Sunday, January 27, 2008

The First Advocacy Corporation (revisited)

The function of this blog is simple:

We have a big problem that threatens our entire democracy.

The Advocate in society - the idealists, the dreamers and the people who seek change of ANY kind against current policies (i.e. the people who do not act like robots), are not structurally protected in any way by our current system.

A democracy cannot function and will die without an informed and active citizenry. A democracy cannot function without advocates.

The Advocate role is in danger. Corporations are buying regulators and government under the guise of Capitalism, and now aggressively limiting what information you and I see.

At the same time government regulators and government in general, are growing more and more influential - bigger and less accountable - and more and more of the information we need to make decisions is being made harder to easily get to.

This is a structural problem and has NOTHING to do with who enters the role of the presidency AND IS MORE IMPORTANT and therefore needs to be THE issue that the 2008 Election centers around.

The most recent example of this was the exclusion of Dennis Kucinich from the democratic debates aired on NBC by NBC- even though he too was running for the democratic party nomination.

But why? Dennis Kucinich has the answer for you here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNXP1djL27A. It turns out that GE owns NBC and GE builds nuclear power plants, Raytheon is also owned by GE and is a military contractor.

In short, GE - has an interest in excluding presidential candidates that will shrink the Military Industrial Complex - GE is part of the Military Industrial Complex. This is the very thing Eisenhower warned us about (last 2 posts). This is NOT DEMOCRACY.

Whether you agree with Dennis Kucinich is IRREVALENT.

Whether you are Republican or Democrat is IRREVALENT.

Whether you have concerns about lobbyists is IRREVALENT.


The question is do you support censorship at this level?

This is the same kind of censorship that led to the invasion of Iraq.

This is the same kind of censorship that led members of our government to out a CIA agent - which is an act of treason according to George Bush senior - and then the president, his son, now seeks to pardon himself and all of the people in his administration so they cannot be held accountable - http://furiousmind.blogspot.com/2008/01/president-bush-seeking-to-pardon.html ?

This is NOT Democracy. In democracy your leaders are accountable. In a democracy you are informed. In a democracy you are protected by the government - that's it's job. A government exists for the people, by the people and of the people. This is radically distorted today.

You are not powerless. Create the Advocacy Corporation. END the invisible influence of Corporations like GE. Protect the Advocate - YOU are the Advocate.

Find your passion, whatever it is, and BE the Advocate for something YOU believe in....

Introducing the Advocacy Corporation:


The Advocacy Corporation type, or Anti-Corporation (AC), has one function - to create an active and knowledgeable citizenry that cannot be bought (imagine 50 FDA's exerting pressure advocating for public safety from the private sector). AC's do not legally need to make a profit (as most corporations do).

It does this by being partially federally subsidized, based on a tier of advocacy it has achieved and each citizen may create 1 AC if they choose every year - so if YOU create an AC - based on some type of transparent advocacy goal - you immediately have the ability to:

1.
Via FCC regulations to be put into place, to offer "public service announcements" on a topic related to your advocacy goal. Each channel - not network - must allot a 2 hour time block every day during prime time television (4 hours if the media owner wants to run commercials), for AC's ONLY to register within.
A single AC cannot run more than once in a 3 month time period. Also a single point of view cannot run more than once in a 1 month time period. A similar model will need to be applied to print media as well or any other type of unregulated domain.

2.
Donate to an AC and get a tax deduction.

3.
Invest in an AC and have your money invested into Advocates in society consistent with your advocacy goal. There is however, no ROI guaranteed.


4.
Go to a web site that transparently displays why the AC is invested in a particular Advocate and how close the Advocate (a person, organization, corporation, politician, etc.), is to getting a "cash infusion" - once a point is reached determined by the AC itself in it's charter, an AC MUST invest shareholder money AND donations into it's Advocates.


Change the system - Create The Advocacy Corporation type and NOTHING will ever be the same again. YOU are the Advocate :)

Friday, January 25, 2008

The Advocacy Corporation Vs. War

I am going to say this once. The Advocacy Corporation type once created, will help to prevent wars.

I recently watched The Fog of War - 11 life lessons of Robert S Mcnamera, and after doing so I am convinced of this. It also cements the logic of my last post. So why am I convinced?

Let me explain.


The most compelling reason to watch The Fog of War (link on the left), is that it interviews the leaders of both sides of two of the most contentious conflicts in the 20th Century and CLEARLY puts to rest arguments that when we dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Japan was almost ALREADY totally destroyed due to the low level air guided fire bombings BEFORE we dropped those bombs.

In the Cuban missile crisis, Castro says he DID have nuclear missiles in Cuba - when many in the military who were part of the Military Industrial Complex Eisenhower warned about (last post) - were clamoring to go to war with him. He also DID tell Kurschev he would use them if attacked. We only averted total nuclear annihilation because someone closse to JFK had empathy for Kruschevs position.

In the Vietnam conflict, the Vietnamese people were fighting a civil war and we thought it was a war against communism and treated it so. In other words, we made crucial errors in judgment , by not seeing things though the eyes of the people there, that cost millions of lives. What Mcnamera says is that this is EXPECTED in war but with nuclear weapons, you don't get a chance to make mistakes.

He says that every military general, if they are honest with themselves, will admit that they have made mistakes - we are all people and therefore fallible. I agree with this.

In other words, the problem was one of awareness and then developing empathy for your enemy's position and their thinking - to see things though their eyes - precisely what the Advocacy Corporation is specifically designed to address.

If bad policies are the problem, then we can solve that problem by increasing visibility to that problem. Today, we are actively doing the opposite.

Policies are created based on stakeholder involvement. If you do not have all the stakeholders (advocates), involved in a decision, you get a slanted policy.

If JFK did not have the other person to his side saying that there was another way to deal with Castro, (though Kruschev), we would not be here today. This other person was a stakeholder who had a voice. Thank God for that voice.

Conversely, JFK had tried to get us out of Vietnam by reducing the number of military advisors. First, the leadership of South Vietnam was assassinated. 3 weeks later, JFK was assassinated. Shortly after that Martin Luther King was assassinated after also being rather vocal about Vietnam. By removing all the advocates for a peaceful solution, we then got what SOME people wanted, WAR. What a price to pay.


Today, we have a similar situation unfolding. Read the Stratfor (Global Strategic Intelligence), reports (link on left), or look at both extreme points of view, to know how complex things REALLY are today (as they were then). STOP watching the news - it's at best entertainment and at worst, propaganda - and you are not really learning anything.

But this is not a post about the past. This is a post about the future.

This post is about how we can reduce wars. To do that, you need more than tolerance and understanding - you need advocacy and you need awareness.

I recently wrote about learning tolerance and understanding about other religions on Helium (link on left). In summary, I don't believe in tolerance. I believe in respect. Respecting people for their similarities and differences. Tolerance is about respecting an idea or belief system - NOT a person.

To respect others you need to understand others. To understand others you need to increase your level of awareness to encompass their world view. THAT is the problem.

IT IS NOT PROFITABLE TO INCREASE PEOPLE'S AWARENESS

In fact, corporations and governments regularly prey and DEPEND upon people's LACK of awareness so they can continue to do EXACTLY what they want to do. Do you really think that when Upton Sinclair wrote "The Jungle" about chopped off body parts being found in the food people ate, the meat packing/preparation companies just said "ok, we will fix that"? No, there needed to be outcry from INFORMED people and this is how the FDA was formed.

We are talking about tolerance, understanding and respect for other people so we don't end up in wars - how do you get tolerance, understanding and respect? You advocate for it. What platform do you use since the media is currently owned by 5 corporations only concerned about profit so they put out content that is NOT going to challenge people?

Do you really think that it matters much if you sit in a room with a large group of Iranians and come an understanding of one another parting with hugs and the next day your government attacks their homeland and kills their relatives? THIS is what we are talking about here.

The problem we have is - we don't see their relatives get killed (that's WHY we have embedded journalists - do you really think that if people had to SEE people dying that would go good for the war effort?). We are misinformed deliberately by key stakeholders who benefit from decisions made, so the battle is really over YOUR heart and YOUR mind. Win that battle and every lie dies at the altar of truth.

I can assure you we are not going to agree on a lot of things (remember there is some weird stigma in society where religion and politics are off limits), but what we can agree on is that we have a common goal:

Allow the information in our society to flow freely and let people make up their own minds about things with ALL the other information available to them

The Advocacy Corporation - protects the advocate - YOU are the advocate.

It does not matter what is going in the world or what truths or lies that are present - with advocates - with YOUR involvement whatever truths or lies can be identified by an informed and active citizenry. We are neither informed or active. With the creation of the Advocacy Corporation, I intend to change both.

What YOU can do TODAY is become more aware and more inclusive in your world view taking in a wide variety of sources of information and exposing yourself to people critical of your ideas then wars for the wrong reasons will end.

Create the Advocacy Corporation and ensure that it BECOMES profitable to increase your level of awareness and the wrong reasons for doing things and the wrong things we are doing, will get weeded out faster...

Saturday, January 19, 2008

The Advocacy Corporation Vs. The Military Industrial Complex


"...This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new.... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists - and will persist. We must never let the weight of this kind of combination endanger our liberty and democratic process. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense so that security and liberty may prosper together."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961 - farewell address


"The Defense Budget is 3 quarters of a trillion dollars. Profits went up last year by 25%. When war becomes that profitable you are going to see more of it."
"We have got an empire. There is no excuse for 725 military bases in 130 foreign countries;"
- Chalmers Johnson (CIA, 1967-1973)


"The United States is the greatest force for good in the world. We have, not an obligation to go out and start wars - but certainly to spread democracy and freedom throughout the world."
"When does the United States go from a force for good to a force for imperialism?"
- John McCain

I recently watched the movie Why We Fight (see left sidebar for link). What I found most striking was "Lockheed Martin has ensured that a piece of its B2 Bomber is manufactured in every state in the United States - so the congressional representative in that state will lose jobs and piss off their constituents if they advocate reducing defense spending" (paraphrased).

Then I thought to myself. This is EXACTLY what the Advocacy Corporation, or Anti-Corporation, is designed for.

Eisenhower warned that the collusion of military, industry (Corporations) and Congress (and now think tanks - if you consider Iraq and The Project for A New American Century) - would endanger our liberty and democratic process. We are very much in that world he envisioned and warned us against, today.

Many people want to just pin this on George Bush and the Neocons (Neo Conservatives). You need to understand that these people are opportunists who believe the United States should be the next Rome - and under our stewardship the world will prosper (which it may),- YET, THEY ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.

Looking back on history we can see that we had all kinds of extremes of thought in this country. THAT is what this country protects and makes it what it is. So even if people do believe in the archaic philosophy of "Might makes Right" - the creed of every bully on a playground, THAT is irrevalent.

What is relevant is Eisenhower warned. If you only have a hammer then everything is a nail. If you only have 3 quarters of a trillion dollars going to defense (and little money going to all other segments of your society), everyone is a terrorist, a bad guy - your enemy. In this model, the question is not will we invade Iran - but when? The ONLY thing that can prevent this is an alert and knowledgeable citizenry - who can support politicians that see the problem and who want to fix it.

We are on a sled going 100 miles down a hill right now. The inertia of the system is now so great that all it takes to take this great country to war is some people will a bully mentality to ascend to the presidency, a congress that does not check the power of the executive branch of government - their responsibility, a media that does not want to tell the truth because it will hurt their corporate stockholders too much and a citizenry that is neither alert nor knowledgeable.

So therein lies the key:
The ONLY thing that can prevent this is an alert and knowledgeable citizenry - who can support politicians that see the problem and who want to fix it.
So how to we provide an incentive to the good people in government who WANT to fix our problems?

Create the Advocacy Corporation or Anti-Corporation (AC), to INFORM the people - at the governments expense. Protect and institutionalize the role of the advocate in society - the creators of this great documentary - Why We Fight. Set as part of the design of the Advocacy Corporation, direct media access on television channels for ANY Advocacy Corporation a percentage of the time.

In other words, ensure that the forums are protected that create an alert and knowledgeable citizenry.

An AC Corporation type has ONE LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY - Promote Advocacy based on the organizations Advocacy charter. It is subsidized by the Federal Government, allows you and I to donate to it and get a tax deduction and allows direct investment and ownership of stock (although it has no LEGAL responsibility, unlike corporations, to make a profit). Once formed, its JOB is to create an alert and knowledgeable citizenry based on its advocacy goal. It does this by transparently investing money into "advocates" based on a point system. Once the advocate gets enough points they get an infusion of cash for "doing right" by the AC.

In essence, the AC is the direct counterbalancing force needed to combat the influence of corporations at every level of society. It cannot be bought, sold or transferred, so there is no need to worry about money being leveraged to dampen it's message. Congress today debates about what to subsidize in society and we get all kinds of "special interests" trying to appropriate monies via lobbying for their concerns - no more - congress will just subsidizes ALL AC's at some level (the rest coming from AC donors or stockholders) so there is no preferential treatment for one idea over another. This takes us into a new age where the ONLY responsibility of congress in terms being pressured one way or another to approve spending, will come FROM an AC and NOT a lobbyist because an AC has NO profit motive and ALL of it's actions are by default, transparent. All congress needs to sign off on is appropriating money to "ensure that an alert and knowledgeable citizenry exists".

In the context of the Military Congressional Think Tank Industrial Complex this is how the scenario would play out in the case of Lockheed and the B2:

1.
One or more AC would form with an Advocacy Charter like: "Shrinking the role of the Military Industrial Complex in Government".

2.
The AC would identify it's "advocates"

3.
After the initial infusion of cash for starting the AC by the Government people could invest in the AC right alongside other corporations on the stock market based on it's "Advocacy Profile" (i.e. the organizations and people the AC is planning on investing directly in and supporting).

4.
The AC would then choose its "Media Platform" and its reporters who are paid by the AC directly to specifically support, write stories, blog, etc. about the initial Advocacy goal and those individuals, corporations, organizations AND POLITICIANS that directly support the Advocacy Goals of that AC.

5.
The government would then issue another infusion of cash based on the size of the AC and if it was successful in hitting its initial "2-3 month Goals" (think of bronze, silver, gold and platinum customers but with respect to the AC). This allows the AC to compete for talent with the corporations.

6.
Once capitalized the AC would begin to do its work and in this case, since Why We Fight is an Advocate - it gets it's first infusion of cash (subsequent infusions of cash will be based on hitting certain points or goals - this will be transparent).

7.
The AC now gets media time for free on each channel via the FCC - as a direct counterbalance to media consolidation - and can now use that time in a registered timeslot. All communication providers would need to ALLOW 20% of their communication channels a DAY during prime time, to be used for an AC at any given time (i.e. for Television the 6 PM-11 PM window - for Print media 20% of the magazine, etc.). They can NOT charge the AC (because it is doing a public service) nor run commercials during this period. What they get in return is FCC licensing and no more public debate/concern about media consolidation (i.e. the AC ENSURES that media consolidation WILL NOT lead to a narrowing of viewpoints in the public sphere), so they can compete effectively - even have just 2 corporations own the media instead of the 5 that do today.

8.
Now, the AC could air Why We Fight, as an advocate, in it's entirety and the media owner could not stop this - because it is considered "a public service announcement". This will in turn put pressure on the system in ways that do not exist today. This will lead very rapidly to a reinvigorated democracy and after the AC airs the movie on major media stations - as a public service announcement - the real momentum begins.

9.
Once people see this movie from the AC, the AC will be flooded with donations - remember people can get a tax deduction for donating to the AC. The AC will then have more resources to continue towards its Advocacy Goal and public perception will be starting to change. The AC will then invest in the politicians that AGREE with the assertions in the movie and have a PLAN to do something about it. Public debate will ensue that will focus on having the AC or the politician advocates, now associated with the AC, find ways to reduce the size of Lockheed Martin's influence in congress with respect to the B2, by having the AC reporters run stories on those politicians who are victims themselves (i.e. their constituents will be mad if they lose their jobs) and raise public awareness again through a "public service announcement" by an AC and try to find a better solution. The thing is now awareness is present and the public is talking and debating about the complex issues their representatives face.


If we don't do this all I can say is "Brawndo - The Thirst Mutiliator - It's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes." - See the movie Idiocracy to get the reference :) (left sidebar link)

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Some Simple Formulas

I think at this point we need some formulas that we can use to describe the content on this blog thus far:

The World:
============
FLAT WORLD
+ Only Legal Responsibility of Corporation (Profit to Shareholders)
= MUST Outsource - YOU are expendable


Corporate Governance:
============
Corporation + Regulation = Large Bureaucracy/Monitoring Force
(Corporation encouraged to BUY Regulators to silence critics; Inefficient)

Corporation + Media = Media Consolidation
(Corporation encouraged to BUY Media to silence critics)

Corporation + Advocacy Corporation = Self Governing Transparent System
(outside, but subsidized by Government; Media Implicit - cannot be bought; not profit driven)



The Creation of the FDA:
============
Government + Media = Regulator
(No media - no regulator)


The Impetus For Lobbying:
============
Government + Regulation + Corporation = Lobbyist
(reaction by Corporations to Government Regulation to BUY Government and Regulators)


The Perils of Lobbyists and Regulators Behind Closed Doors:
============
Lobbyist + Regulation - Media = Black Box (not a transparent process) - ex. SIC -> NASIC


Corporation = Efficiency
============
(most widgets for lowest cost)


Advocacy Corporation = Protect Humanity
============
(what part of our humanity did we compromise to sell the widgets and how do we do both?)



Why We Need Advocates:
============
Government + Corporation + Regulator + Lobbyist + Advocate = Democracy
Government + Corporation + Regulator + Lobbyist = ?


Corporate Policy Creates Robots To Manage Risk:
============
Pragmatist
+ Policy
+ Corporation
= Robots
(manage risk by destroying initiative - breeds Robots who fear operating outside of Policy)


Advocacy Corporation Policy Creates Advocates To Challenge Policy and Align it with Humanity:
============
Idealist
+ Advocacy Goal
+ Advocacy Corporation
= Promote Advocates
(protects advocates/initiative in society)


You + Policy + Robots + Frustration = Advocacy Corporation in 2008

digg this Shown on del.icio.us del.icio.us I've Reddit reddit Add to My Yahoo! Bookmarks Yahoo!

Policy Vs. The Advocate

In society, the role of policy in any form is to make processes as efficient as possible. So you do not need to think through situational concerns.

The role of the advocate is to challenge policy by pointing out bad policies from the advocates perspective (who usually has a different set of priorities than the people creating the policy).

The advocate is the counterbalance to policy and represents the point of view of the idealist - those people who have a dream and vision - as opposed to the pragmatist - those people who just focus on being effective. In each of us we have both polarities but it is the pragmatist mindset that predominates today.

The role of policy is to simplify interactions by providing a "rule book" that says what to do in a situation - regardless if it is appropriate, moral or right.

The problem is that policy is often wrong, because it often only represents the view of certain stakeholders in a process (usually financial interests), and if a feedback mechanism is not in place to make adjustments, policy in addition becomes outdated and no longer applicable. In the most extreme of cases, outdated policy becomes law and great penalties are exacted for violating "policy". The advocates key responsibility is to ensure that policy is monitored, challenged and adjusted.

In short, the advocate contains within it the passion of the people who believe in things. When the advocate dies - democracy itself dies.

Policy Rules Us All

I think of Upton Sinclair when he wrote "The Jungle" which exposed chopped up body parts ending up in the food produced by the meat packing industry. The public outcry was so great that the FDA was formed to "police" corporations. It WAS "policy" to not put in place adequate safeguards on the machines, due to cost, so body parts ending up in your food was rampant. It was "policy" not to challenge the corporations - "policy" not to challenge the status quo.

Now I think of today where the Corporations just buy the FDA (our Federal Safety Advocate) and the Media (our Federal Free Speech Advocate), and our government is complicit with the rising levels of media consolidation . If Upton Sinclair produced "The Jungle" today - it would be quietly swept under the rug and YOU would be eating someone else's body parts (in this day and age it is GMO - Genetically Modified Food - and you probably ARE eating this now).

I am not against corporations or business in general. I firmly believe in Capitalism since it rewards human greed (and that is a powerful motivational force). It's important however to know that Pragmatists along with their "policy" belong in Corporations to lead society to greater efficiencies (i.e. the Walmartization of the world). Yet there must be a counterbalance to offset the Wallmartization of the world (outsourcing, having cities pick up the financial tab for their employees, destroying local economies by putting 3 Walmarts into an area and then closing two of them, aggressive union busting, etc.). It used to be that government could be called on as your advocate - but most of the government is now owned as well by corporations (so advocacy is handled on a one off, per issue basis in congress).

How Does This Affect Me?

You need to understand 2 things:
  1. The role of the Advocate is the ONLY thing that prevents bad policy from ruling your life and the lives of your children
  2. Neither the government nor the corporations seem to care anymore about protecting the role of the Advocate
Think about the last time that you were told "it's our policy" - regardless of how doing what policy stated made sense in the current situation. No matter what you said, you got this answer "it's our policy". It probably took you huge amounts of your precious time to "set things right" - if you bothered trying. Maybe it was a administrative error, a technical problem your had, a credit problem, a legal problem or a medical problem. YOU were your own advocate acting alone - up against some faceless policy that you could not reason with or explain your situation to. Every person you came into contact with was a robot chiming in unison "it's our policy". If you were REALLY lucky you might have found someone who risked being fired for doing the right thing for your situation and said "I am putting myself on the line and breaking policy here" - but most likely you found Robots and if you were REALLY lucky you found outsourced Robots speaking in a foreign accent that pissed you off some more (because now you were mad AND you could not understand what they were saying).
I was speaking to my cousin Rose and she told me some pretty disturbing things in this area - which directly affected whether people lived or died - and the robots (doctors, nurses, etc.) just didn't seem to care. I have asked her to post some of these things as a comment to this post. Yet what dawned on me in that conversation with her was that when the role of the advocate dies in society - so does the thinking of the advocate.

The Robot is what we become if we lose our humanity. Once the advocate dies - advocacy becomes criminal. The role of dissent or disagreement in society, so critical for a democracy to function, becomes a punishable offense. In essence, our own humanity becomes criminal.

If you think I exaggerate, consider this - violating policy in most organizations is grounds for termination - regardless of the policy being violated. Humanity (human initiative), simply gets in the way of efficiency and fiscal security. Social Services can now be called on you if you violate the policy, or code of conduct, you are SUPPOSED to have with your children and the definition of "neglect" is so broad that ANYONE could be considered "neglectful" (as opposed to immature or having kids before they were ready and now they have a steep learning curve ahead of them).

The danger here is that Robots don't think - they obey. Advocates think. They passionately reason for and promote change. Policy is a book of rules - often well intentioned - it CANNOT be as flexible as reality needs it to be so it NEEDS the advocate as its eyes and ears so it can be guided effectively.

The simple truth is that Robots are less of a liability in an "efficient" system than Advocates. Advocates act on principles - Robots act on rules. What we are breeding is a society of Robots and the afterbirth of this is actions outside of "stated policies", no matter how simple to do, are not taken for fear of reprisal unless "a committee agrees to change the policy" or it is "pre-approved" to step outside of policy in a situation - fear being the guiding principle - not logic or reason. Initiative is too much of a liability and is therefore severely punished. Many people incorrectly believe that for a system to function efficiently you need to destroy initiative to manage risk. These people want Robots and they are succeeding in getting what they want.

Now consider that there is NOTHING structurally protecting the role of advocate in society. The creation of the Anti-Corporation or the Advocacy Corporation - would be that structure - and it can only come into being in 2008 by YOUR advocacy of it.

The alternative is to create a society of Robots that blindly follow "policy" - because if we FAIL to protect and institutionalize the role of the Advocate - Robots will be the ONLY people you get to talk to the next time you have a problem...


Please respond to this post by sharing some of your encounters with policy and share how the policy did not only NOT fit the situation - following it would have actually caused you or your loved ones harm.

digg thisShown on del.icio.us del.icio.usI've Reddit redditAdd to My Yahoo! Bookmarks Yahoo!

Saturday, January 12, 2008

The First Advocacy Corporation (a Model)

The Problem:
If Jesus Christ himself ran a corporation and it was cheaper to outsource jobs to China or India - HE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO SO
Now, I know you are saying - hey, he's Jesus Christ - he's the model of Christian goodness - HE WOULD NOT DO THAT. It turns out that Jesus Christ, just like every other CEO, would need to outsource your job to India BECAUSE the ONLY legal responsibility of a corporation is to its shareholders.


The Solution:

Now imagine if the people who created the movie "The Corporation", incorporated into the form of an "Anti-Corporation" or Advocacy Corporation and Jesus Christ was the CEO of THAT corporation....

  • THEY would now have protected status in society (like the FDA does), so they no longer need to make money - as an advocacy organization they get money via subsidies, directly from the federal government.
  • THEIR advocacy charter would state that they are advocating for changing the role of corporations in society to more effectively balance individual needs with group needs (in society we need both and they recognize that). THIS CHARTER CANNOT BE CHANGED.
  • You and I can also BOTH get tax deductions for donating to THEM AND can directly invest in THEM and be issued non-voting stock.
  • THEY now must have a list that THEY maintain of corporations, organizations and people who share THEIR advocacy goals (advocates).
  • THEY MUST also now take federal money, invested money and donated money and DIRECTLY invest in these corporations, organizations and people (THEY can also be one of these companies), in a fully transparent way (accessible to anyone via a web site), based on some "stated point system" (of course stating why the "advocates" got the points THEY gave them).
  • THEY now MUST also use that money to maintain THEIR own media consisting of reporters, bloggers and other advocacy tools. According to FCC regulations, as THEY are now a federally sanctioned government entity, THEY get free media time (like a political candidate) so a media corporation CANNOT block THEM or their message in any way (we would have to make this so also).

...now, try to tell me THIS would not change the game forever (and set Jesus Christ free to make his own decisions :)).


Help me make creating the "Advocacy Corporation" or the "Anti-Corporation" type, the main election issue for 2008.




Tuesday, January 8, 2008

The Advocate Vs. The Regulator



There is a sharp difference between regulation and advocacy.


Regulation seeks to enforce penalties against offending organizations. It requires a HUGE bureaucracy which is both costly and dangerous (unfair privilege and power can easily be exerted). Oftentimes you need a oversight committee to "regulate the regulators". It also creates the WRONG incentive. The incentive created is one of "well, if everyone is following the rules we need to have something to do so let's regulate MORE". In fact, let's use regulation as a form of income. If this regulation framework is an outsourced corporation to do the bidding of government, you REALLY have a problem (that should be obvious by now).

Advocacy on the other hand is providing information to make voluntary choices. It's an Opt-In process and requires little or NO bureaucratic involvement. You just see what you like and you say "I want to tell people about that". There is no incentive to profit from the regulation and you REALLY don't need much government involvement or oversight at all. What you do need however is the TRUTH or at least the "advocates perspective" and you MUST ensure that all advocates are heard equally.


So let's go over some examples of how an "advocacy framework" would work compared to a "regulatory framework". The ultimate goal of creating corporations based on the Advocacy Corporation Type (instead of a C Corp for example), is to build an ecosystem that "self regulates". This is not to say that all situations will benefit from just advocacy but it having an "advocacy layer" in society and formally institutionalizing it into some kind of transparent structure (instead of a "lobbying class"), could prove useful.

So onto the examples:

________________________________
Problem:
-
Chopped up body parts are ending up in our food becasue the meat packing plants provide poor safety conditions for their workers (pointed out by Uptown Sinclair in "The Jungle").

--Regulatory:
Create an FDA to FORCE companies improve safety by having "Inspections" and ensuring that companies follow the prescriptive guidance of the regulatory body OR THEY CAN'T SELL their products and will be shut down for endangering "public safety".
->
Result: Public is PROTECTED from UNKNOWN dangers; Company cannot continue behavior
-> Option For Corporations: BUY the FDA; Fix the public safety issue (Do Cost/Benefit Analyis)

--Advocacy:
Create 100 companies that are of an Advocacy Type, each with it's own media, and provide an unstoppable media awareness campaign; suggest practices that would allow the 100 companies to invest in and transparently endorse companies (i.e. provide financial incentives) that DO follow their recommendations (similar to how ISO 9000 works + additional financial incentive) - provide tax deductions for people who drove companies to act more "socially responsible".
->
Result: Public is INFORMED about KNOWN dangers; Company CAN continue behavior
->
Option For Corporations: PR Campaign To React to "Damaging Information"; fix safety issue; public pressure too great - can't lobby govt -can't buy regulator - can't apply media spin effectively - MUST act responsible [This has now been made the Only reasonable option to create shareholder value - the other options are discontinue product or ignore the danger but THAT will not increase shareholder value]

________________________________

Some problems like corporations sending children down into mines or issues of the maximum number of hours people SHOULD be working CANNOT be addressed by Advocacy alone they need to be addressed by regulation. So it appears like Advocacy is ONE form of governance and regulation is another. When we had a healthy media, that was not consolidated and owned by corporations (5 Corporations OWN the major media in this country today), we HAD advocates and advocates when met with resistance, kicked it up a notch and sought legal relief.

Now the pendulum has swung the other way. EVERYTHING is handled by regulation. Sexual harassment, inappropriate conduct, hate speech, jokes in poor taste, general levels of immaturity and all points in between are points of LITIGATION and REGULATION. This is VERY dangerous to a democracy based on notions of freedom.

So BECAUSE we lost our media to the corporations we have reacted by OVER LEGISLATING and OVER REGULATING. Clearly if someone tells a joke in poor taste you should not be able to press charges against a company for not "ensuring that people don't tell jokes in poor taste". We are not robots. More importantly, this is the PERFECT place for an Advocacy Corporation type to work within. Just create some bad press for a company that allows it's employees to tell jokes in poor taste and they can then come out and say "look, this was the joke: - do you find this funny? - No? OK, we'll we will try to set up some internal policy to discourage this" - and not risk getting penalized for "discriminating" against people who "tell bad jokes in poor taste". It's a joke - someone is going to be offended - the workplace does not need to be this place of unreal people (but I am getting off topic).

The point is you could actually have Advocacy Corporations promoting "supporting companies that allow their employees to tell jokes in poor taste" and other ones "discouraging companies that allow their employees to tell jokes in poor taste" - and the government would have NO INVOLVEMENT whatsoever here other than providing tax deductions for people who donate to EITHER Advocacy Corporation.

Each advocacy corporation in this sense, would have it's own set of people and organizations it actively supports and invests in though a transparent process. Bill Mahr, George Carlin and HBO might be some of the people and organizations "supported" by the advocacy corporation that agrees with telling jokes in poor taste, for example. The Christian Coalition and Pat Robertson may be standing on the side of the advocacy corporation (AC) that disagrees with telling jokes in poor taste. The people would donate to both and the AC's would invest in their "advocates" - maybe each would have a set of reporters reporting on "offenses" or perhaps the negative impact of creating a "robot like" employment environment. So you see the AC is very multifaceted.


Now, lets look at something a lot more practical.

________________________________
Problem:
Your cable company has no respect for your time; your time is worth $50 an hour and they are careless with your time - putting you on hold for hours at a time transferring you between departments trying to get "the left hand to know what the right one is doing".

Regulatory:
-> Force companies to respect your time and collaborate more effectively [not going to happen]
Advocacy:
-> Create an AC that goes to people like you and reports on these behaviors that ONLY invests in companies that have respect for people's time (that is the advocacy charter). This over time will change the game because if a company could get a call from anyone and all of the sudden get an infusion of cash they may train their people better; they may collaborate better they may get systems in place that help this transition more efficiently; Your AC may even have a software engineer as an "advocate" that you can refer to these companies and fix their internal problems. So you have a company that did not care about "customer service" and all of the sudden because the company is "afraid" that someone might call and be someone who could drop cash into the company as an investment - the customer service improves (i.e. you never know who's going to call).

So here are just some thoughts on how a Advocacy differs from Regulatory and how in most cases, its the better way to go.

Help me make debating the merits of the Advocacy Corporation the 2008 Election Issue.

Monday, January 7, 2008

What Is An Advocacy Corporation Type?

An Advocacy Corporation Type would:

1.
Have as it's ONLY Legal Responsibility being an advocate or a protector for something that provides some kind of value to the people

2.
Have an advocacy charter (which outlines it's values)

3.
Invests in companies, people, resources, social programs, government that are supportive of the advocacy charter

4.
Allows people to own stock in it (it may or may not make a profit)

5.
Allows people who donate to it to receive a tax deduction from the federal government (as this corporation is providing a function of government as we know it today which over time the government can stop providing once the ecosystem of advocacy corporations is in place)

6.
Be fully transparent to the public in all of it's dealings

7.
Own a news organization that is NOT DRIVEN BY PROFIT (i.e. it is immune to pressures to generate profits)

8.
Cannot acquire OTHER Advocacy Corporations (although they CAN work closely together)

9.
Supports a "voting" system for "advocates" that fall into the advocacy charter and once a specific number of "votes", based on the charter, an infusion of cash is invested from the stockholders money to that specific "advocate"


This need not be stodgy either. If say, you want to create an Advocacy Corporation to provide a different economic incentive for Timbaland to produce his music in "positive and upbeat way" and not make it all about "sex drugs and violence" and the corporations are saying "no, he needs to produce music that sells", then you can do that (right now all you can do is boycott the music company).

In other words, the creation of the Advocate Corporation type preserves the essence of the capitalistic system to ensure that it can never become communistic or socialistic (the Republican goal) AND it gives the Advocates collectively MORE POWER than the corporations (the Democrat goal) AND the Government . It also makes lobbyists functionally obsolete (Fringe Benefit).

Help me make creating the Advocacy Corporation THE ISSUE DEBATED for the 2008 Election - Do that and the system will NEVER be the same again :)

How Could An Advocacy Corporation Possibly Work?

Understand that existing corporations are doing what they are designed to do and they are VERY effective at it BECAUSE structurally they are cast in a specific mold.

Start with this understanding:
If Jesus Christ himself ran a corporation and it was cheaper to outsource jobs to China or India - HE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO SO
Now, I know you are saying - hey, he's Jesus Christ - he's the model of Christian goodness - HE WOULD NOT DO THAT. It turns out that Jesus Christ, just like every other CEO, would need to outsource your job to India BECAUSE the ONLY legal responsibility of a corporation is to its shareholders.

So to be effective, we need to quickly get past these ridiculous emotional arguments and not allow ourselves to "play politics":
  1. All corporations are evil
  2. If it wasn't for India or China or so and so we would still have our jobs
  3. We can close our borders and put up REALLY BIG FENCES so corporations can't go to China or India

Well, this behavior has NOTHING to do with the CEO - it is a STRUCTURAL PROBLEM. This is the nature of the institution itself - argue to change it at your own peril.

So if you can't beat em - join em!

I am NOT advocating changing ANY existing corporations - they are FINE the way they are.

The Walmarts of the world are VERY efficient at hitting that LOWEST cost measurement and this DOES provide a lot of value to society (i.e. poor people can BUY stuff cheaply). More importantly, there is nothing like some good old fashioned human greed to drive an economic system - people by definition, act in their own self interest and we need to REALLY stop pretending we do not.

So we have a VERY good economic system that through competition supports a whole set of voluntary actions that, while selfish for the individual, the combined effect of that produces value for society. Through this process we drive innovation without massive amounts of bureaucracy and are capable of relegating the role of government to national defense and protection of infrastructure.
What I AM advocating is completely changing the system of governance OVER these corporations and using another corporation type to do it.
Traditionally, Democrats favor more government and spend more on "taking care of people"

Alternatively, Republicans favor less government and spend more on "ensuring people take care of themselves"

So this is the classic argument of "taking care of other" Vs. "taking care of self".

The tragic irony is that we need to do BOTH and we have been too divided to see that we really need each others perspective.

More tragic, is that the traditionally intellectual people who encourage public debate, such as Bill Moyers, are being pushed out of the political area in favor of the pundits such as Ann Coulter and Bill Mahr - in other words, it's becoming "entertainment". I am not in any way faulting those two parties - I listen to them - but what I AM saying is that "reasoned debate of facts" is being replaced by "entertainment" and this is DANGEROUS to a democracy which requires an informed populace to function. Even Sesame Street, on PBS a publicly funded channel, is under attack as being partisan. This is retarded.
So historically, what the Democrats did to ensure that corporations did not send their kids down into mines and chopped off body parts did not end up in the food of the population by careless meat packing plants (this heralded the creation of the FDA), was to put the role of regulation in the hands of government - and thus started the classic "Democrat/Republican Debate" which was a HORRIBLE error in judgment.
This error in judgment consolidated power BACK into the hands of government under the auspices of regulation. So now you have a huge bureaucracy that exists whose sole purpose is there to REGULATE your life and the life of your company.
On the flip side, what you have is the corporate model which says profit to shareholders above ALL other concerns. We can go into specifics of this later, but the point is that BY DEFINITION corporations HAD TO BUY the regulators and now we have a opposing polarity in government called lobbyists. LOBBYISTS WERE A REACTION TO THE REGULATORS.
So what we have thought was working REALLY wasn't working for the last 200 years
but it's weaknesses were not exposed until we entered a FLAT WORLD.
When we entered a FLAT WORLD and globalization really kicked in, we saw the upheaval first hand with the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is the stage this drama between lobbyists and corporations is now playing out on on AND WE HAVE FORGOTTEN WE NEED BOTH.
We need corporations to reward people for being efficient and to encourage efficiency so we can progress as a society as capitalism is driven by the engine of change. The Boom/Bust cycle of business that says there is a built in rise and fall of EVERY corporation once it outlives it's usefulness. It's goal is to just find new ways to continue to GROW until it outlives it's usefulness (which the PEOPLE determine).

We need regulators to ensure that the greed of some people does not get too far out of hand such as in the case of ENRON which led to the creation of Sarbanes Oxley regulations. There is also the work day being a reasonable 8-10 hours and not 16 - we owe that to regulators. There are countless examples on each side both positive and negative.
The problem with BOTH corporations and regulators is that they LIMIT OUR FREEDOM in WAYS WE DON'T KNOW.
Once the media was bought by the corporations and lobbyists replaced regulators a new problem emerged. There was no one advocating for the people anymore. Back door deals between regulators and lobbyists REMOVED THE people from the process and with the media owned by the owners of the lobbyists (who are also interested in entertaining you) - we have been effectively removed from the political process.

If you do not believe me, then look up your SIC code for your type of business and you will find that it has now been replaced by a NASIC code. Were you involved in this decision? Was there a debate? Was there even a news broadcast?

This is where we are today.


Sure there are pockets of advocacy but advocacy is NOT a built in structural part of our democracy. What we have been told is that Regulators good - Corporations bad - or vice versa, and what we need to realize is that the problem comes from separating them in an NON-TRANSPARENT way.


The role of Advocate must be institutionalized into some protected structure in society otherwise we will find that there is no one advocating for US.

A Modest Proposal:


An Advocacy Corporation would:
  1. Have as it's ONLY Legal Responsibility being an advocate or a protector for something that provides some kind of value to the people
  2. Have an advocacy charter (which outlines it's values)
  3. Invests in companies, people, resources, social programs, government that are supportive of the advocacy charter
  4. Allows people to own stock in it (it may or may not make a profit)
  5. Allows people who donate to it to receive a tax deduction from the federal government (as this corporation is providing a function of government as we know it today which over time the government can stop providing once the ecosystem of advocacy corporations is in place)
  6. Be fully transparent to the public in all of it's dealings
  7. Own a news organization that is NOT DRIVEN BY PROFIT (i.e. it is immune to pressures to generate profits)
  8. Cannot acquire OTHER Advocacy Corporations (although they CAN work closely together)
  9. Supports a "voting" system for "advocates" that fall into the advocacy charter and once a specific number of "votes", based on the charter, an infusion of cash is invested from the stockholders money to that specific "advocate"

This need not be stodgy either. If say, you want to create an Advocacy Corporation to provide a different economic incentive for Timbaland to produce his music in "positive and upbeat way" and not make it all about "sex drugs and violence" and the corporations are saying "no, he needs to produce music that sells", then you can do that (right now all you can do is boycott the music company).
In other words, the creation of the Advocate Corporation type preserves the essence of the capitalistic system to ensure that it can never become communistic or socialistic (the Republican goal) AND it gives the Advocates collectively MORE POWER than the corporations (the Democrat goal) AND the Government . It also makes lobbyists functionally obsolete (Fringe Benefit).

Sunday, January 6, 2008

Introducing the Advocacy Corporation

Few people can argue that the United States has radically changed over the last 10 years - but many wonder why.

It is not uncommon knowledge that corporations are here to make a profit. That is a good thing - we want a healthy economy. Capitalism is the ONLY economic system that preserves free choice by letting the market decide what is good and bad for the people. Yet what you may not know is that PROFIT IS THE ONLY LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY of a corporation.


THEY MUST MAKE A PROFIT FOR THEIR SHAREHOLDERS. It does not matter how they do that according to the legal definition of a corporation. Even if the people in the Corporation were a bunch of peace and love environmentalists or Born Again Christians or if Jesus Christ himself were at the head of a Corporation - HE WOULD STILL BE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO MAKE A PROFIT.

In other words, this has nothing to do with a person - good, bad or indifferent. The structure demands this behavior (it's amoral like a building), and this structure is cast in the mold of a psychopath (i.e. they have zero empathy), so all it MUST do is make more profit upon more profit upon more profit regardless of the consequences (externalities). Period. It's like trying to argue with a raging bull - you cannot reason with it - just get the hell out of it's way (however it is good that we have good upstanding moral people who run corporations - otherwise we would REALLY have a problem).


This is all but an annoyance in a world that has borders (i.e. they only put shows on television and in theaters that have sex, violence, drug use and pointing out people's faults because that's what sells - Jerry Springer taught us that) - so we don't get intellectually stimulated or engaged - small price to pay.

However, in a FLAT WORLD - where you are competing with every other man woman and child on this planet for a job (and you probably don't know that) - this translates into outsourcing your job to China. Your employer can build the widget cheaper there. You are expendable. Tough luck - you lazy people, pull yourselves up by the bootstraps, stop expecting the state to take care of you and learn something new :).

If only it was that simple. At least the media informs the people so we CAN know we need to start retraining now and we have the government, social programs, lawyers, advocacy groups, churches, the ACLU, ad nauseum to make sure that people don't end up on the streets.... that was 10 years ago.

Where We Were 10 Years Ago:



So what has changed? Take a look.

Where We Are Today:




What We Need NOW - Introducing the Advocacy Corporation





Without some force advocating that the people of a democracy remain informed - a democracy is dead. We are now at this point where the amount of money required to continue to inform the people is growing exponentially in a time where there are changes occurring on the planet RIGHT NOW that are as significant as the invention of the light bulb (and you probably do not know that).

Let me explain some things to you. Thomas Friedman wrote in the book the "The World Is Flat" that AFTER the dot com bust billions of dollars of fiber optic cable was laid down to China and India - this effectively connected the whole world together on a global web based platform.

The REAL reason behind the dot com boom was that businesses saw that they could take a process, break it apart and digitize it so that they could farm that process out across the planet to the cheapest labor market (i.e. seek the CHEAPEST way of producing a widget for the dollar and the shareholders of the corporations). Our educational system, political system and our social social systems - nothing we have right now though government or the media HAS REMOTELY PREPARED US FOR THIS.

Put simply, very soon I can imagine a day where you are in a hospital and will request a meal that will be taken by a call center in India, sent to the short order cook in your hospital over fiber cable under the ocean and then sent up to your room. This is the model of efficiency (since India has cheaper labor than here) and MUST be followed. Don't believe it? I write software to do this kind of thing called "work-flow automation" software and it will put the lowest paid labor in a different country at the rate it's being used by big business.

What is needed right now is the next challenge to the American people to get a man on the moon and what we are getting is the outing of CIA agents, which even according to George Bush Sr. is treason - because their ambassador husband proved that Iraq had no yellow-cake uranium and this risked spoiling the party to invade a sovereign nation that has lots of oil. This is asinine and immature.

We have a real crisis on our hands and the media is actually NOT TELLING US THIS. most importantly, they are not giving us a framework to understand these events within - no context - just a lot of pundits spewing information. The truth is you are on your own - and you better be prepared - you NEED an Advocacy Corporation on your side.

We have the head of New Line Cinema spending 15 years to produce a movie that is 10 times better than ET called "The Last Mimsy" and it is only in theaters for less than 2 weeks.

We have a music producer called Timbaland who is a genius who will probably mainly end up producing songs that advocate sex, violence and drug use (but his skills can EASILY cross genres - his new album "Shock Value" - PROVES IT - as songs range from everything from collaborations with 50 Cent to collaborations with Fall Out Boy to collaborations with Elton John to collaborations with artists in India.


There is actually now a major financial incentive to keep people dumb and stupid and just "entertain" them:

Dumb and stupid people cannot compete with China or India in a FLAT world

Dumb and stupid people cannot complain when the Budget of The National Science Foundation is cut

Dumb and stupid people cannot understand how to act in their own best interests

Dumb and stupid people cannot vote effectively (they vote with their emotions and not fact)

Dumb and stupid people cannot exist in a functioning democracy or it will crumble


In these desperate times, we MUST protect the role of the advocate in society and to do that we need to institutionalize it. This will ensure that governments nor corporations can deprive people of what they need most in a functioning democracy: The Truth.


Join me in helping make creating a whole new type of corporation, the Advocacy Corporation, THE CENTRAL ISSUE DEBATED IN THE 2008 ELECTION.

I do not
know how we are going to do this but if enough people believe in something ANYTHING is possible - go to YouTube and type in "Obama girl" :).

Thank You.