Armchair Nuggets from the Sidelines

It's in full swing.

The veritable thrum to vote.

Remember: The Power of Peaceful Dissent (tvfs)?

Needless to say, one need only hear what is said and what is not said - in every appeal to vote - to observe how facilely techniques of persuasion are employed to further and advance the agendas of crats.

Whosiwhatsit?

What is not said - in every appeal to vote - is -

- to vote is to perpetuate the reign of crats.

Howsiwhatsit?

When crats govern - crats, guided by crat interests, govern per crat interests. Since crat interests are primarily guided by greed - when crats govern - crats, guided by greed, govern per greed.

Of course, such greed is not always greed for wealth. Such greed is also greed for power and influence, for example.

Remember: Corruption Is Legal in America (Represent.us)?

Before you rush to cast your ballot -

think -

about what you are voting for -

think -

about what you are standing for -

Because -

Elected representatives at every level - including state and federal - are both visibly and invisibly, to varying degrees - beholden - to crat interests and greed - personally - professionally - and often - both. Such that, elected representatives are as invested in scaffolding plutocracies and oligarchies - now - as ever.

~ * ~

What if media (social, news, entertainment, advertising) asked ordinary citizens - everyday aliens - the hordes, the hoi poloi, the masses, the public, if you will - the questions asked of candidates for elected office?

For doesn't every citizen, every alien, every pet rock from here to Timbuktu - believe with unequivocal certainty - that they have The Answers to all such questions and more?

Indeed - with 24 hour news cycles at the ready of our electronic personal assistants - isn't this exactly what we and media are doing - every time candidates for elected office issue forth any word or any act? Proving our superiority over the inferiority of candidates we and media oppose - over and over ad nauseum? As if we are especially qualified over candidates we attest are inferior - on the basis of our assessment and judgment?

~ * ~

Caveat: the following are nuggets... not roasted turkeys...

Here goes...

Armchair Nuggets from the Sidelines

(I) jobs, economy, taxation

There isn't a lack of jobs, per se.

Instead, there's a mismatch, between jobs that are available and jobs that job seekers want - and - between job providers and job seekers.

In addition, location matters. Such that the lack of viable matches between jobs providers and job seekers, is at times the result of jobs providers and job seekers not being located near each other.

Unfortunately, corporations who locate where it's most profitable to corporate bottom lines, disadvantage job seekers by locating where job seekers are not.

Meanwhile, asking corporations to consider human bottom lines over corporate bottom lines, invariably leads to government incentives that are not necessarily the smartest returns on investments for government budgets and human bottom lines.

On the other hand, of jobs that are filled, there's a mismatch between job performance and compensation. Such that compensation is obscene for the 1% of the 1%, while compensation is woefully inadequate for far too many whose job prospects are arguably limited at best.

Solution: everyone needs to give a little - from job providers and the 1% of the 1% to job seekers.

Notwithstanding that the goal is not to minimize overall unemployment rates (which are arbitrary and frankly, meaningless) - but to minimize the rate of unemployment among job seekers - and - minimize the rate of vacancies among job providers.

As far as increasing taxation for the 1% - it's excessive to those who pay their fair share and pointless to those who do not. Because paying taxes or not paying taxes is not per tax rate. Paying taxes or not paying taxes is per accounting.

Therefore changing the tax rate for the 1% won't compel those who don't pay to pay. Instead reforming the tax code is the first step in recouping that which is lost to federal, state, and local governments by the exercise of legal tax avoidance per legal accounting practices customarily exercised by those who reduce their tax burdens immorally low in order to withhold their fair share of contributions from the budgets of local, state, and federal governments.

(II) integrity and honesty in leadership

No one is always trustworthy and no one never lies.

However, the issue with integrity and honesty in leadership is not that leaders must be trustworthy 100% of the time, nor is it that leaders must never lie 100% of the time.

Rather, the issue with integrity and honesty in leadership is that leaders dispense with these inconveniences, to satisfy and gratify personal interests first and foremost far too often. From board rooms to executive offices from here to there, far too many leaders condone taking all the credit for good and none of the blame for bad. Leading many of us to rightly surmise that such leaders are potently invested in protecting their interests at the expense of everything important to the public they ostensibly serve.

Needless to say, a servant leader will deceive and a servant leader will lie. But a servant leader will do so with a heart towards real good and a soul towards true virtue. It is this context with respect to integrity and honesty that matters. And it is this context with respect to integrity and honesty that so many leaders, appointed and elected, fail.

In the end, because far too few leaders take accountability and responsibility for their actions and their words, we set the bar for integrity and honesty in leadership unacceptably and abominably low. Such that we tacitly collude with moral corruption of leadership and governance by excusing and normalizing the absence of integrity and the demise of honesty within leaders and elected representatives who scaffold our communities with pillars of ego in lieu of nobility.

(III) label divisions

Labels are a problem.

Not because relating to each other is an issue. Nor because healing each other is an issue.

After all, we're all human, first and foremost, aren't we?

Therefore - when we judge each other - when we size each other up, when we rely on split second assumptions about each other - by skin that's no more than skin deep, by clothes that cover up who we really are inside, by gender expression defined by others instead of our selves, by names given to us that are not who we really are deep down - we judge each other by superficial differences. That is - we prejudge each other by labels.

Like books, when we judge each other by our covers, we miss what's inside. And, like ists, when we judge each other by our labels, we don't see our merits.

If we're serious about meritocracy, if we're serious about equality, then the harm of labels can no longer be ignored. Whether they're labels that we choose for our selves or they're labels that we choose for others, labels legitimize the belief that judging each other by our covers is just and valid.

It's a slap in the face to everything that makes each and every one of us unique and wonderful, to dismiss and nullify who we really are deep down, in favor of superficial differences that lock us into believing that what's outside is more real and more true than what's inside.

Until we reject our obsession with labels - with respect to classifying one another, identifying problems, and advocating solutions - we will never free ourselves from the prison of isms, including racism, sexism, and classism, to name just a few. For the advancement of any of us on the basis of labels is an unqualified hypocrisy within advanced societies that aspire to equality and meritocracy for all.

(IV) the new wars: cyber, terror, nuclear

The new wars - cyber, terror, nuclear - are old wars with new faces.

Yes, they feel devastating and potentially catastrophic. But they are no more devastating than old wars. Because all wars are devastating and potentially catastrophic.

Moreover, to treat new wars like dastardly threats that imminently endanger all of us is to confuse the nature of war with battles. That is, though battles differ, war is war. Therefore, to the extent that we have survived many battles across many wars throughout time, it is reasonably probable that we will survive many battles across many wars to come. Moreover, it is reasonably probable that to the extent that many warring peoples not only desire peace but actively seek peace, peace too is achievable.

Furthermore, to discuss cyber, terror, and nuclear wars, is to discuss strategies we already employ to suppress, eliminate, or mitigate eruptions of war - and - to discuss policies we already endorse to effect and sustain peace.

However, it bears noting, that there are some causes among some peoples that justify war within such societies, because such peoples firmly believe that no alternatives exist to further such causes than war. Nevertheless, to assume that all causes that defend war are such causes, is to dismiss diplomacy without grounding such assumption and justifying such dismissal with visible and invisible realities. Because scripts that fuel sentiments of war, i.e. that which is propagated by social, news, entertainment, and advertising media platforms, are not agendas of peace.

In the end, no solution to cyber, terror, and nuclear wars, begins and ends with war. For wars beget wars until conflicts armed to the teeth careen towards mutual assured destruction. Instead, solutions to cyber, terror, and nuclear wars, begin and end with truth. While easier said - than assessed and determined - the truth is vital with respect to managing eruptions of war and advancing peace.

With one caveat. Peace cannot be ensured for any of us with unqualified certainty. Life is uncertain and no one is guaranteed a life absent of tragedy, including that most wretched tragedy, war.

(V) mandates of governances

Often, winners forget losers and - by virtue of winning - effect leadership and governance sans losers.

However, winning is not a mandate.

Not only because leadership and governance requires cooperation and collaboration among winners and losers. But also because effective leadership and governance confers genuine mutuality to all served by leadership and governance.

While losing does not deprive anyone of the right to a government that serves losers as equitably as winners, winners often speak of 'mandates' as if winning confers the right to winners to ignore losers for the duration of elected terms.

Notwithstanding, that winners are not always winners by actual majorities. Because votes are not always cast by every citizen. (Since not all residents of a country are eligible to cast votes, either on the basis of citizenship or on the basis of disenfranchisement.) Such that even so-called 'clear' mandates may not be so 'clear' in the light of facts.

In the end, winning the privilege to lead and govern, is winning the privilege to serve winners and losers. Insofar as every candidate for elected office, expresses overt and explicit intentions to lead and govern the public during their candidacies, the only certain mandate conferred to every elected representative is the mandate to lead and govern with the due dignity of public servants of public service.

~ * ~

There.

Armchair nuggets from the sidelines.

Though there's a lot more to every topic above, in our zeal to elevate winners and crucify losers, we've forgotten the point.

That no candidacy for elected office is about winning or losing. Rather, every candidacy for elected office is about representing the public and serving the public.

Thus -

before you rush to cast your ballot -

think -

about what you are voting for -

think -

about what you are standing for -

Because every angle of the questions asked of candidates for elected office and every angle of the answers issued by candidates for elected office and every angle of media, from social to news to entertainment to advertising - serves someone.

The question is -

are those angles - serving you?

Or - are those angles serving interests far more potent than public interests? 

Remember -

The reason why leaders and elected representatives are often beholden to crat interests is because leaders and elected representatives often vest personal and professional interests with crat interests. Visibly and invisibly. Explicitly and implicitly. Overtly and tacitly.

(Much like you are invested in the economy of the stock market, if you own stocks. Why? Because stock growth increases your wealth and stock decline decreases your wealth. 

However, the economy of the stock market is one of the reasons why pay compensation for the 1% of the 1% is so obscene. Because pay compensation for the 1% of the 1% is often dependent on stock performance and because pay compensation for the 1% of the 1% is often stocks (or shares), there is patent incentive for the economy of the stock market to satisfy the avarice of the 1% of the 1%. 

Why? Because the 1% of the 1% don't get paid or make money - otherwise.)

Moreover, the reason why leaders and elected representatives are as invested in scaffolding plutocracies and oligarchies as ever, is because leaders and elected representatives are invariably tied - personally and professionally - to plutocracies and oligarchies that exert compelling and potent interests of varying degrees. Visibly and invisibly. Explicitly and implicitly. Overtly and tacitly.

Needless to say, in the end, the question for the public, is this -

It's easy to judge when we are nots and they are crats. But. What if the labels were reversed?

Would you be different?

Note

While the topics above reference leadership and governance in the US at points, much of the issues are addressed as they apply everywhere.

Note

See the list of questions asked of candidates for the elected office of the Presidency of the United States of America, from the 'first debate', here (from Quartz, from The New York Times, from the full transcript by the Federal News Service).

Note

Disclaimer for tvfs, here (Page - About).

~ * ~

More

Governance is far more complex than 'debate skills' or 'social media savvy' or 'clickable photo ops', which are frankly, far more interesting than real governance.

Which is collaboration, cooperation, and compromise. With mutuality and respect. Needless to say, this is what is missing across much of governance today.

It is so easy to point fingers. It is so easy to shift blame like a game of hot potato. But, in the end, no one wins when governance fails.

On the other hand, governance isn't the solution to all societies' ills. Insofar as we possess the power to fix many if not all societies' ills - it is up to us to do so.

This requires no pointing fingers. And no shifting blame. Among us. And collaboration, cooperation, and compromise. Among us. And mutuality and respect. Among us. It goes without saying, that this is what is missing across much of society today, here, there, and everywhere.

Why?

Because far too many of us are satisfying our own angles at the expense of all angles.

Because fame and glory and wealth and influence are far more compelling and potent interests than understanding all perspectives.

Because vilification is far more satisfying than mercy and compassion for all.

Because peace and unity means giving a little from us for all.

Because peace and unity means giving up 'me me me' at all costs for 'all all all'.

Because peace and unity means sacrificing what we don't want to give up.

From wealth and power and influence - to labels and self-interest and fame and glory - we refuse to sacrifice what we refuse to give up -

But -

Until peace and unity matter more than war and division - all of us give up aequum and mutuus for all. That is the price of war and division. And all of us give up vivo and liber for all. That is the price of 'me me me' at all costs.

The big picture is at once - far more convoluted than glitz and glam and smoke and mirrors - and dumbfoundingly simple -

But it's not a matter of seeing the big picture or not -

It's a matter singing the same song and expecting a new tune -

Verily getting nowhere is getting us exactly where we started, instead of where we want to be -

Yet nowhere is exactly where we're careening.

- M.

Caveat:

There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, because I sing the same song and expect a new tune, semper et perpetuum.

Which begs the question:

Is singing a song of mercy and compassion and tuning a tune of peace and unity, semper et perpetuum - the same - as singing a song of war and division and tuning a tune of self interest and greed, semper et perpetuum?

If I stopped, would such cessation remedy my hypocrisy?

In so doing, would such cessation be just with respect to the cause of aequum et mutuus? In so doing, would such cessation be right with respect to the cause of vivo et liber?

Verily, the slippery slope from passion and conviction to zealotry and militancy and extremism, is neither steep nor far - for any one on any side - here, there, and everywhere.

Indeed, it's in full swing, in the veritable thrum to vote, issued most passionately with fierce conviction, by crats whose interests are unequivocally advanced by the perpetuation of crat reigns.

- M.