How do a group of people with little business experience start one up? The beginning of the unfinished process began a few months ago.
Goals of the group: first, brainstorm. What are our ideas, what would a consulting group require? the goal is to have deliverables every two weeks so that we can move this process along. One of the people had experience with business plans, so for the next week, we used a template to get us going.
Concept:
Goals
product:
marketing analysis - who you are selling to, is there a market for it, who is your competition - what makes you different.
Concept: improving processes. Instead of an ngo or business having to hire a fulltime person they can hire a consultant. what we can offer is a variety of expertise from addressing conflict in the workplace to expertise in a specific area - like the effect of water on conflict.
Each time we meet - twice a month - the group gets bigger. last time we met with six MBA students from GW who were interested in partnering up. They read our concept and other documents we had put together on the wiki site. We had some nice input from a professor to start the ball rolling. It also helps that people in the conflict resolution program have a variety of life experiences. They recommended we really hammer out "who are we" what is it that we are offering - study other groups to see what they are doing. And come up with a product - one girl recommended a training program. I thought this would be interesting. after all, after teaching english i could come up with my own lesson plans based on a template. a professor could help create the framework, and students could do the training. one of my interests in this group is to be able to participate before i am a certified "expert" with a PhD. the more practice you get - you become good at it. like giving trainings even if i didn't have the theoretical background to develop the blueprint. but hey, that's ok! other people didn't like the training idea saying that it should be the last thing we develop. We decided to go ahead.
There are now three teams working on different things: analyzing the competition, etc. our next meeting we want to have
"1. Identify 5 products : details, hours, deliverables, feasibility and revenue prospect
2. Draft a list of main competitors: name, location, contact info
3. Draft a value proposition: What can we do better than anyone else?
4. Participant Expertise: Years, industry, experience
5. Develop a guiding framework for our work: simple and applicable.
6. Compile a list of all of our own contacts within the industry that we are willing to share
7. Organizational Structure: Leadership, consulting teams, responsibility and team building"
The part that i am working on is product that we can offer relatively soon like trainings. We want five. I posted my training idea up on the site and they suggested that i go forward with it. which i am excited about.
"I also would suggest that you go forward with your idea as well. Put together some sort of deliverable, perhaps an HR best practices manual? Or perhaps a training seminar, where the deliverables would be a power point presentation and some sort of training binder complete learning modules and tests. What do you think?"
Done.
martes, 10 de noviembre de 2009
domingo, 11 de octubre de 2009
Galtung
What is structural violence, according to Galtung: "violence is here defined as the cause of the difference between the potential and the actual". while personal violence is direct - from person to person, - even even direct mental violence in some cases, structural entails indirect violence - meaning there is no actor who is committing the violence. It is violence by other means. Structural violence can be both latent and manifest, as expressed though cause and effect. Structural violence uses the vehicle of monopoly over decision making powers. This fans out into decisions over allocation of resources, of the laws - and other systems of governance, and especially the power over access to decision making powers. The effects from an inherently violence structure can be latent or manifest, manifest being more easily observable through poverty, inadequate resources, and inequality in all its manifestations - whether it is intended or not.
Identity based violence, as defined by Celia Cook- Huffman is a special case of structural violence as defined by Galtung. Access to decision making powers can be denied by identification with a specific group. Collective identities are used to justify social inequality. "In many post-colonial societies the structures of the state are dominated by and benefit one communal group or a coalition of groups and are unresposive to the needs of other groups. This inequality feeds frustration, fragmentation, a lack of system legitimacy, and ultimately, conflict" (HCAR Cook-Huffman,pg. 21) Cook-Huffman notes that identities are social constructs, rooted in history but lived out on a daily basic. Identities can also be salient, with the meaning as well as level of identification changinf over time. Identity as understood through structural violence is manifested usually through collective identities,and the exclusion or privileging of groups based upon their collective identity. Collective identites can be willfully chosen in a salient social structure, but in cases of exclusion are often imposed by those with decision making power.
The Rwandan genocide had many structural underpinnings that helped lead to the genocide of 1994. This took on two major components. Colonial domination aimed to solidify ethnic divisions and ingrain them into the social and political structures of society. Tutsi's were given decision making power Such things as identity cards, tutsi’s as the ruling class, superiority, inequality of resources on the basis of belonging to a defined category. Social and political relations were designed around these categories. These definitions were helped out by previous hierarchies of Tutsis as the ruling class, and domination over Hutus even before the Rwandan territory was colonized. However, as was pointed out in the article, tutsi was often used to describe a social class – referring to the amount of cattle one owned in contrast to differing histories, language, or physical features. The lived reality of social injustice helped and violence helped make genocide possible.
Identity based violence, as defined by Celia Cook- Huffman is a special case of structural violence as defined by Galtung. Access to decision making powers can be denied by identification with a specific group. Collective identities are used to justify social inequality. "In many post-colonial societies the structures of the state are dominated by and benefit one communal group or a coalition of groups and are unresposive to the needs of other groups. This inequality feeds frustration, fragmentation, a lack of system legitimacy, and ultimately, conflict" (HCAR Cook-Huffman,pg. 21) Cook-Huffman notes that identities are social constructs, rooted in history but lived out on a daily basic. Identities can also be salient, with the meaning as well as level of identification changinf over time. Identity as understood through structural violence is manifested usually through collective identities,and the exclusion or privileging of groups based upon their collective identity. Collective identites can be willfully chosen in a salient social structure, but in cases of exclusion are often imposed by those with decision making power.
The Rwandan genocide had many structural underpinnings that helped lead to the genocide of 1994. This took on two major components. Colonial domination aimed to solidify ethnic divisions and ingrain them into the social and political structures of society. Tutsi's were given decision making power Such things as identity cards, tutsi’s as the ruling class, superiority, inequality of resources on the basis of belonging to a defined category. Social and political relations were designed around these categories. These definitions were helped out by previous hierarchies of Tutsis as the ruling class, and domination over Hutus even before the Rwandan territory was colonized. However, as was pointed out in the article, tutsi was often used to describe a social class – referring to the amount of cattle one owned in contrast to differing histories, language, or physical features. The lived reality of social injustice helped and violence helped make genocide possible.
lunes, 28 de septiembre de 2009
Jeffrey Sachs' fear of 3rd world womens' wombs
"Common Wealth" is the title of the occasionally interesting, often outright sexist thoughts of the economist and co-creator of Goldman and Sachs. influenced by keynesian economics, - that poverty can be a powerful creator of violence; but yet ultimately profoundly influenced by neo conservative milton friedman ideology - Markets are Awesome - especially when implemented by force.
Theme of the day: population control. Watch out world. women are on the loose. With babies. lots of them. ahhhhh! Human survival is doomed. The culprit? women. Poor women from Africa and India would kill us all in a heartbeat if they could do it tomorrow. Unless... we fix this problem Now! through: "voluntary reduction in fertility rates". Why Jeffrey, you are a genius.
getting serious, so i can present my viewpoints 'academically' in a classroom that does not look kindly on sarcasm or jokes.
Sachs presents 10 other positive things that all point to lower fertility - eg education for girls, labor equality, health services,empowerment through equality in land titles and the law, better child survival rates.
1. misguided cause and effect
- low Fertility rates (having 3 children or less)is not a virtue by itself. Having fewer children does not magically create a functioning educational and health system. It does not grant equal access to the law. It certainly does not stop male privilege and gendered violence.
(In fact, male privilege may be the single largest factor creating all of these other negative factors, yet Jeffery does not address this. For example, he claims that education is important for women to 'get ahead'. I don't disagree. However, Conservative male dominated governments in places like Iran and that seized power they forbade women to work - even those with a university degree. Female doctors, lawyers, and professors that had been earning an income were suddenly barred from using their education. The only thing that stood in the way was penis power. The same with Afghanistan. the US supporter the Taliban against Russia, helped install conservative male power which demonized women. On top of that, the US then invades Afghanistan which killed off many of the women as well as their children and bombed them into the stone ages. War is much more devastating than high fertility rates.)
2. How many people can the earth hold? If population by itself is to blame for the pollution and destruction of the earth's environment, then that would mean that each person contributes equally to the destruction. however, as Sach's wrote in the previous chapter - 1st world countries, especially America - and the rich within America are disproportionately destroying the earth. logic would follow, that rich American women should stop having children - because her child pollutes as much as about 100 African children (if not more). not to mention that child will live twice as long - meaning that if we calculate the destruction that "paul" has - living to 78 years old as compared with "mandella" who lived to be 46, that is twice as much time to pollute. meaning paul pollutes in his lifetime as much as 200 african children. This of course does not even take into account the likely hood mandella lives to be 46 rather than 5. Point is, the sheer amount of time those that are destroying the earth have is far greater. Not to mention that 1st world countries' fertility rates are actually increasing! but this causes no alarm bells.
The critique that Sachs does not address is (which he even mentions, pretending that he will address) is that the problem is not population, but about living sustainably. For example, imagine if the earth held 11 billion people rather than the 6.7 we currently have. The only reason a large population is bad - is because we are too destructive. Because even when we had 3.5 billion in the 1950's this was the start of the worst environmental destruction in earth's history. Mostly through large polluters like coal production, steel mills, and deforestation. So large populations don't destroy the earth - single people do. So imagine if we were less destructive at 11 than at 6.7, then logically there would be no problem. But yet Sachs creates the goal of 'stabilizing at 8 billion' because 'we cannot continue the current path we are on'. Again, the path he refers to is the complete destruction of our environment. At 6.7 billion we are very wasteful. Do we need to fix shit? yes. get rid of coal. get rid of open pit mining. stop oil drilling. This obsession with 3rd world women's motherhood choices creates fear and will not solve the real problem. SUSTAINABLE LIFESTYLES.
Theme of the day: population control. Watch out world. women are on the loose. With babies. lots of them. ahhhhh! Human survival is doomed. The culprit? women. Poor women from Africa and India would kill us all in a heartbeat if they could do it tomorrow. Unless... we fix this problem Now! through: "voluntary reduction in fertility rates". Why Jeffrey, you are a genius.
getting serious, so i can present my viewpoints 'academically' in a classroom that does not look kindly on sarcasm or jokes.
Sachs presents 10 other positive things that all point to lower fertility - eg education for girls, labor equality, health services,empowerment through equality in land titles and the law, better child survival rates.
1. misguided cause and effect
- low Fertility rates (having 3 children or less)is not a virtue by itself. Having fewer children does not magically create a functioning educational and health system. It does not grant equal access to the law. It certainly does not stop male privilege and gendered violence.
(In fact, male privilege may be the single largest factor creating all of these other negative factors, yet Jeffery does not address this. For example, he claims that education is important for women to 'get ahead'. I don't disagree. However, Conservative male dominated governments in places like Iran and that seized power they forbade women to work - even those with a university degree. Female doctors, lawyers, and professors that had been earning an income were suddenly barred from using their education. The only thing that stood in the way was penis power. The same with Afghanistan. the US supporter the Taliban against Russia, helped install conservative male power which demonized women. On top of that, the US then invades Afghanistan which killed off many of the women as well as their children and bombed them into the stone ages. War is much more devastating than high fertility rates.)
2. How many people can the earth hold? If population by itself is to blame for the pollution and destruction of the earth's environment, then that would mean that each person contributes equally to the destruction. however, as Sach's wrote in the previous chapter - 1st world countries, especially America - and the rich within America are disproportionately destroying the earth. logic would follow, that rich American women should stop having children - because her child pollutes as much as about 100 African children (if not more). not to mention that child will live twice as long - meaning that if we calculate the destruction that "paul" has - living to 78 years old as compared with "mandella" who lived to be 46, that is twice as much time to pollute. meaning paul pollutes in his lifetime as much as 200 african children. This of course does not even take into account the likely hood mandella lives to be 46 rather than 5. Point is, the sheer amount of time those that are destroying the earth have is far greater. Not to mention that 1st world countries' fertility rates are actually increasing! but this causes no alarm bells.
The critique that Sachs does not address is (which he even mentions, pretending that he will address) is that the problem is not population, but about living sustainably. For example, imagine if the earth held 11 billion people rather than the 6.7 we currently have. The only reason a large population is bad - is because we are too destructive. Because even when we had 3.5 billion in the 1950's this was the start of the worst environmental destruction in earth's history. Mostly through large polluters like coal production, steel mills, and deforestation. So large populations don't destroy the earth - single people do. So imagine if we were less destructive at 11 than at 6.7, then logically there would be no problem. But yet Sachs creates the goal of 'stabilizing at 8 billion' because 'we cannot continue the current path we are on'. Again, the path he refers to is the complete destruction of our environment. At 6.7 billion we are very wasteful. Do we need to fix shit? yes. get rid of coal. get rid of open pit mining. stop oil drilling. This obsession with 3rd world women's motherhood choices creates fear and will not solve the real problem. SUSTAINABLE LIFESTYLES.
sábado, 5 de septiembre de 2009
conflict studies
thus begins my formal academic career in conflict studies. perhaps one of the most highly contested and political fields in my opinion. terrorism, what creates it, how to best respond to genocide, wars of agression... the list goes on. while the program is rooted in the idea that peace is indeed desireable and possible, much of the current literature is not.
current class: reinventing foreign policy from a conflict resolution perspective for Obama. self reflection: i have difficulty reading material i disagree with, because it makes me angry. trying to dissacociate from it, and try to understand their argument without having to agree with it. The book "peace and conflict 2008" by hewitt and wilkenfeld is like reading what the US state department wants you to believe. As I am reading through, in the back of my mind - why did they choose that definition? or, if they use that, why did they not include x,y,z? such as in the chapter discussing terrorism. "the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation." the us state department only uses the term political - and actual violence rather than threat of violence. legal terrorism questions not withstanding as a moral problem, what about the war in iraq? wars of agression are illegal accourding to international law, with bombings, for political reasons. this is terrorism. why did they choose to consider rebel groups, or minority groups the sole perpetrators of terrorism? without admitting that they actually did so? but they did not consider any state terrorism. not even the razed villages campaign in Guatemala that killed 200,000 people and the gov't was responsible for 93% of the deaths. but the resistance group is counted among the terrorist? give me a break.
other areas of concern: "economic openess" is discussed as 1 of 4 main criteria for judging instability.
wow: i just looked up the political instability task force: where much of this info is analyzed. it says the task force was created by request from senior policy makers to understand failed states. columbia university, arizone, george mason public policy program.. the kicker: "funded by the CIA. are you kidding me!!! wtf george mason? how legitimate is any academic study funded by the CIA.
"The PITF is funded by the Central Intelligence Agency. The PITF website is hosted by the Center for Global Policy at George Mason University and is provided as a public service. The views expressed herein are those of the Task Force and its individual members, and do not represent the views of the University or the US Government."
wow.
current class: reinventing foreign policy from a conflict resolution perspective for Obama. self reflection: i have difficulty reading material i disagree with, because it makes me angry. trying to dissacociate from it, and try to understand their argument without having to agree with it. The book "peace and conflict 2008" by hewitt and wilkenfeld is like reading what the US state department wants you to believe. As I am reading through, in the back of my mind - why did they choose that definition? or, if they use that, why did they not include x,y,z? such as in the chapter discussing terrorism. "the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation." the us state department only uses the term political - and actual violence rather than threat of violence. legal terrorism questions not withstanding as a moral problem, what about the war in iraq? wars of agression are illegal accourding to international law, with bombings, for political reasons. this is terrorism. why did they choose to consider rebel groups, or minority groups the sole perpetrators of terrorism? without admitting that they actually did so? but they did not consider any state terrorism. not even the razed villages campaign in Guatemala that killed 200,000 people and the gov't was responsible for 93% of the deaths. but the resistance group is counted among the terrorist? give me a break.
other areas of concern: "economic openess" is discussed as 1 of 4 main criteria for judging instability.
wow: i just looked up the political instability task force: where much of this info is analyzed. it says the task force was created by request from senior policy makers to understand failed states. columbia university, arizone, george mason public policy program.. the kicker: "funded by the CIA. are you kidding me!!! wtf george mason? how legitimate is any academic study funded by the CIA.
"The PITF is funded by the Central Intelligence Agency. The PITF website is hosted by the Center for Global Policy at George Mason University and is provided as a public service. The views expressed herein are those of the Task Force and its individual members, and do not represent the views of the University or the US Government."
wow.
martes, 1 de septiembre de 2009
liberals vs. conservatives
From my first impression of my first class - arguably not the best sample to form a real opinion, but that has never deterred me before... It seems that we ("liberals") vastly underestimate who conservatives are, what they believe, and the ideology that we disagree with. conservatives are not only undeducated rural americans. They are professors, they are the heads of think tanks, they are military generals, they are our congressmen. and a few are even our congresswomen.
People were commenting on the anger and division during the elections. or how they can't really talk to their conservative friends. Personally, I enjoy rural america. maybe not all of it. the white supremicist groups are unwelcome and protested almost everywhere they go in Montana, but they still do have their supporters. Unlike dc, you can actually have a conservation not involving politics. unwillingly i do as much as i can to change that.
if we use education as our measure to create an inferiority complex, why would it uniquly be a white thing? What about the labor movement with low wage jobs?
Lets face it folks, the war cry is not limited to republicans. in fact, ron paul was against iraq also. education makes one docile in the face of authority. pavlov's other experiment - asking people to shock their peers by pretending to be a doctor. despite hearing their screams to stop.
anyways, my point is, i think people overestimate democrats, which doesn't seem like such a radical concept, concerning what most progressive blogs write about concerning the blue dog betrayal on health care... so it surprised me to see that partisan adherence come out even in the initial conversations. fake liberals annoy me most because they pretend they are pro humanity. yet they still want to bomb people, because that is the practicality of life.
People were commenting on the anger and division during the elections. or how they can't really talk to their conservative friends. Personally, I enjoy rural america. maybe not all of it. the white supremicist groups are unwelcome and protested almost everywhere they go in Montana, but they still do have their supporters. Unlike dc, you can actually have a conservation not involving politics. unwillingly i do as much as i can to change that.
if we use education as our measure to create an inferiority complex, why would it uniquly be a white thing? What about the labor movement with low wage jobs?
Lets face it folks, the war cry is not limited to republicans. in fact, ron paul was against iraq also. education makes one docile in the face of authority. pavlov's other experiment - asking people to shock their peers by pretending to be a doctor. despite hearing their screams to stop.
anyways, my point is, i think people overestimate democrats, which doesn't seem like such a radical concept, concerning what most progressive blogs write about concerning the blue dog betrayal on health care... so it surprised me to see that partisan adherence come out even in the initial conversations. fake liberals annoy me most because they pretend they are pro humanity. yet they still want to bomb people, because that is the practicality of life.
lunes, 17 de agosto de 2009
washington times
my personal crusade is quite amusing. I might have hoped that my rallying cry of 'fuck the old people' - might have been condemned rather than cheered.
example 1:
"Government needs to get out of all of it! Veterans health care, medicare, its all a sham. if seniors weren't smart enough to save for retirement, why should i have to subsidize it? even if the insurance companies don't offer cheap enough plans for most people to have access to a doctor, well that's life. much prefer that than a government takeover. " woohoo!
my new strategy is disguising criticism within praise. It amuses me.
"kudos to the WT! not many people have the courage to stand against people from their own party. republican johnny isakson of georgia wrote the death panel bill. thanks again washington times. evil must be fought against no matter which party came up with the idea."
is the american psyche really that easily wiped of suspicion of expansive power that is fucking them in the ass at the very same moment they are spewing their support? don't they feel it? i don't get it. i don't trust uncle sam anymore than the next fellow. partly because they prop up mr. ceo. government in and of itself is not evil if it is a democracy. our government is being gutted as we speak. less social services, while expanding measures for to be 'the enforcer'. more police, more weapons, more prisons, more military, more surveilance, more... holy shit... they are out to get me. but not to take me to the hospital for my diabetes.
What kind of society do we want? create the ideals, live out the process that exemplifies the ideals - because a lived process creates and affirms the end result. you can't win a race if you don't practice running. you can't end up with a utopia if you don't live your ideals in your daily life.
example 1:
"Government needs to get out of all of it! Veterans health care, medicare, its all a sham. if seniors weren't smart enough to save for retirement, why should i have to subsidize it? even if the insurance companies don't offer cheap enough plans for most people to have access to a doctor, well that's life. much prefer that than a government takeover. " woohoo!
my new strategy is disguising criticism within praise. It amuses me.
"kudos to the WT! not many people have the courage to stand against people from their own party. republican johnny isakson of georgia wrote the death panel bill. thanks again washington times. evil must be fought against no matter which party came up with the idea."
is the american psyche really that easily wiped of suspicion of expansive power that is fucking them in the ass at the very same moment they are spewing their support? don't they feel it? i don't get it. i don't trust uncle sam anymore than the next fellow. partly because they prop up mr. ceo. government in and of itself is not evil if it is a democracy. our government is being gutted as we speak. less social services, while expanding measures for to be 'the enforcer'. more police, more weapons, more prisons, more military, more surveilance, more... holy shit... they are out to get me. but not to take me to the hospital for my diabetes.
What kind of society do we want? create the ideals, live out the process that exemplifies the ideals - because a lived process creates and affirms the end result. you can't win a race if you don't practice running. you can't end up with a utopia if you don't live your ideals in your daily life.
lunes, 10 de agosto de 2009
Mainstream loses another one
For the longest time I have justified myself with the idea of being a bridge. a link - between the ideas I believe in and those that don't. I wanted to convince them. But as long as i try to maintain these links, it is undermining my own growth. Instead of spending more time living out my beliefs, and practicing them, I am wasting time getting to know those who wish to ruin the utopia.
I have had enough. The more saturated I become with my own existence, the more difficult it is to venture forth into the hypo-reality. People protest, and they don't even know what they are protesting. ..yeah.. i would love to have medicare for all.. but i hate that socialized medicine stuff single payer... And how much were they paid?
Mainstream press is more censored than porn on a disney channel. Certainly, not everything is censored good sir. Everything? yes my child. I can see their mind at work. It's like fountainhead, but it doesn't take a Toohey do manipulate the outcome. Pretend you are the Washington Times, and facts are irrelevant. It is actually quite clever of them to insert the "union connection" about healthcare. Indeed, Sweeney has unleashed his union thugs to counter the real grassroots protests that have erupted. And, like clockwork, it plants the idea. damn those unions! Healthcare: its a thug thing.
I have had enough. The more saturated I become with my own existence, the more difficult it is to venture forth into the hypo-reality. People protest, and they don't even know what they are protesting. ..yeah.. i would love to have medicare for all.. but i hate that socialized medicine stuff single payer... And how much were they paid?
Mainstream press is more censored than porn on a disney channel. Certainly, not everything is censored good sir. Everything? yes my child. I can see their mind at work. It's like fountainhead, but it doesn't take a Toohey do manipulate the outcome. Pretend you are the Washington Times, and facts are irrelevant. It is actually quite clever of them to insert the "union connection" about healthcare. Indeed, Sweeney has unleashed his union thugs to counter the real grassroots protests that have erupted. And, like clockwork, it plants the idea. damn those unions! Healthcare: its a thug thing.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)