Counter of visitors ===> <=== Click on for information.
About information that can you see by clicking on the above counter. Return to Home-Page when done with either of the above.

Any group of citizens graciously concerned about the state of Contentious-ALIENATIVE-Politics 
how to most Graciously-Mitigate-Our-Own-Alienative-Conflicts - - - might well ASK THE QUESTION:

"How can we, in-a-few-words for-each-description, best-describe a Few-Key-Descriptions about:
 
*******************************
***  1. Leaders-Whom        ***            ***************************************************
***  2. Values-That         ***            **    Many of us feel                            **
***  3. Ideals-That         ***            **    That we can now,     and                   **
***  4. Goals-That          ***    ====>   **    That we will-be-able-in-the-future  to     **
***  5. Life-Styles-That    ***            **    Honor, Trust and Support  - - -            **
***  6. Behaviors-That      ***            **    In SUSTAINABLE HONEST-WAYS WITH-INTEGRITY  **
***  7. Services-That       ***            ***************************************************
***  8. Goods-That          ***
***  9. Services-That       ***
*******************************
 
Some honest general discussions about the above kinds of descriptions, would be helpful!
 
Some personal work-on-writing-down - - - Descriptions-to-Affirm would be helpful!
 
Some sharing of and discussions about such individually-written-descriptions would be helpful!
 
On-Paper Priority-Voting on all contributed individually-written descriptions would be helpful!
 
Voters could give  -5 to +5  votes-of negation and affirmation to each individually-written 
description; with only the constraint being that the total of all votes must average out to at 
least 3; to mitigate ALIENATIVE-NEGATIVITY and to encourage AFFIRMATIONS.  Some NEGATIVITY may
be helpful in exposing misleading affirmations in items to be voted on.

Voting the same way for all possible items would make no difference in the process; giving a null 
effect.

It will probably be helpful to limit the maximum number of Descriptions which participants 
can vote on, to about TWENTY, with votes sizes outside of -5 to +5 being reduced in size to the 
range from -5 to +5; 0 being permitted.
 
To gain REAL DISTINCTION - - - a descriptions would need some Affirmative-Support from more than a 
majority of participants; e.g. 2/3 of the participants being supportive  - - -  and a very-high-
level-of NET-TOTAL-VOTES-of-Affirmation - - - -  Negative votes being subtracted to form the 
NET-TOTAL.   We need to deal intentionally with the Alienative-Conflicts between NEGATORS and 
AFFIRMERS!  We need to identify where Our-Alienative-Conflicts exist; and how we can cooperate 
in Mitigating-Our-Own-Alienative-Conflicts! See web-page: www.essayz.com/mitigate.htm and 
www.essayz.com/recent.htm for more details.
 
Small votes-of-Affirmation means weak-support.   5-votes-of-Affirmation means Strongest-
Affirmation;  i.e., Trust in for those leaders who are Affirmed-by-the Description.

Small votes-of-Negation means weak-opposition.   5-Votes-of-Negation means    Strongest-Negation; 
i.e., Distrust of those Leaders "Affirmed" by the Description.
 
Using a computer program we can "diagonalize" the levels of Affirmations/Negations for 
descriptions,  plotted as follows: Participants' votes all listed on one horizontal-line for that 
participant, identified, or anonymous; as desired.

All votes for a particular Description - - - will be listed in one-column, with a Code-Letter-
Identifications-of-the-Description.
 
We can "diagonalize" the above kind of votes with a computer-program-that "knows" nothing about 
the Descriptions or the participants.   Doing so brings together the participants that are "alike" 
in having  most Affirmed/Negated some relatively-small set-of-Descriptions.  Affirmations-and-
Negations are likely to be correlated!

Then two or three sub-groups can engage in discussions about persons' reasons for being in 
agreement and/or /disagreement about what Descriptions merit the most support, trust, honor, 
suspicion, opposition, etc.  

Then each group can present why they are in Agreement/Disagreement - - - in a discussion of the 
whole group.
 
For simplicity in wording-some-possible-descriptions - - -  the following descriptions are all 
about possible candidates for election to powerful positions in governments, corporations, 
religious groups, etc.  
 
ALTERNATIVE ways-of-wording-Descriptions will be needed to describe: values, ideals, goals, 
life-styles, behaviors, services and/or goods.

People should be free to use whatever way-of-wording-helpful-Descriptions will be most helpful 
in each instance; given their perspective.
 
The following descriptions of Presumably Honorable-Candidates might get notable-support from a 
significant-number-of-people in the nation.

The word "They" refers to Presumably-Honorable-Candidates.
 
01. They are honest in personal-relationships.
02. They cooperate in mitigating their own alienative-conflicts.
03. They are well grounded in reliable-scientific facts-and-descriptions.
04. They are loyal to their previous supporters.
05. They trust reliable economists.
06. They have returned high rates of return on investments by investors.
07. They are well-know by wealthy supporters.
08. They are well-known by powerful political leaders.
09. They support the proper interpretation of the Bible.
10. They believe in "My-Nation-Right-or-Wrong.
11. They believe the U.S.A. has the Best Health-Care-System in the civilized world.
12. They believe the U.S.A. is the best-democracy in-the-world.
13. They will facilitate maximal-corporate-profits for investors.
14. They know how to use violence to bring peace to the world.
15. They know how to use threats to bring peace to the world.
16. They know how to fight terrorists to mitigate terrorism around the world.
17. They are key parts of the "Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex".
18. They demonstrate a very high level of self confidence.
19. They deliver prepared speeches in very convincing ways.
20. They engage in public conversations in open-access convincing ways.
21. They are popular with a majority of likely voters in our area.
22. They are popular with a majority of key political leaders in our area.
23. They are trusted by a large majority of likely voters in our area.
24. They are known to have a very healthy-family and family-life.
25. They commit themselves fully to whatever cause they accept to support.
27. They are unlikely to have any "hidden-secrets".
28. They demonstrate integrity and authenticity.
29. They believe that personal and communal integrities are interdependent.
30. They understand the complexities of interconnected global crises.
31. They can reduce complex statements into short TV sound bites.
32. They are well educated in one essential specialty.
33. They are well educated in a spectrum of complementary disciplines.
34. They are not so well educated that they are out of touch with the common people.
35. They can convince the common people that they should be entrusted with power.
36. They are unlikely to be corrupted by great power and wealth.
38. They have successfully headed up a very profitable corporation.
39. They have demonstrated the ability to get people to cooperate.
40. They have helped people to mitigate their own alienative conflicts.
41. They demonstrate appropriate levels of: modesty, humility, generosity and hospitality.
42. They demonstrated great levels of success in challenging tasks.
43. They never had to apologize, for making any mistakes.
44. They have never made mistakes, for which they needed to apologize.
45. They are arrogant, when that is essential to being successful.
46. They are domineering, when that is essential to being successful.
47. They know how to maximize profits and do that successfully.
48. They know how to externalize corporate costs to maximize profits for investors.
49. They never back down from commitments which they make.
50. They keep all of their promises regardless of the costs.
51. They do not question the literal truth of Biblical texts.
52. They have clung to the religious teaching of their parents and grandparents.
53. They have clung to the economic teachings of their parents and grandparents.
54. They understand the complex multiple-causes  of global warming.
55. They understand the realities of the exhaustion of global oil supplies.
56. They understand the realities of the exhaustion of global fossil fuel supplies.
57. They understand how space-ship-earth;  is astronomically   tiny-and-isolated.
58. They understand how dangerous sustained Exponential-Growth; is in-the-long-term.
59. They understand how reliably accurately-descriptive physics-conservation-laws; are.
60. They know how to modify or transcend inconvenient laws of physics that inhibit progress.
61. They know how to transcend inconvenient human and environmental limits and limitations.
 
Within the context of the above efforts we will need to clarify our own and other people's:
ideals, values, principles, virtues, hopes, aspirations, expectations, ultimate-concerns, etc.
and so mitigate the presence of alienative: violence, coercion, domination, bullying, mobbing,
pretensions, power-concentrations, wealth-concentrations, and collusive-games-of-mutual-self-
deception.