desired technical interoperability may offer a parallel insight into the human interaction layer that gets represented across this expanded neural network. We may have finally arrived at the threshold to a quantum leap in our ability to make sense of so much nonsense. Perhaps we can finally gain the mutual benefits so long desired by all humanity, but scarcely realized – until now.
If and when and however we get the technology to work for us, we must also all find a way to work in it, to our mutual benefit. That will only occur if we are able to:
- honestly complain about what we individually don’t want (or already have)
- have the equitable representation of our individual desires (what we really want)
- objectively and cooperatively discover sustainable solutions (what we truly need)
so that we can consistently enjoy a win-win result.
Unless this new technology gives us the democratic access to expression and equitable access to benefits, it will have done us all a great dis-service. Unless we can use it to converge toward consensus, we will certainly digress toward insecurity, separatism, and even more conflict.
So as we layer in the operating elements of this new technology stack, perhaps our first layer of context will reflect that socially-important “triple” (have-want-need) so that our search for solutions is always relevant personally and equally relevant to other seekers (globally).
Not only is the democratization of information important,
but so is the information of democracy.
The right of free speech, our representative shared governance,
and a sustainable peace are also at stake.
Perhaps the technology has finally evolved to the point that we can co-manage our path forward toward mutual success instead of abandoning the weakest of our human efforts as if our own accidental survival were a reason for independent celebration.
Perhaps our ability to reason has enabled us to create a reasoning technology by which we all can finally interact reasonably – cooperatively – and globally.
What’s NEXT – with YOU? – care to comment?
– dare to COOPERATE?
Let us know what part you want …to enjoy – with us!!
I’ve entered this article in Blogging Innovation’s October Innovation Contest – To show your support for this article, please follow the link and add a comment.NOTE: While this website is my personal initiative, the ASK4™ approach is a participant-managed collaboration platform and the U-Netted Nations™ is the result of our ‘Collaboration On Purpose’. My voice becomes one in a million – immediately.
Written by gsbigger
October 17, 2009 at 12:16 am
Once upon a time, a long time ago, some forward-thinking person suggested the ‘suggestion box’.
It was adopted in some situations, affording numerous participants an equitable representation in the shared experience, the open collaboration process, and the mutual success of their renewed efforts.
Too often, when it uncovered evidence of any malfeasance, the submitted info was misused to identify those who disagreed with upper level leaders (who then sometimes chose to suppress those voices, or render sanctions, or enact other ‘ruler-ship’ injustice against them).
We’ve come a long way since then, or have we..?
How is the suggestion box working in your company?
How is it working with your ‘congress’, or country?
Is your leadership the core team for helping to uncover issues and then roll out continuous improvements? Are they encouraging embedded innovation or encouraging you to just ‘get in bed’ with their own views, and quietly go along for the ride?
Sadly, leaders can forget the lessons and the benefits of shared responsibility. And in some companies (even countries), some watch hopelessly as leaders forget that the suggestion box (or ballot box) is meant to provide equitable representation and define equitable remuneration for everyone.
If I work for a company that doesn’t have a suggestion box, I may also have no voice. If the suggestion box is monitored for ‘malcontents’, I may not have equitable representation. If I join a group, the beliefs/politics of that group may not represent my opinions or interests. If I want to express my opinion in that circumstance, some steward or ‘boss’ might influence some of my future personal benefits, or even current success. If I accept any group benefits (or ‘bailout’ money), I may find that my rights to express divergent opinions are ‘discouraged’, just like they are for those whose suffer lack of freedom under a dictator in some foreign country.
In governance circles the concept is referred to as freedom of speech, uncommon in many countries and paid for by the sacrifice of patriot lives if it is to prevail. Where other citizens desire that same freedom, some patriots have been willing to risk their lives on those foreign shores to confront those tyrants who usurp or even deny those God-given freedoms to others.
In companies, what we are now calling “embedded innovation” is the way we try to make life better BY everyone – FOR everyone. “Win-Win” is not a new or novel concept. It IS however now empowered by a transparency and accountability ‘engine’ that can be engaged to transmit power to and from all stakeholders.
Perhaps it is long past time to re-invent the suggestion box, again. Perhaps it should never have been taken out of gear, or abandoned. Perhaps it will be hard to re-engage the ‘right’ to contribute, collaborate, converge consensus, and launch mutually-beneficial initiatives. Perhaps those who influenced the universities, that created the graduates, that now run the companies, that answer to the groups and vested interest parties are already exerting more than an equitable share of control. Perhaps it is already too late…
Perhaps that would be true if it weren’t for one thing – our global suggestion box (the web).
Now at the speed of sound, if someone violates the rights of others it is noted and posted and re-tweeted around the globe, instantly. Even those bystanders that aren’t directly impacted can recognize and respond and even contribute to events that occur outside of their own normal circles of influence. There is a certain poetic justice to that – and that justice is swift and sure.
Company stocks can fall instantly based on the real-time perception of the watching world. Bridges to no-where and airports for the privileged few become beacons of hypocrisy. The inequitable ’empowerment’ of some nutty group to organize and assist other citizens in law breaking becomes the reason they can just as quickly be disconnected from prior rank and privilege, even when they were formerly approved by connections to the ‘big man himself”.
So, the question is NOT:
whether (or not) to have a suggestion box or some form of participation
– or similar form of shared governance (and political process)
Rather, the question IS:
how to implement an embedded innovation process
– as soon and as effectively as possible.
- What are the RISKS: egos and tyranny
- What are the REWARDS: success and freedom
- Who CARES: We’ll See..! (and they’ll all see too)
What’s about YOU?
– care to comment?
– dare to COOPERATE?
Learn from the PAST – Adapt to the PRESENT – Envision the FUTURE
That is what happens in every generation – with or without any real progress – until the “next” generation posts its manifesto of wanted change on the wall of history. The real change that has occurred is that pundits are posting those ‘mandates’ in real time, 24,7.
You can now search the web and find an unlimited supply of “now-new” ideas and good intentions and upstart initiatives that want to create that change. They all want to enroll us in their vision of the future, cleaning up from the past, and stepping into their global change effort. Many even have a plan and a time-line. They are empowered to publish, connected to converse, and positioned to compete. “But” what they don’t have is a ‘clearinghouse’ or coordination, “because” they are not yet interoperable or cooperative.
- How have we so ‘successfully’ re-created digital stove-pipes, globally?
- What is the carbon footprint of all that duplication of those environmental and ‘reductionists’ efforts – why are there so many efficiency initiatives ?
- Why is our process still broken – and why do our results mirror only repeated frustration?
“Because” we have not entirely learned from the past or adapted the tools of the present, we may NOT be creating the future we envision or desire – or so critically need to even survive.
Worse yet, we may be rushing to re-create the very same things that we want to escape from our past, just like countless generations before us. Our abhorrence of the past entices us to create the possibility of the future without regard for the limits of the present circumstance that we may then inadvertently re-create. The agreed urgency to change from the past can ensnare those who react to the emotion of the present to avoid the prediction of pending doom in the near future. We are willing to give (present) credit to those who hope to reduce the footprint of our errors, even if what they do may be found to actually be worse in total impact (future). Nobel prizes may await those pundits who can manifest the best version of this questionable call-to-action formula, literally!
But when is all is said and done, there is just a lot more said… and little if any done that creates sustainable change. Worse yet it can trumpet those bad ideas from one-to-one-millions to speed their acceptance and then aggregate those errors for deployment across the communities represented in all those threaded discussions. Our hope in a new promise enrolls us in a well-intentioned vote. B_u_t “politics as usual” soon surfaces b_e_c_a_u_s_e our ‘new’ process does not transparently identify and then accountability exclude our past mistakes. So many good intentions, so little to show for it, so sad.
If we want change so badly:
- why do we make wrong choices
- why do we passively accept status quo
- why don’t we define meaningful improvements
- why don’t we implement truly sustainable solutions
Here is a basic truth – we individually and collectively do it “because”. We hang on to some element of erroneous belief that passes for an excuse (our individual and group-think rationale for irrational behavior). The emperor’s new clothes are always a poor fashion statement – the audacity of transparent hypocrisy is always unbecoming, just “‘because”…
So if we are to escape the bounds of our self-imposed gravity, the first step for man – on behalf of all mankind, is to get off our “BUTS” (those bastions of defensive opinions) and trade in our effort-guzzling clunker-thinking rationale (“because”) for the logical and objective results of root cause analysis.
We must first integrate and then cooperate in
- finding collective insight (from PAST lessons)
- coming to collective consensus (about the PRESENT)
- coordinating collective actions so we can minimize the effort in
- creating sustainable outcomes (for our mutually-beneficial FUTURE).
And one more thing, we will all have to be actively engaged in the equitable representation of that self-governed process in order to enjoy an equitable remuneration share of its co-operative innovation economy. “WE the PEOPLE” is about “OUR government” –
“BUT”, until “we” get to the root cause,
“we” may just suffer more of the same old stuff,
generations to come – “Because”…
What’s NEXT with YOU – care to comment…?– dare to COOPERATE?NOTE: While this website is my personal initiative, the ASK4™ approach is a participant-managed collaboration platform and the U-Netted Nations™ is the result of our ‘Collaboration On Purpose’. My voice becomes one in a million – immediately.
Where are we now – where are we going – how can we get there?
Few would argue that this equation defines our circumstance, echoes our desires, and determines our destination (and results). We are reminded by the wise that: “If we don’t know where we are going – we could end up somewhere else” – “If we can’t say what we want – don’t be surprised by what we get” – and numerous other truisms.
Now imagine that these concepts were not ‘true’, or known, or were not heeded. We would have folks taking off in the wrong directions, making the wrong turns along the way, and ending up facing the wrong way on one-way streets by repeating the errors of prior travelers.
We would probably be seeing
exactly what we ARE seeing, everywhere, everyday.
Are we there yet? – YES! Is that where we thought we were headed? – NO!
How can we get back to where we started – before we got so tired, so lost, so hopeless? How did we end up here when we had such good intentions?
Why can’t our relationships work,
our citizens and communities thrive,
our nations live in peace, our planet survive?
You probably have an answer. And you probably have an answer. And you probably have an answer too (get it?). That’s the problem – and the answer – to how we all got somewhere “else”.
We ALL got here “because” (of someone’s brilliant suggestions) …and now we need to get back home to ‘reality’ by everyone’s quiet “introspection” – and a cooperative search for new directions and solutions.
Why can’t individuals agree? – “because”! Why don’t relationships work? – “because”! Why can’t communities thrive? – “because”! Why can’t nations agree? – “because”! – simply ‘because’.
What’s the problem with ALL of these issues – “root cause”. What did I ask to be able to know that? – exactly! (I asked “what”, and then why and how and who,,). The answer is in the question – and using the right question guarantees the right solution. Asking will not only lead us to an answer, it will uncover other hidden problems in route. We aren’t looking for the roadside parks of paralysis analysis. Rather, we seek the Visitor Centers of information that direct us away from tourist traps and toward worthy landmarks and economic services.
And there’s one more thing, we aren’t looking for the blueprint of how the road WAS built. We are at least looking for a recent roadmap – better yet, a real-time GPS. If a recent flood just washed out the bridge to our future – we need to go another route. If the survey party is now planning the new tollway to go completely out of the way in order for us to stop at all their gas stations, then we may not want to pay that toll in our future travels.
I want to know from each recent traveler how the weather and road conditions are right now. I also want to know not to turn left according to some information that has already caused other travelers to end up off the road and in the ditch.
I don’t know about you, but I think it might help – before we go any further, if:
- I heard back about your trip and what I face ahead
- we all knew about where we are now, and trying to go next
- we knew about those directing us, or whether they have a ‘safe’ record
- we considered our alternate routes, and where else we might end up
- we avoid buying another old map – that is now out-of-date – “because”.
So next time you “set out” to plan a get together, start or run a business, lead a community event, charter a national initiative, solve a regional ‘crisis’, or champion a well-intentioned cause that “hopes” to create ‘world peace’, perhaps you will want to take a moment to ask a few questions, map a viable path, listen to the feedback from others, and avoid the dead ends and tourist traps. And maybe you will be more wary of anyone telling you that:
you can only buy that kind of gas HERE, and
– We ALL Have to get going… NOW
Want real cooperation, progress, CHANGE ? – Dare to ASK4™ it…?
What’s about YOU?
– care to comment?
– dare to COOPERATE?
Wikipedia.org defines and describes it this way:
” Codependence (or codependency) is a popular psychology concept popularized by Twelve-Step program advocates. A “codependent” can be loosely defined as someone who exhibits too much, and often inappropriate, caring for persons who depend on him or her. A “codependent” is one side of a relationship between mutually needy people. The dependent, or obviously needy party(s) may have emotional, physical, financial difficulties, or addictions they seemingly are unable to surmount. The “codependent” party exhibits behavior which controls, makes excuses for, pities, and takes other actions to perpetuate the obviously needy party’s condition, because of their desire to be needed and fear of doing anything that would change the relationship.
A common usage of the term is that codependency occurs when enabling addiction, taking care of another person in a way that is not healthy in the long run to either that person or themselves, or both. Codependency is loss of self for the codependent.
The concept can also be understood as a set of maladaptive, compulsive behaviors learned by family members in order to survive in a family which is experiencing great emotional pain and stress caused, for example, by a family member’s alcoholism or other addiction, sexual or other abuse within the family, a family member’s chronic illness, or forces external to the family, such as poverty..”
Taken at a personal level – one who takes such an approach is doing more harm than good. Taken at a relationship level, each party harms the other. Taken at a community level, codependent group-think can cripple those who occupy that locale. Taken at a national or an international level, codependent action can insert useless interventions that create local disasters, and spread harm to others across the region.
Problem is that there is (so far) no such thing as a ‘global psychologist’ who can meet with its international clientele – all at once. That concept has been proposed, and tried, and has predictably failed – as the United Nations. A quick tour of the enacted and resisted and ignored resolutions bears testimony to the malfunctioning though well-intended effort and ineffectual results.
Problem is that there is no such thing as a ‘personal ambassador’ to represent our individual interests within the international or national or even local interests with any expectation of real equity. That concept has been proposed and enacted in governance and has degraded to mere politics where the representative exerts that transferred power to barter for power positions and personal gain. A quick tour of local town-hall meetings and party platforms and national legislation bears testimony to misrepresentation OF the people whose interests have been co-opted for collusion.
Problem is that there is no such thing as a victim if one chooses to become a victor – personally. Every twelve-step program echoes this premise and bears testimony to this enabling concept. Problem is that we have individually given up and then cast our hopes in those who claim to have greater insight, connections, positions, and other means of influence for our supposed good. Problem is that we have INDIVIDUALLY become codependent on our siblings, our parents, our politicians, our governments, our international organizations and even our global neighbors to look out for US (or U.S.).
Problem is that the impacts (of our personal codependence) aggregate and expand exponentially as codependence is also practiced in families and communities and governments – globally.
As we enter this new era of global interaction, we must at least consider a new means of interacting that reduces this well-intentioned and crippling tendency. If we do not, it can spread virally along our virtual interface and become symptomatic at every node and in every person who is touched by its consuming entanglements.
It will require us to take an active role (personally, corporately, politically) in our interaction activities (business, community, national, international). It will both require and enable us to become participants and beneficiaries of the approach.
It will thereby (and ONLY thereby) empower us to go from victims OF – to victors OVER – our position, our purpose, and our destiny.
Question is – what is that new approach(**).
Answer is – simply to ask the right questions.
(** – starting with THAT one)
Want real cooperation, progress, CHANGE ? – Dare to ASK4™ it…?
What’s about YOU? – care to comment?
– dare to COOPERATE?
RECESSION? (Because!) Nothing is more painfully obvious than the results of bad decisions – made “because” of someone’s illogical motive. Illogical motives – again painfully obvious to everyone else(“because…”) – are those based on something other than good logic. Illogical decisions (like ‘little white lies’) will not stand on their own merits and must be supported by other props (like more lying). Nor will they be corrected or relieved until evaluated – by a few incisive questions being asked.
RECOVERY? (Root Cause) The logical basis for any viable solution begins with information – obtained from the stake-holders themselves – and objectively parsed against the issues that aggregate to the visible symptoms of the problem – and its actual impacts.
It is just that obvious and just that simple and just that difficult. Making that direct connection (between cause and effect) is entirely possible and routinely avoided – “because!”.
Many may have missed the recent celebration of the event on December 16 that once helped establish and save our democracy under somewhat similar circumstances. Little was published in the (formerly unbiased?) press about how (without the aid of the collective voice of the internet) multiple citizens once stood up- and stood for- equitable treatment…at the ‘Boston Tea Party’. Perhaps we overlooked it “because” we were too busy listening to politicians tell us that we now had to bail out this one and that one (of their constituents) “because..”. Perhaps those companies could have avoided being in that situation, but were now struggling “because..”. Perhaps the workers in those companies who were intimately familiar with the issues were not asked by their leaders about their opinions for solutions “because”. Perhaps other stake-holders who were not represented at board rooms and in Congress, were now feeling the impacts…”because”.
Why do people vote for politicians? (because they want to be represented by them). Why do politicians run for office? (because they want to influence the system). Why do entities lobby for favors from politicians? (because they want (in)equitable treatment). Why does this system fail to serve the entire population? – again “because” it is not transparent and accountable to ALL those it claims to ‘equitably’ represent.
Why can this be? – “because” what gets done is not DIRECTLY visible, reviewed, overseen, or influenced by the stake-holders. Why is there no direct review or oversight? – “because” the representative are attempting to hide political motives instead of exhibiting visible statesmanship. Why? – “because; Why? – “because”; Why? – “because”, etc.
If it weren’t “politically incorrect” to challenge the status quo – we might not be ‘mis-represented’ by our politicians or in this status (recession). If that statement is at all true – we will not get out of this situation until we begin to ask the right questions and get past the “because” and find the root cause(s). Have WE had enough yet – Is anyONE else ready for true change ?
One notable individual once clarified the challenge for all times and all places and all people. One individual became “the change that he wanted to see” (Ghandhi), and issued that simple challenge for the rest of us to follow. Since then, many have realized that ‘they are the root cause’ and that until THEY take a personal stand, the situation will not get any better “because” they are still “BEing” passive (not inquiring or resisting). Passivity always ensures that the situation will be passed along – predictably going from bad to worse, “because”. History is predictable in repeating itself in that regard.
If we are to avoid repeating that history, it will demand statesmanship again – or it could (again?) ‘brew up’ some anarchy. I’d like to say that I’ve had enough of that kind of history and am ready to BE-come a part of the ‘change’. I’d like to believe that there actually is a chance for change we can BE-lieve in. We have been promised (by politicians) that change is coming. That change will demand transparency that has not been widely implemented. It will demand that the voice of the stake-holders is not silenced from their public proclamation platforms or questionably purged from those ‘public’ records just “because”.
If..we care, ALL we have to do is be willing to BE a part of ALL those who will seek the root cause of what we ALL have allowed to occur. The solution will become visible in that answer. The internet (for now) affords us the freedom to assemble virtually unencumbered to collectively inquire and influence what we individually and globally want to BE-come as citizens, communities, and countries. The answer is in the questions – all we have to do is ASK4 it – and become united in providing our individual insight and protecting our mutual interests across our
Standing on the bridge to our collective future, that patriot that fires the ‘shot’ that can be heard around the world may now (again?)…simply be asking …”WHY?”
Want real cooperation, progress, CHANGE ? – Dare to ASK4™ it…?
What’s about YOU? – care to comment?
– dare to COOPERATE?
ASK4™ CAN BE…
(THE QUESTIONS THAT FIND…)
THE ANSWERS you need
Written by gsbigger
December 18, 2008 at 8:43 am
Tagged with Advertising, ambient knowledge, anarchy, Barrack, Boston Tea Party, Business 2.0, business networking, Clinton, collaboration, Communities, crowd sourcing, cuil, Facebook, gold, gold medal, Google, Hillary, Marketing, Media 2.0, nano, nanotechnology, Obama, Office 2.0, olympic, Olympics, patriot, press, recession, recovery, relationship economy, relevance, search, semantic, semantic web, Seth Goodin, SNA, social media, social networking, social networks, Social Software, social web, socialution, truth, WEB 2.0, web 3.0, Web Strategy, Web Usage, WEB3.0, Wikinomics