So What's the Problem?

So What's the Problem?

HAL IS EXPERT AT PROBLEM SOLVING. (See his new website testtubesofpaper.com). He has over many years trained companies to successfully conduct group-form problem solving and decision making and has authored published articles on the subject. He knows, for example, that a problem is rarely if ever singular; it most often is a combination of separate but related problems and all of them must be addressed to the degree of their relevancy in order to successfully solve what was first thought to be the problem. In addition, each of the separate but related problems may itself have components that are worthy of being individually examined.

Says Hal, "Failure to identify and explore the body of important related facets of a problem leads to attempts to solve a problem that has not been accurately defined. That fundamental failure is commonplace in America and represents the main cause of second-class and failed solutions to problems in business, government and science".

He added, "That is not to say that the aforementioned approach is mandated for use in solving all problems. Many are routine and less significant in the overall."

The assurance of liberty and justice for all is significant. But people take it for granted and therefore do nothing at the base level to insure that it is so; which what has allowed it to become not so. In truth, in the United States it is 'liberty and justice for some.'"

HOW POLITICIANS SOLVE PROBLEMS is outlandish, he thinks. Their motivation and true intent are other than obtaining the best solution. Think about it; let's say that 432 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have to decide on whether or not a particular solution to a problem is correct. 240 say Yes and 192 say No. That is, 240 Republicans and 192 Democrats!

Does that mix suggest that each representative examined the facts and made a decision he or she thought was correct? - Of course not. They decided, or voted, based mainly upon the political party line. To them, loyalty to the party is more important than accuracy and effectiveness of solutions to problems.

And why does such loyalty prevail over good judgment as it applies to the reality of the issue at hand? Because without said loyalty there is little chance representatives will obtain the necessary support needed to stay in office and maintain or acquire their desired level of financial security and authority.

The real problem is how to allow a politician to make a rational decision that is best for the people without him/her being deviated by certain dominant personal concerns.

"DON'T TELL THEM WHAT THEY NEED TO KNOW; tell them what they want to hear." Unfortunately, that's the rule. Citizens rarely are given to understand what's really going on. Even when they are asked to vote on an issue, the explanations presented to be read while at the voting booth is typically unclear, incomplete or misrepresentative. It's not just a Florida situation.

And when the President or another office-holder speaks, does anyone have any doubt that what is being presented is tantamount to a sales pitch?

Hal recommends that there ought to be a law requiring that all material aspects of an issue be provided to the citizenry and in a way that can be adequately understood. Even auditors are required to consider "materiality" – that which is deemed to be important on a financial statement. Why not equally so for our elected officials in regards to what is important to our well being, safety and our civil and human rights?

It's not OK to have something hidden in a bill to be voted upon that represents a material change from what was understood by the public, or that it is inserted at the last minute in the hope that it will not be identified until after the bill has been approved.

The hoped-for new law of materiality should also include appropriate disclosure of financial benefactors that give major contributions, directly or indirectly, to the election campaign of the officials who gave them or will give them the benefits. We all know the bad stuff is going on – why is it being tolerated?!

The whole System needs to looked at and be changed to better conform to the intent of the Constitution. But anyone who makes any realistic attempt to do so becomes a threat to the System and is treated as a targeted individual, as is Hal.

While the United States of America is more sophisticated and subtle in the carrying out of its corrupt practices directed at neutralizing domestic political opposition, is it any less guilty of inequality than are other nations whose likewise intended but substantially more overt actions are frighteningly more hostile - like Egypt, Uganda and Syria?