Governed or Controlled………(Español Incluido)

I have been observing the conflicts around the world and as a result of my unique position to view international policy I have to ask many questions about the intention of the legislative process worldwide.  There is an extraordinary amount of hot button issues and conflicts in the world today.  There are wars, there are social conflicts, there are cultural and religious conflicts, and there are more legal conflicts than one can count.  Our governments through executive policy, foreign policy and the legislative process attempts to resolve challenges and conflicts by governing, but at times I can’t help but observe that it is not always the intent to govern but rather to control.  What is the difference between governing and controlling and are they really that separate? 

I am privileged to be born in the United States, in a country where Democracy and the democratic process is the foundation of our government.  I am an open minded individual and I have traveled to over fifty countries in my adult life.  I have studied various forms of governments and the political process and it is my belief that humans are best when they live in a free and open society that provides a path for their voices and choices to be heard and unrestricted.  Unfortunately not all countries and world leaders feel the same and not all populations have the opportunity and freedoms to express themselves freely.  This leaves us without sovereignty over our personal decision-making process and subsequently results in us being in a position of being controlled and not governed.  Without personal sovereignty there cannot be Democracy.  When governments choose through the legislative process or executive order to exert control over our individual right to our personal lives, choices and decisions…….Democracy fails!  When individuals exert their voices openly without influence or restriction of the state, church or other external pressures then and only then can Democracy flourish for all people. 

History has proven that when governments govern, providing paths of protection from outside aggressors, providing rules and organized processes that promote the expansion of economic opportunity and develop systems that incorporate the influence of the individual then we all succeed collectively.  However, when government extends its influence over our personal sovereignty then society develops discord and individuals resist.  At times this results in a much greater dynamic than a simple protest, it can and at times results in conflicts and even wars!  When government over reaches……people die.  First and foremost we are individuals with basic human rights and dignities that should not be impeded by government or outside sources.  We are all created equal not only in the eyes of the law but also in the image of God.  It is the job of governments to protect those basic human rights, to protect our individual sovereignty not only from outside sources but also from government itself.  Laws that restrict any segment of the population or laws that lack support for basic human equality are not about its intention to govern but it’s intention to control.

Democracy requires the participation of its people individually and works best when everyone participates fully.  Unfortunately we allow others to speak for us at times and as a result control our individual sovereignty, our individual basic right as a human being.  Regardless of the type of government that governs where you live every individual has a voice.  Every voice must be heard.  Every opportunity to participate in the governing process must be exercised, otherwise you submit to the control of others.  Democracy allows for your individual participation but it is your responsibility to participate.  LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!  Use your vote, use your influence as a sovereign individual and above all, use your voice.

Do not be Controlled……be Governed!

Traducción en español

¿Gobernados o controlados?

He estado observando los conflictos en todo el mundo y como resultado de mi posición única para ver la política internacional que tengo que hacer muchas preguntas acerca de la intención del proceso legislativo en todo el mundo. Hay una cantidad extraordinaria de problemas y conflictos candentes en todo el mundo hoy. Hay guerras, hay conflictos sociales, culturales y religiosos, y hay más conflictos jurídicos de lo que se puede contar. Nuestros gobiernos a través de la política ejecutiva, política exterior y procesos legislativos tratan de resolver problemas y conflictos para gobernar, pero a veces no puedo dejar de señalar que la intención no es siempre de gobernar, sino de controlar. ¿Cuál es la diferencia entre gobernar y controlar? ¿Son realmente tan diferentes?

Nací en los Estados Unidos, un país donde la democracia y el proceso democrático son la base de nuestro gobierno. Soy una persona de mente abierta y he viajado a más de cincuenta países en mi vida. He estudiado diversas formas de gobiernos y procesos políticos y es mi creencia de que los seres humanos son mejor cuando viven en una sociedad libre y abierta que proporciona un camino para que sus voces y las opciones que se escuchen sin restricciones. Desafortunadamente, no todos los países y líderes mundiales se sienten igual y no todas las poblaciones tienen la oportunidad y libertades para expresarse libremente. Esto nos deja sin soberanía sobre nuestro proceso de toma de decisiones personales y, posteriormente, se traduce en que estemos en condiciones de ser controlados y no gobernados. Sin soberanía personal no puede haber democracia. Cuando los gobiernos optan por el proceso legislativo o decreto a ejercer control sobre nuestro derecho individual a nuestras vidas personales, elecciones y decisiones, la democracia falla. Cuando los individuos ejercen sus voces abiertamente sin influencia o restricción del estado, iglesia u otras presiones externas entonces y sólo entonces puede florecer la democracia para todos.

La historia ha demostrado que cuando el estado gobierna proporcionando caminos de la protección de los agresores externos, proporcionando normas y procesos organizados que promueven la expansión de las oportunidades económicas y desarrollan sistemas que incorporan la influencia del individuo, todos tenemos éxito colectivo. Sin embargo, cuando el gobierno extiende su influencia sobre nuestra soberanía personal, la sociedad desarrolla discordia y la población se resiste. A veces esto se traduce en una mayor dinámica que una simple protesta, que puede dar lugar a conflictos e incluso guerras. Cuando el gobierno se excede en extender sus influencias, la gente muere. Ante todo somos personas con derechos humanos y dignidades básicas que no debe impedirse con fuentes internas del gobierno o externas. Todos hemos sido creados iguales, no sólo a los ojos de la ley, sino también a la imagen de Dios. Es el trabajo de los gobiernos para proteger esos derechos humanos básicos, para proteger nuestra soberanía individual, no sólo de fuentes externas, sino también desde el propio gobierno. Las leyes que restringen cualquier segmento de la población o de las leyes que carecen de apoyo a la igualdad humana básica no son acerca de su intención de gobernar pero es intención de controlar.

La democracia requiere la participación de su pueblo individual y funciona mejor cuando todos participan plenamente. Desafortunadamente, permitimos que otros hablen por nosotros y como resultado controlan nuestra soberanía individual, nuestro derecho básico individual como seres humanos. Sin importar el tipo de gobierno, cada persona tiene una voz y cada voz debe ser escuchada. Participa en cada oportunidad que tengas en el proceso de gobierno. De lo contrario, te dejas ser controlado por los demás. La democracia permite su participación individual, pero es tu responsabilidad de participar. ¡DEJA QUE TU VOZ SEA ESCUCHADA! Utiliza tu voto. Utiliza tu influencia como individuo soberano y, sobre todo, utiliza tu voz.

¡Sé gobernado! ¡No dejes que te controlen! 

FREEDOM: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of………50!

It has been an interesting year in respect that I have had a large number of friends who have reached the age of 50!  Some celebrated in grand style and others simply let the day pass as a moment in time.  As each of my friends have reached this milestone in life I began to notice a common embrace among them, they appear to be more relaxed in guiding their own thoughts and not dramatically concerned or hung up on the opinions of others.  It is an amazing freedom when one is not chasing life but instead embracing life as if understanding that life itself will move forward in either instance.  There seems to be an epiphany upon experiencing this life’s milestone when they develop the true freedom to be comfortable in their own skin.

Practically all of my friends crossing this path in life have children, some opposite sex couples and some same sex couples.  I remember being a teenager and thinking WOW 50 years old! How could anyone live that long?  As a young man in my 20’s my thought process shifted to a lack of understanding that anyone over the age of 30 had any purpose, after all once you reach 30, life is simply about work and no play.  Fortunately, I was able to reach the fine old age of 30 and realized I was horribly misguided in my 20’s and as a 30 something began to realize that people in their 40’s and 50’s were actually pretty cool, very insightful and a lot more fun to be around than me as a misguided 20 year old.  Most of my friends during my 30’s were just beginning to get married, though I was in a relationship unfortunately at the time marriage was not a legal process in which we could engage.  This was a huge generational change than that of the generation of my parents and grandparents.  After all my parents were actually parents as teenagers and so were my grandparents, and my parents were grandparents in their 30’s! 

My generation of 30 something’s seemed to be way behind schedule but none the less life powered ahead.  In the approach to 40 many of my generation, some married and some not married began having children, some in their 30’s and some in their 40’s, after all this was a new generation of 30 something’s and they were not going to be held to a pre-historic schedule set forth by the previous generation.  They were also not about to wear the title “older parents” after all most of them did not have too because the pre-K classrooms were filled with children whose parents were in their 30’s, 40’s and 50’s!  So I wondered what was driving this change in people holding off marriage and children until a more mature time in their life?  Was social media driving the shift? Was economics a motivating factor? Were medical advancements a trigger?  I am not certain that this was a combination of all of these factors or if none of them were in the minds of this generation.  What I do know is after this year of celebrations and acknowledgments I have concluded each generation drives a cultural shift in society and this generation of 50 something has certainly carved a new road ahead.

There are many commonalities among the people I know that are 50 something, those with children and those without.  The majority of them that are parents of pre-teen children and some have no children at all, that being a choice or other factor.  They are more concerned about the legacy they will leave for their children and their friend’s children and the generations to come than the legacy they are creating for themselves.  They seem perfectly secure in their financial situation regardless of where they fall on the economic or social spectrum.  They are committed to changing the world for the better and more concerned about global events and are willing to participate in activities that express the stabilization of world culture.  And last but not least every one of them are involved in some philanthropic cause that advocates social responsibility.  Has this new generation of 50 something’s driving the force of social change or has this always been the underlying case but in previous generations their voices were softer?  So I am not sure how they got there, maybe I just picked really great friends over the years and am extraordinarily blessed.  But this I do know without a doubt, as you move down the path of life embrace people of all ages and for those of you that have yet to reach this glorious milestone may you always have a: healthy and blessed Life, economic Liberty, in the Pursuit of …….50!

Silence …. the absence of sound

Throughout our daily lives there are many environments where we conduct ourselves in a silent manner.  We go about our daily routine and or interaction with society in the absence of sound.  In some cases we make a conscious choice to be silent and in other cases we move through our existence in a silent manner without choice.  There are instances where silence is interpreted as abstaining or being disinterested, however your communication is still perceived and interpreted.

Modern technology has created whole new ways of communication.  We text, we email, we direct message, we utilize social media, and we respond or not respond to all of these influences.  As a result we are automatically included in the conversation whether we remain silent or we speak out.  So the question is:  Do we make a sound with our silence?  Is being silent communicating? Do the recipients of the conversations in which we are automatically included as a result of creative technology effectively interpret that communication?  I have taken extreme interest in the intentional communication or lack thereof in social media.  Using Facebook as an example we are given multiple ways of participating in the conversation, but I point out that opting out of the conversation is not an option.  You have the opportunity to “Like” a posting, you have an opportunity to “comment” on a posting or you have the opportunity to ignore the posting.  All three of these options are a form of communication and though one may perceive that ignoring is not participating, it is not silent. 

Are we fearful of controversy or is it easier to just embrace happy.  How come Facebook postings with dogs and smiley faces get hundreds of “Likes” and a serious world issue or humanitarian crises can barely get a single “Like”? Do my friends feel by remaining silent on an issue is not communicating their opinion?  Do we think that not communicating our position absolves us from responsibility?  Most of us have heard the term “Silence is Golden” and when one is receiving information, watching a movie, listening to a speech, taking a test or evaluating a process this may very well apply.  But when one has been communicated with and uses silence as a response, your communication or intention can be horrifically misinterpreted.  In addition, through silence your position may be spoken for you and you may not be in agreement with the outcome.  By remaining silent your position may be interpreted as meaning in disagreement with what is being said when you actually might fully agree.  Is our silence a method to avoid the wrath of critics or opposing opinion?  Unfortunately this is an ineffective option as your critics will respond to your silence and choose your opinions for you.  Is our silence a method to hide our secrets, our innermost personal positions or the very core of who we are as human beings?  Again, our friends, our family, our acquaintances will define us if we choose not to define ourselves and they will judge us for who they have defined us to be and not who we are as we define ourselves.  Modern communication has reduced our ability to abstain from communication through silence.  The world continues to evolve toward a future where our participation is no longer optional but compulsory.  There is a world of people who are willing to not be silent for you, to express your thoughts and opinions for you and to influence the growth of society for you and through your silence you are communicating to them that you agree with their process.  Do not be silent in life, communicate your thoughts with an audible sound or action and be heard. Communicate your position, communicate your emotions, communicate and participate!  Every human being on this earth was given a voice or a method of communication, use it…….do not allow it to be used for you.  Communication is golden!  Silence……it’s the absence of sound.

Curated Insight! - Marginalization or Discrimination....Difference?

Recently I have had the wonderful opportunity of meeting several leading men and women who operate some of the most successful companies in the world.  Ultimately these conversations revolved around best practices and ideology of corporate structure and long-term success.  It was amazing to be exposed to many different theories and philosophies involving human resources, capital investment, strategy, public vs. private entities and return on investment.  Rarely did the conversation of corporate humanitarianism or corporate social responsibility become a topic of discussion but I took the initiative to raise the subject. 

Ultimately some of the most successful companies in the world are entities that have one common element:  inclusion!  I decided to explore economic marginalization with a few of these executives and the adverse impact this has on business, and not just their business but all business worldwide.  The most successful and profitable companies in the world embrace a diverse workforce and have incorporated non-discrimination polices in their human resource manuals.  The very idea that a company or a government or any economic based entity in the world of global competition can afford to marginalize or discriminate and remain viable is simply not a reality.  Though the human sex ratio is basically even throughout the earths population, an interesting factor exists in the western hemisphere, throughout Europe and most of the modern nations on earth and that is the female population outnumbers the male population.  If businesses in these countries discriminated against the female population they would in essence reduce their consumable opportunity significantly.  In addition, most governments in these specific parts of the world recognize the equality of women in the workplace, however where they may not have direct laws protecting the female segment of the population the private sector typically takes the lead.  The bottom line: marginalization of any sector of the population is bad for business.  When a worker feels secure and comfortable to be open about who they are as an individual they are far more likely to provide a level of commitment to the workplace through effort and productivity than one who is continuously concerned about discrimination or unequal pay.

The LGBT community worldwide spends an estimated $140 billion dollars annually, yet of the top 20 poorest nations on earth, 13 of the 20 specifically criminalize homosexuality and in some cases it is punishable by death!  The remaining 7 do not have equal protection under the law and or do not embrace LGBT culture.  When you contribute to the economy of countries such as these you contribute to the ability for that government to continue its path of discrimination and marginalization of its people.  You are accountable through your economic decisions.  In the Caribbean consensual same-sex sexual acts remain criminalized in Dominica, Jamaica, Belize, St. Kitts and Nevis, Antigua and Barbuda, St. Lucia, Grenada, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago.  These are countries with very large tourism based economies and to specifically target the criminalization of a segment of the population that spends $140 billion dollars annually is short sighted to say the least, aside from being on the wrong side of history. 

The country of Congo has a larger female population than male, yet women represent only 9% of the government. Social exclusion (or marginalization) is social disadvantage and relegation to the fringe of society.  When we as a business, government, culture or individual choose to exclude and discriminate against any segment of the population it is statistically proven that this is bad for business, bad for democracy, bad for the advancement of societal stability and ultimately bad for us as individuals.  Social exclusion is based on a premise that we as an individual believe our personal characteristics or our socio-economic status is ultimately superior to others.  There is no basis for this assumption and it will always lead to disregard and hate.  These are elements of society that have no place in government, business or culture.  So I ask……before you as a person, business or government leader determine that a segment of your population should or can be marginalized, before you place your moral compass on the determining element of this decision to discriminate… are you willing to be transparent about your goals?

Activist or Humanitarian....Difference?

There are many scholars, laymen, politicians and preachers who lament daily on the virtues of our existence as a human race.  Many of them opine from sources that best support their position as what we as a people should or should not be doing as human beings.  Defining our purpose of existence based on standards they have developed that personally benefit an outcome they desire.  In the process of their pontifications they are keen to draw a distinction between the definition of a humanitarian and an activist, as if this distinction will somehow ordain one’s purpose.  As if there is a defining difference in the outcome.  In short the definition of a humanitarian is “one who is seeking to promote human welfare” and an activist is “one who promotes change”.   Frankly I don’t see the difference.  Change is a process that takes place every second of every day as we progress through this life.  We change our appearances, we change our thoughts, we change our careers…..we change virtually every thing about our existence, as nothing regardless of our efforts remains the same. 

The activist and the humanitarian may approach a subject matter differently but the ultimate outcome is change.  Social disparity and the marginalization of human beings are a concern for both the activist and the humanitarian.  Both have concerns for the “welfare” of their fellow human being, both will “promote” the inclusion and equality of their fellow man.  It would be prudent for all of us to remember as we witness the polarization of society whether it is through inequality, discrimination, socio-economic position that this is a detriment to all our existence and directly weakens the opportunity for a sustainable democracy.  When we witness the weak, the impoverished, the homeless and the struggle of our fellow man it would be wise to remember that these human beings are someone’s brother or sister, mother or father, aunt or uncle, cousin or friend.  They were born into this world as a human being, they will leave this world as a human being and for those of us that remain I ask, what did we do the improve the life of our fellow man.  Are you an activist or a humanitarian…and is there really a difference?