User talk:Justmeherenow/Wales essay

*Johnuniq said, "Dispute resolution by a superadmin would not work in society...."

Um, a nation's president? (To self: Hmm - but I'm guessing Johnuniq is talking here about an un popular, un elected administrator. Something is in the air, here. Revolution? Subtle calls for more and more devolution? An age-old slippery slope between those in a position of authority and those who, for whatever reason, sometimes ultimately altruistic and sometimes not, work to subvert the same. - Yet, what makes for popular sovereignty? (Um really, I mean here a "popular sovereign.") The force of will and personality? recognized talent? amassed good will?" - The genuine secret is a strong, societal taboo against showing disrespect to the position. After all, it was ultimately derived from the divine, from the gods. (This is still in effect today, after a fashion. The principles, the nation itself, is sacrosanct. Thus, for example, we don't spit on the flag. Generally.) True, a Bedouin prince earns his station not only through his particular heritage but through his wisdom, his intellect, his bravery, his diligence, and so on. But also tact, diplomacy, carefully selecting his fights, political acumen, etc., too. People arrive and he counsels them, providing the lowly a measure of what the community considers its norms of justice. And when dealing with factions that possess strong will and popular acclaim in their own right, he seeks consensus. Bend but don't break. Usually. Oh, but, it is also a fact that he has got this group of his own, armed, brave men, who have been brought up to swear fealty and to fulfill stints in his service. Well...or, that is, to whomever has become the tribe's prince.

(Ah, but maybe all this ancient heraldry stuff is too anciently heraldric. That is, What would be comparable to displays of valor and intrinsic worth within a contemporary, intellectual milieau? Why, "valor" and "intrinsic worth" of the "contemporary" and "intellectual" sort, is what! And, what is that? Universities . Yep. That's it. Forget the midievil stuff.

(So, what are universities about? Let's see. Regents. Appointed presidents. Scholars with tenure. A land grant college's trustees are appointed by representatives who've won elections. Then, the trustees show they have ownership of the quasi-public/quasi-private enterprise through their deeds or whatever of ownership, combined with the written contracts they extract with students and faculty and vendors and accreditive(?diction) um boards and agencies and whatnot and what have you. With, of course, whomever are chancellors and presidents and the like being able to demonstrate smarts and competence to earn respect from faculty and students, the legislatures, the public at large.)

Anybody: Is there anything of value within my discursive brainstorm above? (Topic for another day's brainstorm, which, next time, I promise to keep to myself!: Would such ideosyncratically formalized "Wiki"-accreditations and the delineations of bureaucratic creep, as the above sorta hints at, be something that would hurt Wikipedia's present, creative semi-anarchy? the saw of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  13:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)