"Advocacy-Made-Easy" Tool

Comment

Comment by Peter Kay on February 12, 2009 at 10:55pm

I probably mis-interpreted the entire concept here. Pls clarify: Is this site's primary purpose to help folks be (a) more efficient in policymaking decisions or is it (B) to put forth the Earth Charter agenda (C) none of the above and Peter is clueless!

if (A): then your term of use goes against your primary purpose for reasons stated.

if (b): then perhaps you can change the site's messaging to more closely reflect that goal (because that's not the first impression I got both from your intro, the name, and the design).

if (C): please tell me and I'll stop wasting everyone's time.

Comment by Kevin Vaccarello on February 12, 2009 at 10:45pm

Hahaha! Are you being cheeky, Peter, or did I miss something?

A very generic definition of policymaking is "a deliberate plan of action intended to guide decisions and achieve rational outcome(s)". One of our assumptions is that there is an agenda (hidden or transparent) if the intention is to achieve rational outcome(s). Another assumption is that rational outcome(s) would be in line with something like Kant's Categorical Imperative as integrated with the Laws of Thermodynamics.

The values and principles described in the Earth Charter provide an easily understood framework that Kant would likely be proud of. This qualitative aspect would certainly benefit from a complementary quantitative framework like thermodynamics (specifically exergy), but we thought that would be asking a bit much at the outset.

In other words, our transparent agenda is to help influence policy by working with individuals and groups interested in helping achieve rational outcomes via a qualitative and quantitative model of integrated and healthy ecological, socio-cultural and economic systems.

Comment by Peter Kay on February 12, 2009 at 8:32pm

Thank you Cameron for so eloquently proving what took me so much more bandwidth to explain.

Comment by Cameron Souza on February 12, 2009 at 8:24pm

Aloha Kevin. I am 100% with you. Requiring proposals to comply with the Earth Charter is not only reasonable, but absolutely necessary. We, more than any other state, need to protect our isolated and fragile environment. No more Bush pseudo science. Its time for sound policy based on real science.

Comment by Peter Kay on February 12, 2009 at 8:13pm

We can have a fantastic policy discussion on your desired outcomes (assuming they are not already in place which in and of itself is debatable) and I would truly love to participate.

But for this thread I'm only saying that making support of Earth Charter a condition to use the site is out of place and detracts from what seems like something very cool. In fact it indicates a hidden agenda ("you can do policy stuff, but only if you agree to support what we support"), which when presented in the context of policymaking is not helpful at all. If this site was called/branded something like "hawaiiEarthCharterPolicyPortal.org", that's a different story.

Comment by Kevin Vaccarello on February 12, 2009 at 7:53pm

We do understand that certain issues are fuzzy in relation to the Earth Charter, but if the intended outcome is to help move Hawaii toward enduring self-sufficiency, then that's a pretty good guideline. What type of policy is required to help create an integrated & healthy environment, community and economy, while ensuring that we leave our grand-children (and their grand-children) a comparable opportunity or better?

Comment by Peter Kay on February 11, 2009 at 11:00pm

I think it's fair game to say you support Earth Charter and we should check it out, but don't make it a term of use. that's all.

Comment by Kevin Vaccarello on February 11, 2009 at 10:56pm

Thanks, Peter. We appreciate your candor and will certainly take your thoughts into consideration. Others have mentioned that the values and principles embodied by the Earth Charter were a factor they found quite favorable since we are trying to promote healthy policy not just any policy. Perhaps there is a better framework for accomplishing what is intended?

Comment by Peter Kay on February 11, 2009 at 10:06pm

I thought it was great. really great. Until I read one of the Terms of Use: " The only thing we require is that any bill you support or oppose falls in line with the Earth Charter. The Earth Charter is a declaration of fundamental principles for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society for the 21st century."

So I read the Charter and while I respect the intent, and would like to see the general outlook and goals achieved, it's the kind of document that one can use to point to just about any activity and declare it in violation.

So while I see what you're trying to do and applaud it, by including this kind of term of use, especially in a site that's meant to promote policy, really comes off as, well, either strange, altruistic, subversive, or silly.

Pls pardon my frankness but I'm assuming you'd want it straight. My suggestion: zap that paragraph. You can certainly link to it and tell people you would like them to support it, but don't put it as a requirement in using the site.

Comment by Peter Kay on February 11, 2009 at 9:51pm

Very cool. Lets see if the 221 crowd uses it.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page