[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

FW Ten Principles of Accountability



dawn star wrote:
> 
> dawn star wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps another title for this posting could be "What, or Who, killed
> > Vince Foster? as it rains on windy grey plains, i would
> > like to pass on this mail and ask you how it reflects on Burma and the
> > international drug traffick, and then ask why our leaders do not tell
> > the full story about the international drug trade and money laundering
> > profits that finance secret operations by our public officials in power
> > and their friends with governmental security to protect their
> > narco-traffick?  At the same time the DEA and other law enforcement
> > agencies linked to the office of the presidency, the nsa, the cia claim
> > anti-drug successes, protect their profits, increasing law-enforcement
> > budgets, and hide their cash in front companies and secret banks.
> > President Bill Clinton is today in Venezuela, where some dozen or so families rule the country, a major exporter of oil to the US, and a major player in South American cocaine flows to the US. Recently, a top Venezuelan dipolmat was kicked out of UNESCO after cocaine was found in his office. No press picked it up.  The Mexican President Zedillo recently in Paris cringed at reporters instructed and silenced not to
> ask about the narco-agreement with France.
> 
> > Surely we are not getting the full story of
> > narco-trafficking at the highest levels of governments around the world.
> 
> > You will not find it published in the New York Times or The Washington
> > Post. There are too many people to protect.  Washington is a "company"
> > town, and the "company" is the CIA. Kennedy knew it and his life ended
> > in a young tragic death.
> >
> > Narco-trafficking is a big subject.The world is fragil and men are greedy as we struggle to survive. (Are they stocking up for the Crash when the world economies tumble? Then all hell is going to break loose!No wonder the Arab States are buying arms. What good are american dollars when all they got left is sand?)And oil, arms, and drugs are good business for the banks.
> 
> You will find a lot of information on the subject on the Internet. You
> have to look for it, but you will find a lot that you didn't know and it
> may surprise you.
> 
> I am convinced that not until we change the structure
> > of this evil destruction by the narco-traffickers, from Burma to many of
> > the capitals of the world, will we change things in Burma -- when the drug
> > structure is completely dismantled. And a world that consumes and
> > trafficks their drug will keep the supply channels open until they are
> > shut down.
> >
> > On the Indo-Burmese border in Manipur, MP George Fernandez is making
> > more than a purely symbolic act to close a drug route.
> > Will Indian politicians let Burma close down democracy in India?
> > His is a modest and heroic statement of defiance of the
> > narco-dictatorships threatening to corrupt democracies everywhere before
> > it is too late for us to do anything about it as it all gets washed in a
> > sea of computer encryption codes -- and moral bankruptcy of our moral
> > institutions.
> >
> > When democracy is no longer a word to be respected, what then can we say
> > about human rights in a world of nations?
> >
> > The issues of human rights go to other sources of destruction.
> > We must beware of all attempts to do business with Slorc and anything
> > that suggests legitimization and acceptance of this narco-dictatorship.
> > It is simply too profitable to the drug traffick to be ignored - by
> > anyone.
> >
> > The drug traffick and money laundering at the highest levels of
> > government has to be understood before we can best answer many of the
> > questions posed below in the following essay.
> >
> > But one question comes primarily to mind:
> >
> >  "What would happen if those in authority didn't tell you the
> > > results?"
> >
> >  "What prevents them from stating their intentions?"
> >
> > I hope this essay helps us answer some of the questions and more so urge
> > us to ask those questions which need to be answered -- to stop the
> > killing in Burma.
> >
> > if you have some answers, please send them, metta,
> > dawn star
> >
> > http://www-uvi.eunet.fr/asia/euro-burma/drug/
> >
> > ps TOTAL's former president Serge Tchuruk, since 1995 president of
> > Alcatel Alsthom, the French military communications giant, has been
> > named partner of the defense company Thomson-CSF in what is expected to
> > be the third or fourth largest in the world, behind the americans. Big
> > Brother Tchuruk says, "Civil military communications are the key to the
> > future."
> >
> > ****
> > The essay:
> >
> > > The 10 Principles of Accountability
> > >
> >   This essay evolved as I was writing it and is not as
> > > linear and logical in format as I would like.  However, I have spent enough
> > > time on it and other interests are attracting my attention.
> > >
> > > Before beginning my analysis, let me state my background.  In the late 70's
> > > and early 80's I became fascinated with a new model of psychology called
> > > Neuro-Linguistic Programming developed by John Grinder, a professor of
> > > Linguistics at the University of California (I think) located in Monterey,
> > > California, the same campus where Gregory Bateson was in residence.  John
> > > Grinder had received his Ph.D. under Noam Chomsky studying Transformational
> > > Grammar, which seeks to develop a model of the deep structure underlying
> > > natural language patterns.
> > >
> > > John Grinders contribution was to see the relationship between his
> > > linguistic studies and the field of psychology.  In this he was assisted by
> > > an eccentric and probable genius, Richard Bandler a mathematics student at
> > > the same University.  With informal help from Gregory Bateson, Virginia
> > > Satir and Milton Erikson and a range of bright graduate students, they
> > > developed a very exciting model for quick and effective diagnosis of
> > > dysfunction.  I attended numerous seminars given by both founders and was
> > > fortunate to have as a personal friend, one of the graduate students who
> > > tutored me in some of the nuances of this model.
> > >
> > > One of the prime thesis's of this system is called the Meta Model, which is
> > > the identification of a series of language violations used by the clients
> > > when speaking that indicate errors in their perception of reality.  By
> > > challenging these violations with specific questions, the client is
> > > confronted with these distortions, deletions and generalizations which
> > > prevent them from making accurate assessments. All language is a
> > > representation of reality - the map is not the territory.  To use language,
> > > we generalize, delete and distort reality, it can't be helped, it is the
> > > nature of language. It was their contention that much mental and behavioral
> > > dysfunctions can be revealed by these observations and appropriate response
> > > through specific questions that would lead the client to a  more accurate
> > > reflection of reality.  Those new insights will eliminate dysfunctional
> > > behaviors or lead to appropriate change techniques..
> > >
> > > Now, to the subject at hand.  The first posting of the 10 Principle Of
> > > Accountability on FW was by Sally Lerner, who said she received them from
> > > Terry Cottam.  A later post indicated that this version was from Caspar
> > > Davis and he acknowledged that he had made "a few minor changes" in which
> > > he changed the "voice from declarative to mandatory" with the intent of
> > > achieving more clarity.  Sally Lerner in her post, either quotes Caspar's
> > > version or has taken Caspar's version and made additional changes by
> > > stating "For me, the mandatory form is easier to grasp than simple
> > > statements, and I have converted them to that form.  I have also massaged
> > > the diction here and there in ways which seem to me to make them easier to
> > > read."
> > >
> > > When I read Sally's version, I saw these statements in the form presented
> > > as representing everything wrong and dysfunctional with our present system
> > > of analyzing problems.  This led me to post my ideas in a series of
> > > examples drawn from my studies of native culture.  It was quickly done and
> > > that was the end of it as far as I was concerned, in fact, I looked at my
> > > response as sort of a flame against these statements. I have been
> > > pleasantly surprised at the response.
> > >
> > > However, I must tell you my shock and enjoyment of the posting by Henry E.
> > > McCandless, the original author of these statements.  I had assumed that
> > > the changes acknowledged by Sally and later by Caspar as being fairly mild,
> > > in the range of some grammatical and style improvements.  The shock was in
> > > the amount of distortion that had occurred between the original and the
> > > version I reacted too.  It reminds me of the old parlour game where the
> > > group sitting in a circle initiate a statement that passes by whisper from
> > > the initiator, around the circle and returns to him.  There is always
> > > distortions and they can be hilarious.
> > >
> > > I am now going to do a linguistic analysis of several of these ten
> > > statements to point out the distortions and apply some of the insights of
> > > Chomsky, Grinder and Bandler.  I do this with some trepidation as it has
> > > been a number of years since I studied this model and I was never more than
> > > a student.  Asking indulgence from anyone more knowledgeable, I will make
> > > the attempt.
> > >
> > >  The Original:
> > >
> > > 1.  The principle of intentions disclosure.  People in authority intending
> > >      action that would affect others in important ways tell those others
> > > the
> > >      results or outcomes they seek to bring about.  They state why they
> > > think
> > >      the outcomes they intend are desirable and fair.
> > >
> > > Sally's Posting:
> > >
> > > 1.      Disclosure of intentions.  People in authority who are intending action
> > > that would affect others in important ways must tell those others the
> > > results or outcomes they seek to bring about.  They must state why they
> > > think the outcomes they intend are desirable and fair.
> > >
> > > Nominalizations (Distortions)
> > >
> > > Nominalizations, are words used as nouns, but are actually verbs.  A noun,
> > > we are taught is a name of person place or thing and in metaphor, we are
> > > told that if it can't be placed in a wheelbarrow, it is not a noun.
> > > "Disclosure" is used as a noun (nominalization of the verb disclosing) in
> > > Sally's version.  As a therapist, my question would be "How are you
> > > disclosing these intentions?  In Henry's statement, "disclosure" is used in
> > > it's proper form which is as an adverb, therefore it does not make
> > > "disclosure" a thing, rather as one of the many adverb options that could
> > > be available.
> > >
> > > Modal Operator of Necessity (Deletions) {Modal - an auxiliary verb used to
> > > express the mood of another verb}
> > >
> > > The word "must" has been identified as a Modal Operator.  When a client
> > > uses modal operators, it is an indication of rigidity or inability to see
> > > any other way.  Reality is not so limited.  So as a therapist, I would ask
> > > the question, "What would happen if those in authority didn't tell you the
> > > results?"  You see, you are stating that they "must" so another appropriate
> > > question would be, "What prevents them from stating their intentions?"
> > > These questions open up options that your linguistic representation does
> > > not allow.  This error is not made in the original statements leaving the
> > > reader options on how to achieve the intent of the principal.
> > >
> > >  The Original
> > >
> > > 2. The principle of performance visibility.  Actual performance is
> > > disclosed through adequate public answering by those with the performance
> > > responsibilities.  Those in authority answer publicly and promptly for the
> > > results of their actions and for the learning they applied from it.
> > >
> > > Sally's Posting"
> > >
> > > 2.      Performance visibility.  Actual performance must be disclosed through
> > > adequate public answering by those who have the performance
> > > responsibilities.  Those in authority must answer publicly and promptly for
> > > the results of their actions and for any learning they have applied from
> > > them.
> > >
> > >  "who have" determines a statement of cause and effect.  Those "who have"
> > > the authority are acting upon someone who doesn't have the authority.  The
> > > question a therapist would ask is, "How, specifically do they have these
> > > performance responsibilities?"  This violation does not occur in the
> > > Original. Note also the "modal operators of necessity" again.
> > >
> > > It was at this point, when I realized that the analysis was giving the real
> > > situation a technical or scientific discipline type of proof, but that it
> > > did not provide deeper answers that I stopped writing for two days and
> > > reflected on what was causing my unease.  The answer hinged around the word
> > > "principles."
> > >
> > > Principles are something I am a lay expert on, having thought deeply and
> > > read widely.  The obvious question to answer is, "What is a principle and
> > > what is it's purpose.  In the way I see principles, they represent the
> > > verbal intuition of a cept or ideal.  Many things can be called principles.
> > >  Let me quote several; "Government has a continuing responsibility to take
> > > action to enhance the economic well being of all Americans."  This was
> > > quoted by a noted constitutional expert, Arthur Selwyn Miller, in his book
> > > The Modern Corporate State.  "All men are created equal.", from the
> > > American Constitution.  Today, Oct 11, 1997 in the Ottawa Citizen, Page B4,
> > > Canadian Ambassador to Mexico who resigned as a result of his quotes in a
> > > magazine interview, "There are two concepts in English that do not exist in
> > > the Mexican system: 'empowerment' and 'accountability.'  These are two
> > > principles that are paramount in the development of a democratic society."
> > >
> > > Now, the way I've come to see that the effectiveness of principles is that
> > > they can be used as a guide to choosing actions that lead you to the goals
> > > you would like your actions to solve.  Reality, on a macro and micro scale
> > > is constantly presenting us humans and all life with a series of problems
> > > to solve, for food, for shelter, for safety, for survival, in governance,
> > > in relationships, etc.  No man or woman can avoid this constant and ongoing
> > > challenge from reality.  Each problem begs a solution, but how can you pick
> > > a solution - out of the many choices available?  The answer is that you
> > > must have a criteria, a standard to evaluate against.  This is the role of
> > > principles.  Principles don't tell you what to do.  They ask of you whether
> > > your choice of answer satisfies the ideal behind the principal.
> > >
> > > So let us briefly look at my examples.  Miller's principle indicates a set
> > > of problems that governments have in relationship to the wealth or lack of
> > > wealth of their populace.  This principle indicates what range of choices
> > > will satisfy this idea.  From this, governments develop rules in Acts and
> > > Laws that determine how they are going to achieve the action implied in the
> > > principle.  When all the rules support the idea of the principle, then
> > > there is a much better chance that the result will be a government that
> > > creates rules that support citizens in many ways to fulfil that ideal.  If
> > > for example, the government followed the principle of individual self
> > > sufficiency and personal independence, they might make an equally effective
> > > set of rules to achieve the those ideals.
> > >
> > > "All men are created equal" is considered one of the primary principles of
> > > democratic government.  However it illustrates for us the power of a
> > > principle in that it can be adequate in many times and places and answer
> > > many questions.  In 1778 when this was written in the Constitution, it was
> > > a guarantee that the nobility of Europe would not be able to impose their
> > > order in this new country.  That was revolutionary in the sense of denial
> > > of the principle of "divine right of kings" which allowed Europe to have
> > > nobility - a set of rules that "kings" could make because by the very fact
> > > of their kingship being considered proof of  God's will, therefore to deny
> > > "royalty" was to deny God.  One of the reasons for the British Empire
> > > Loyalist's in leaving the new US state and moving to Canada was their
> > > belief that God's will had been violated and they were God respecting
> > > people.
> > >
> > > At first, the "equal men" were men of property, no women, coloureds or
> > > unpropertied citizens, aboriginals and immigrants.  As time went on, the
> > > constant call to choose from reality caused Americans, in fits and starts,
> > > to use this principal to include slaves and later women and finally
> > > individuals without property but having citizenship.
> > >
> > > In my final example, empowerment and accountability are described as
> > > principles which the Mexican government is not using while making
> > > decisions.  Because these two principles are basic to Canada but not used
> > > by Mexico, there is a conflict with how the problems of current reality are
> > > interpreted.
> > >
> > > The concept of a "man of principles" indicates a man/woman who when faced
> > > with problems and choices has a personal code composed of a set of
> > > principles which he/she uses when choosing a course of action.  Now,
> > > principles can be very slippery, for instance, one may hold the principle
> > > of  "expediency" which in certain circumstances may allow for ruthlessness
> > > and uncaring actions against others.  This persons rationale is defended on
> > > the grounds of the need for expediency.  So we can see, that we often use
> > > principles to defend our actions even if they have negative consequences.
> > >
> > > Now, as Mr. McCandless has noted, these were originally a series of
> > > statements postulated as principles that those devising the MAI agreements
> > > should apply when making the rules which will be written in the final
> > > Agreement.  Mr. McCandless's idea was that if these Principles were
> > > embodied in the rules, then perhaps this would be a good agreement to
> > > provide world-wide regulation of trade.  Conversely, if the MAI group was
> > > not willing to follow these Principles, they should at least state the
> > > Principles which they are using while making these sweeping rules.
> > >
> > > Principles indicate the effect desired and then Rules are written -
> > > hopefully in congruence with the Principles stated.  It is therefore
> > > important to read the preamble to an Act, as that is where a declaration of
> > > the Principles which guide the Rules is spelled out.  This is often the
> > > problem that courts have to deal with in interpreting an activity against
> > > the rules.
> > >
> > > Now to the issue at hand.  Those who changed the statements of Principles
> > > to the so called mandatory form, were in essence making Principles into
> > > Rules.  These Rules then become edicts without the guidance of Principles -
> > > a recipe for disaster.  Part of the problem started from the explanation
> > > provided by Mr. McCandless following his statement of Principle.  In most
> > > cases the Principle should stand as a simple statement embodying an ideal.
> > > As problems requiring actions occur in the real world, the solutions should
> > > be compared to the statements of Principle to see if they are congruent.
> > > As a body of rules are challenged in the Courts, it is up to the Courts to
> > > find and flesh out the boundaries of these Principles - this is commonly
> > > known as Precedent.  Courts are not perfect and often apply a meaning to
> > > Principles that are in step with the original intent but out of step with
> > > the current situation - as demonstrated in the statement, "All men are
> > > created equal" which I previously analyzed.
> > >
> > > Well, having bored you all to tears, I will stop writing and ask you to
> > > consider the following statements in both their original and modified form
> > > to see if I have made any sense.  The possibility exists that I am not
> > > making any sense, which goes to one of my principles, "failure is a
> > > worthwhile result for solving problems."
> > >
> > > 3. The principle of identifying the directing mind.  In every government,
> > > corporation or other organization there is a "directing mind and will" to
> > > be identified as the body publicly accountable for what people in the
> > > organization or set of organizations intend to do, actually do or fail to
> > > do.
> > >
> > > 3. Identifying the directing mind.  In every government, corporation or
> > > other organization there is a "directing mind and will" which must be
> > > identified as the body publicly accountable for what people in the
> > > organization or set of organizations intend to do, actually do, or fail to
> > > do.
> > >
> > > The shift from "to be" as a statement of possibilities to "which must be"
> > > to a statement of imperative or else.  The therapists question, "What would
> > > happen if they couldn't be identified or held accountable."
> > >
> > > Bogging down with time and memory problems, I will leave the interested
> > > reader to compare the remaining statements.  What I would say is that if
> > > the original statements had been presented first, my response and answers
> > > would have been much different.  The original statements are given as
> > > principles under the meaning of the word "guidelines", with rules being
> > > developed to follow these guidelines rather than a fixed code of procedure.
> > >  As given as principles, their proper form is present tense.  The
> > > explanations given are only one of several possibilities that could be
> > > derived from a statement of principle.  Sally and others revisions are a
> > > quick attempt at making them into "rules" as in an operating procedure.
> > >
> > > 4. The principle of answering for precautions taken. Decision-makers in
> > > authority having a duty to inform themselves adequately about significant
> > > risks to people's safety, social and legal justice and the environment,
> > > meet the intent of the precautionary principle in their decision-making.
> > > They answer publicly for having obtained reasonable assurance that it is
> > > safe to proceed and, if in doubt, for erring on the side of safety.   (The
> > > U.S. Challenger space shuttle disaster is a well-known example of directing
> > > minds waiving the precautionary principle).
> > >
> > > 4. Responsibility for taking precautions. Decision-makers in authority have
> > > a duty to inform themselves adequately about significant risks to people's
> > > safety, to the environment, and to social and legal justice. They must meet
> > > the intent of the precautionary principle in their decision-making. They
> > > must answer publicly for any failure to obtain reasonable assurance that
> > > it is safe to proceed or, if in doubt, for failure to err on the side of
> > > safety.   (The U.S. Challenger space shuttle disaster is a well-known
> > > example of directing minds waiving the precautionary principle).
> > >
> > > 5. The citizens' precautionary principle.  Citizens apply to justice,
> > > equity and the preservation of community the same precautionary principle
> > > they must apply to safety and environmental protection.  In appropriate
> > > forums they set the public answering standards for the intentions of
> > > decision-makers in authority and hold them fairly and publicly to account.
> > >
> > > 5. The citizens' precautionary principle.  Citizens must apply the
> > > precautionary principle to justice, equity, and the preservation of
> > > community as well as to safety and environmental protection. They must, in
> > > appropriate forums, set the standards for decision-makers-in-authority to
> > > meet in publicly answering for their intentions, and they must hold them
> > > fairly and publicly to account.
> > >
> > > 6. The principle of audit.  Important answering is validated  by
> > > knowledgeable public interest groups or by professional practitioners, or
> > > both.
> > >
> > > 6. Audit.  Important answering must be validated by knowledgeable public
> > > interest groups or by professional practitioners, or both.
> > >
> > > 7. The right-roles principle.  The public answering for intentions and
> > > results is given by those accountable.  The answering obligation is not
> > > shifted to external inspectors, commissioners, auditors, ombudsmen or other
> > > examiners.
> > >
> > > 7. Right-roles. Those who are actually accountable must answer publicly for
> > > their intentions and results. The answering obligation is not to be shifted
> > > to external inspectors, commissioners, auditors, ombudsmen or other
> > > examiners.
> > >
> > > 8. The corporate fairness principle.  The directing minds of corporations
> > > answer publicly for serving the public interest when, in decision-making
> > > within their power, a significant difference is likely to exist between
> > > serving the public interest and serving the wants of corporation owners and
> > > management.  The reporting by those responsible for oversight of
> > > corporations includes the extent to which their supervision meets the
> > > intent of the precautionary principle.
> > >
> > > 8. Corporate fairness.  The directing minds of corporations must answer
> > > publicly for serving the public interest when, in decision-making within
> > > their power, a significant difference is likely to exist between serving
> > > the public interest and serving the wants of corporation owners and
> > > management.  Reporting by those who are responsible for the oversight of
> > > corporations must include the extent to which their supervision meets the
> > > intent of the precautionary principle.
> > >
> > > 9. The principle of governing body and citizen responsibility.  To ensure
> > > continued answering, those legitimately holding to account act fairly and
> > > responsibly on answerings given in good faith.  This applies to both
> > > governing bodies and public interest groups.
> > >
> > > 9. Governing body and citizen responsibility.  To ensure continued
> > > answering, those legitimately holding responsible parties to account must
> > > themselves act fairly and responsibly on answerings given in good faith.
> > > This applies to both governing bodies and public interest groups.
> > >
> > > 10.  The wages-of-abdication principle.  To the extent that citizens
> > > abdicate their responsibility to decide standards of public answering and
> > > hold fairly to account, they create civic incompetence and give tacit
> > > authorization of the abuse of power.
> > >
> > > 10.     The wages-of-abdication principle.  To the extent that citizens
> > > abdicate their responsibility to decide standards for public
> > > answering and fail to hold responsible parties fairly to account, they
> > > create civic incompetence and give tacit authorization of the abuse of
> > > power.