Obama is right to call for Turkey's acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide

Reasons to agree:

1. You should call a spade a spade.

Obama is right to give the director of National Intelligence a fixed term independent of Presidential control

 

Reasons to agree:

1. This would be one means of depoliticizing the intelligence process

Interest of those who agree (that Obama is wrong):

1. Promoting the Republican Party by attacking a democrat.
   
2. Racism (critisizing a minority because he is a minority)

Interest of those who disagree (that Obama is right):

1. Promoting the Democratic Party by defending a democrat.
   
2. Liberal guilt (defending a minority because he is a minority)

Interest

Please help me brainstorm the most probable interest of those who agree or disagree with President Obama on each issue. Just leave what you think motivates each side in the comment section, and I will add it to the list. Also, tell me the percentage of those who agree with Obama you think are motivated by each motivation. I will try to put the most likely motivation towards the top of the list.

The book Getting to Yes, tells us that we need to focus on interest instead of positions. To understand why someone believes something we must understand their interest. What are their values? Different interest or values lead to different positions.

Of course it is best when the author of an idea submits their interest. However others users of the website could submit and then vote on the most likely motivations of each side.

We need to also classify interest as opposing interest or mutual interest.

Businesses interest might include low taxes and good infrastructure.

Typical Format

Thesis #1

Interest...

...of those who agree with Thesis #1	...of those who disagree with Thesis #1
1. IOTWA#1	1. IOTWD#1
2. IOTWA#2	2. IOTWD#2

Explanation

A technique taught in Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, by Roger Fisher and William L. Ury, is to focus on interest not positions. In addition to having a place for listing pros and cons, I would like to have a place for the listing of interest. If we are going to make progress sometimes we have to stop listening to the stupid things people are saying, and try to figure out what their motivation is, and what makes them want to say those stupid things. It will often turn out that the real reason someone supports something has nothing to do with the arguments that they try to use to advance their ideas.

Members of a country, business, or trade organization could list their interest. Businesses could list their interest of low taxes, and good infrastructure. Psychologist could compile a list of all of the interest of a family. A slight variation on this would be to allow people to list their goals.

These list of solutions, interest, and goals would become pretty long. If written on paper they may become a big mess. However the internet offers great opportunities in the organization of data. People could be allowed to vote on weather or not they think certain interest or solutions to a problem are valid. The interest that are the most valid could rise to the top. This would make the site more user friendly. However those interest that are not generally accepted will still be presented on the site, for those who are concerned primarily about the interest of the minority.

The technology behind the internet will will make such things as responding to a specific solution, interest, or goal will be possible. The evaluation process could be used to let the site users evaluate the responses that people make. This will allow a truly dynamic give and take between different positions. If the evaluation process thrives then this dynamic give and take will constantly get better. Those positions solutions, interest, and goals that are described clearly, and are truly valid and logical will get the most acceptance.

However traditional problems may arise between people as the work their way to the real issue, and deal with road blocks in the dynamic exchange of ideas. On advantage of this web site is the natural way that the people are separated from the problems. You are not arguing with a person you are arguing with an idea. Hopefully you will not be arguing with a slopy idea, with lots of road blocks, you will be working the best but most valid idea.

One way that we could direct people in the way of evaluating solutions, interest, and goals in the best way. We could ask people if the way the solution, interest, or goal was worded might cause people problems. Perhaps someone worded their position in a partisan way, or maybe used hostile emotions. Each of these separate issues could be a plus or minus, that sends your idea up or down the slide. Questions could be asked such as, is this action consistent with principles? Yes or no.

I would also have a section of my web site designated to the hottest issues. This issues would be the ones in which violence is taking place. This would help focus interest on the issues that need the most help.

One of the principles of Getting to Yes to to work together with your advisory on the problem, instead of working against each other. For this purpose we will rarely frame conflict of group a vs. b. However there are some things that could be done in this method that may help people resolve conflict.

Assuming that on the web site we have already listed all of the interest of every party, we can go forward with specific conflicts between groups. For instance in the case of the Israel and her Palestinian neighbors we could have a section on the site specifically about that conflict. This enable people to list such things as common goals. Both the Israelis and the Palestinian people want economic security, and other fundamental needs.

Some typical motivations are listed below:

1. Financial gain


2. Groupism


3. Racism


4. Liberal guilt


5. Moral clarity


6. Party Affiliation Groupism


7. Political laziness and issue crossover


8. Self delusion


9. The desire to be seen as unique

I took a conflict resolution class, that taught mediation techniques. I highly recommended "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without giving in" by Roger Fisher and Willium Ury. Chapter 3 is called "Focus on Interest not positions". I don't want to repeat their arguments, but just want to state that we will never make progress until we get to the root cause of a conflict. From the book, "Interest motivate people; they are the silent movers behind the hubbub of positions. Your positions something you have decided upon. Your interest are what caused you to so decide."Again, whenever their is disagreement we have to get at the root cause of the disagreement. To do this we have to understand common, and opposing interest. If we just give a place for people to try and brainstorm, and understand these interest, we will make a lot of progress.Please tell me what you think! Should we have additional categories for "common" and "opposing" interest?

Obama is right to expand the United States Armed Forces

 

During the speech Obama called for an expansion of the United States Armed Forces "by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines", an idea previously introduced by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Reasons to agree:

1. We should have enough perminant troops that if we ever wanted to do another Iran, we could win it easily.

Interest of those who agree (that Obama is right):

1. Promoting the Democratic Party by defending a democrat.
   
2. Liberal guilt (defending a minority because he is a minority)
3. Security
   
4. Money / Jobs. Securing jobs for family or friends who are employed by US Military or defense spending.

Interest of those who disagree (that Obama is right):

1. Promoting the Republican Party by attacking a democrat.
2. Racism (critisizing a minority because he is a minority)
3. Not using money on things that kill people.
   
4. Anti-Americansim. Those who are overseas might not want America to be able to defend itself.

Obama is right to say, we "will cut funding for programs that are wasting your money"

Obama is right to say that we "will fire government managers who aren't getting results"

 

Reasons to agree:

1. The Chinese work 14 hour days. Their smartest engineers work for $600 dollars a year, and live in housing owned by the company they work for. They eat, sleep, and dream their jobs. They are lean, mean, and efficient. We will not be able to sell our products on the open market, unless our businesses become more efficient. We will not be able to compete, unless businesses have the ability to fire those who are not effective. The same goes with government. If our government takes more money, and does less with it than other governments, then this will be a worse place to live than other countries. If our government is not efficient at what it does, it will put our country at a competitive disadvantage, and the smartest people will want to go to another country to live. We used to be able to afford inefficient wasteful government. We will no longer be the best country, if we don't do things more efficiently. We can keep our since of entitlement, but we will not be able to keep our lack of efficiency, and our spot as the best place on the planet to live.

Reasons to agree:

1. Word mean nothing. Obama is owned by the unions. He will never expand the right of businesses or government to lay off inefficient managers. No matter what he says.

Obama is right on affirmative action based on class

 Obama has indicated support for affirmative action based on class, not just race, (q.v. redistributive change) in comments where he said that his daughters should be treated by prospective colleges and employers as people that grew up with a privileged background.

Obama shifts affirmative action rhetoric, By David Kuhn - The Politico "Obama has called for government to 'craft' a policy 'in such a way where some of our children who are advantaged aren't getting more favorable treatment than a poor white kid who has struggled more.'

Reasons to agree:

1. We don't want an aristocracy.


2. Schools should be impressed when students come a long ways without any advantages. Of course you are going to take someone's background into consideration when you are trying to get an overall understanding of their potential.

Reasons to disagree:

1. If we are going to compete with the Chinese, and overcome the problems that we face, it is not enough to put kids into schools that came from disadvantaged background, so that we feel like we are being fair. Life is not fair. We need to put kids into the top schools, that got the top scores.

Probable interest of those who disagree:

1. Republican Party Affiliation (40%)


2. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
   
   


3. Racism (5%)


4. Political laziness & issue crossover.


5. Money lost from others advancing because of affirmative action
   
   

Probable interest of those who agree:

1. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
   
   


2. Democratic party groupism (40%)


3. Liberal guilt.


4. Political laziness & issue crossover.


5. Money made from advancing because of affirmative action