Individual Responsibility to Protect

Romeo Dallaire

(From the Catholic Encyclopedia) added emphasis is mine

“Omission is here taken to be the failure to do something one can and ought to do. If this happens advertently and freely a sin is committed. It is not merely because a person here and now does nothing that he offends, but because he neglects to act under circumstances in which he can and ought to act.”

“It is our collective and individual responsibility to protect and nurture the global family, to support its weaker members and to preserve and tend to the environment in which we all live.”
~ Dalai Lama

I think I’ve touched on the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, developed with the leadership of Canada, and an accomplishment which this country can be proud.  Now that addresses the international responsibility of nations to respond to clear “threats of genocide and crimes against humanity.”

But what about an Individual Responsibility to Protect? Can the Catholic concept of a “sin of omission” and the urging of the current Tibetan Buddhist leader be extended to morally obligate the individual to act in response to a crime against humanity (of which genocide is but one of the greatest)?

And if so, what (if any) are the limits of this obligation, and what triggers this obligation? Awareness? Proximity? Ability to act? Using the terms of the original ICISS Report, I propose the following:

An Individual Responsibility to Protect exists when:

When it becomes known that a crime against humanity is occurring or is imminent in the absence of intervention.
When the authority responsible for prevention or intervention is unwilling or unable to respond in a timely fashion.
When the individual is able to intervene without equal personal harm.
When there is a reasonable expectation of success from intervention.
When there is a reasonable expectation that intervention will not worsen the condition of those effected.

So, in colloquial terms:

Do I know a crime against humanity is occurring or about to occur?
Is no authority able or willing to intervene in a timely fashion?
Can I intervene without a similar harm befalling me?
Can I reasonably expect success (however limited)?
Will my intervention make things better, not worse?

Five Yes Answers = Individual Responsibility to Protect

Granted, these are the musings of a forgetful man on an isolated blog in the vastness of the blogosphere, but I wonder if this concept has validity if we ought not do something about this — put this into action somehow.  What do you think?

Note: [this entry is part of a ninety night blog challenge I've given myself. This is Night Sixteen.]

Vice

So I was thinking about my vices recently, and it got put to me again, and then again by others. You know that sort of synchronicity that happens when you’re thinking about something and it starts popping up everywhere?

Anyway, I’ve spent the last twenty or so years slowly discarding my various vices and I’m getting to the end of the list.

I don’t drink.

I don’t smoke.

I don’t gamble.

I don’t do drugs.

I’m not unfaithful.

I’m not abusive or violent.

I’ve never really been envious, jealous, or greedy.

My greatest vices these days seem to be food and sleep. Hardly enough to be interesting.

Which isn’t to say I don’t have my faults. My goodness, there are plenty of those. So I thought I’d look at some of the big ones and start working on those.  I’m not sure I have all of these ones either, but they are worth considering, so I’ll be looking into each of these over the next 90 days or so.  I’ll spare you my findings.

From the Christians:

Pride
Blasphemy
Apostasy
Despair
Hatred
Indifference

From the Muslims [Eid Sa'eed, by the way]

• Worldliness
• Ire
• Envy
• Slander
• Obscenity
• Intoxicants
• Instruments of pleasure

From the Buddhists:

• Absence of shame
• Absence of embarrassment
• Jealousy
• Parsimony
• Remorse
• Drowsiness
• Distraction
• Torpor
• Anger
• Concealment of wrongdoing

And from an old favorite of mine, Dante Aligheri:

• Vanity
• Avarice
• Lust
• Wrath
• Gluttony
• Envy
• Sloth

Ahhhh….plenty to tackle with all of these listed above. Should only take about another 20 years for me to rid myself of any of these I might have.  Curious to see so much cross-over though. In the Abrahamic religions I suppose that should be expected, but there seems to be a fair amount of cross-over with Buddhism.  Taoism doesn’t really have an enumerated counter-part and I’m not conversant enough to create one. Same goes for Hiduism, which seems to focus more on avoiding “anava” or primal ignorance, and “paap” which is sort of like sin, but not really.

Not sure I have a favorite. Do you?

Note: [this entry is part of a ninety night blog challenge I've given myself. This is Night Fifteen.]

Tao of Management Verse Thirteen

Part of an ongoing series, wherein I take a verse from the Tao Te Ching and try to apply it to modern management. Now we have a rather bizarre take on failure at first glance. I had to meditate over this one for many days before finding a way to interpret it. I hope you enjoy. I encourage you to comment.

Verse 13

“WELCOME disgrace as a pleasant surprise.
Prize calamities as your own body.”

Why should we “welcome disgrace as a pleasant surprise”?
Because a lowly state is a boon:
Getting it is a pleasant surprise,
And so is losing it!
That is why we should “welcome disgrace as a pleasant surprise.”

Why should we “prize calamities as our own body”?
Because our body is the very source of our calamities.
If we have no body, what calamities can we have?

Hence, only he who is willing to give his body for the sake of the world is fit to be entrusted with the world.
Only he who can do it with love is worthy of being the steward of the world.

My Version:

Welcome failure as a pleasant surprise.
Treasure it as you would your successes.

Why? Because failure shows you:
“This works, and this doesn’t work.”

Why treasure it?
Because your failures must be seen to be eliminated.

If you are willing to treasure your failures, you are willing to learn.
And if you are willing to learn, and act with compassion to those you fail.

Then you are worthy to lead.

Silence

I’m reading this really great book called In Pursuit of Silence, and with that in mind, and little to say, I offer you this for your amusement:

 

I’m kind of surprised how many of these films I have seen.

Male Violence: Why Your Opinion Doesn’t Matter

The last 24 hours or so, I’ve been engaged in a civilized conversation about male violence and the absence of male voices speaking out against it.  I am far more enlightened, and far more discouraged than I was before.  I have previously shared my opinion that there are no prerequisites for compassion. It would appear that I have a similar opinion, which is that there are no prerequisites for the compassionate.

My intent was to dispute the following statements:

‎”The fact that men’s violence against humanity is not mentioned or spotlighted at all by the media is also very problematic.”

“…if women were the aggressors it would be headline news everyday…”

“Men won’t dare to speak out against men…”

It has not been my experience that men’s violence is not mentioned or spotlighted at by the media. I believed I had a good reason why women’s violence is over-reported.  I felt the claim that men won’t dare speak out against men was mistaken.

So I posted a reply, knowing I was wading into something I knew little about.  I was however, curious to learn.

I won’t give you a blow-by-blow (I’ve included that below) but the response was…enlightening.

The opinion expressed was that the act of speaking out against male violence is not authentic unless a number of prerequisite conditions are met by the man speaking out:

1.  You must not be a “sensitive” man who wants to embrace your feminine side.
2.  You must be against domestic violence.
3.  You must be against the military.
4.  You must be against male supremacy.
5.  You must be against male nationalism.
6.  You must embrace ecofeminism, and be against violence towards nature.
7.  You must be completely sincere and altruistic when speaking out.

Unless ALL of the above prerequisites are fulfilled, your speaking out as a man will be viewed as opportunistic, insincere, patriarchal, brutish, in denial,  pathetic, bathetic, or a horrifically male-chauvinist,  foolish, fake, hopelessly selfish, and beyond redemption.  Unless meeting all these requirements, all men are suspect until proven innocent of opportunism, and it is accepted truth that men will always play along just to get along but “their heart will never be in full emancipation.”

I fear this may be a widely held opinion, which is both enlightening and disappointing.

I reject the notion that a compassionate person needs to fulfill any prerequisites in order for their actions to be deemed worthy.

“If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.” - Dalai Lama

I fail to see the benefit in discounting the compassion of anyone who offers it. Compassion breeds more compassion, contempt breeds contempt. To discount the compassion of anyone who does not meet a list of additional prerequisites puts conditions on compassion that undercut the very nature of developing compassion in the world. Everyone is capable of compassion and all who show compassion are worthy of appreciation and encouragement for that act, regardless of anything else.

I welcome and encourage the compassion of anyone who offers it, regardless of background or situation.

And I encourage you to practice compassion in your daily life, and found this zen habits site to help guide you.

If you care to read the conversation I had over the last 24 hours or so, it is pasted below.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Moses Seenarine

‎”The fact that men’s violence against humanity is not mentioned or spotlighted at all by the media is also very problematic. Because if women were the aggressors it would be headline news everyday, it would be called an epidemic and specialists from around the world would be involved to help end it.” – Teresa Folds

Moses Seenarine ‎”It is the absence of media coverage on the topic of men’s violence that I find to be one of the most disturbing aspects of this culture.” Teresa Folds

Trisha Baptie Where did you find her writing, I’m interested.

Catherine Campbell Men won’t dare to speak out against men, and women are afraid to be called man-haters.

Moses Seenarine trisha, she’s an fb friend; not sure if she has a blog

Winnie Small When one or two out of a thousand violent ppl are women, the one or two women get more media attention than the 998 or 999 violent men.

Teresa Folds Thanks Moses for mentioning me. I so appreciate all that you contribute. And no, I have no blog but have been encourage by many to write more.

Christopher Libby Perhaps it is the prevalence of men’s violence that has made the term “violence” synonymous in the same way that all facial tissues are often called “kleenex”. Far from being under-reported, I suggest that it is so prevalent that it has become part of the background noise of our daily lives (and certainly our nightly news casts). That women’s violence is often over-reported is likely a function of its relative novelty, and the media’s overarching business model which thrives on such. Not only is it disputable that the claim “men don’t dare speak out against men” is factual, I would contest that in general the entire legal system has been developed largely in response to men’s violence, rather than women’s violence. As such, I would point to it as a response by men against men’s violence so universal as to be a founding concept of modern civilization.

Moses Seenarine mansplaining never ceases to amaze me; violence in not synonymous with men, but with the “other”, i.e., culture, and a history of racist, sexist laws attest to that; fail! try again…

Monique O’Reilly what’s mansplaining about that? male violence *is* prevalent enough to be media background noise. i don’t see anything worth arguing there.

Moses Seenarine if you’re really interested in addressing male violence, you’d look at the construction of masculinity, rather than encouraging hyper-masculinity through sport, hunting, games and war; the argument that violence is synonymous with men is false; only some men are violent, and the others are warriors for peace

Moses Seenarine there is glorified, sanctified violence for our boys (white/christian) which we support our troops to peacefully commit against the real violence of the terrorists (brown/muslim); all this is mere justification of hyper-masculinity to aid war profiteering

Moses Seenarine the capacity for violence is seen as a mark of civilization! america is the greatest country there ever was because we’re the most violent there ever was; we can bomb anyone into the middle ages, and that makes us strong, powerful and worshiped by all other aspiring male despots; male violence is glorified everywhere, from the war media and movies to children’s shows; nowhere is male violence and the construction of masculinity viewed as something to guard against

Heather Cottin All boys are encouraged here…to be tough…it is quite profitable and makes young men very confused and manipulated…

Moses Seenarine violence is the lifeblood of masculinity, in the absence of menstruation, and men have to prove themselves as over and over again through violence that they are not females, i.e., passive and weak; the oppositional construction of masculinity is the problem, since being a “sissy” is devalued and worthless

Christopher Libby my intent was to rebut the comments made by Teresa Folds by arguing that: 1: all male violence is simply called “violence” because the overwhelming majority of violence is committed by men; 2: that the reporting of male violence is so commonplace as to have become background noise; 3: that female violence is over-reported due to its novelty and the media’s profiting from reporting novelty; 4: that the legal system is a construct of men’s response to male violence; and 5: that the legal system can therefore be considered a universal speaking out by men against male violence. I then tack on a claim that the legal system is a founding concept of modern civilization. Therefore, I argue that Teresa Folds’ comment “The fact that men’s violence against humanity is not mentioned or spotlighted at all by the media” is mistaken, as is Catherine Campbell’s comment ” Men won’t dare to speak out against men”. It also attempts to address Winnie Small’s comment regarding the reporting of female violence. All a bit much for one FB comment, I admit.

Moses Seenarine the “legal” system is based on patriarchal culture and religion; far from seeking to respond to male violence, they all have merely served to encourage it; it’s the women’s movement that has done anything about addressing male violence, and how nice of you to claim that

Christopher Libby I agree that the legal system is based on patriarchal culture and religion, but stand by the claim that it is a universal male response to male violence. Therefore, Catherine Campbell comment “Men won’t dare to speak out against men” is mistaken.

Moses Seenarine oh sure! making it legal to flog enslaved men to death or legally paying for the scalp of men with a slightly different color was a great universal response to male violence; wars are “legal” and so is most of male violence

the is the typical patriarchal bullshit; “aren’t men great; oh, well, actually, we may be a little bad, but look we’re on top of it with all the laws and stuff; men have this covered, ladies, so everyone can go back to sleep now”domestic violence was legal before the women’s movement; so was child labor, jim crow, legal discrimination of immigration of none-aryan races, and other crap not so long ago; it’s women who are the civilized sex; men are the brutes in denial

Moses Seenarine as for men specifically naming and speaking out against male violence, name me one!

Moses Seenarine and don’t bring up “sensitive” men who want to embrace their feminine side and who are against domestic violence, but who support the military, male nationalism, and male supremacy to the hilt

Heather Cottin Yeah. Denial is holding back the struggle, for sure. If they see it, then they have a chance. We really need them to step up, no kidding. Even the best of them have some serious issues! And I am being nice. But lots of women are not stepping up either. They are willing patsies. You can’t move this f orward without them! Back in the 60s, the extreme women called to “smash the nuclear family.” Well, that didn’t get many women over to the revolution. Today there is “slutwalk”, and many women just would not go for that. They aren’t edgy anymore. So maybe there needs to be, in the woman’s movement, a great leap forward? There is IWA, International Women’s Alliance that met in the Philippines in July. And they deal with it all, from abuse to imperialism. We can’t make the men move, but we can make ourselves.

Christopher Libby correct me if I’m wrong: Catherine stated “Men won’t dare speak out against men”. In rebuttal, I gave an example that the legal system is a universal male response to male violence. You have argued that this example is insufficient and ask me to name a single individual speaking out against male violence. You have added the additional condition that I must choose someone who you would not consider sensitive or embracing of their feminine side. They must also have a publicly stated position against domestic violence, against the military, against male nationalism and against male supremacy.

Moses Seenarine yup; that’s sounds about right; good luck!

Christopher Libby OK, I suggest that you’ve raised the bar considerably from Catherine’s statement “Men won’t dare speak out against men” by discounting the speaking out by men who are otherwise blameworthy of a host of offenses you have now stipulated. I will attempt your challenge despite my misgivings that it is unlikely you will find any of my candidates able to meet your standards. While I search, will you ponder why you feel that only wholly blameless men are legitimately considered to have spoken out against male violence? Is speaking out against male violence pointless unless the speaker is blameless of a host of other offenses you have stipulated?

Heather Cottin Yeah, women raise the bar, Chris. That’s called the struggle. You are in this conversation and some major women are in it with you. You sound like a nice person. Do you mix it up with gf fellow men about their really pathetic, bathetic, or horrific male chauvenism or acceptance of the male-dominant paradigm? (I can’t believe I said such a cheesy sociological thing) Take your new=-fpund knowledge, if you have gained it friom the patient and intelligent and honest responses of these fb sisters, and examine what you are doing in your life off facebook. With other men. Becaause we all want a revolution, well, you know…( but the Beattles didn’t)

Monique O’Reilly I still do not understand why Christopher is being jumped on. His arguments are well thought out, and NOT in contradiction to anything other than the “not speaking out” thingy.
What amazes me is that Chris is pounced on while that jerk Jed is allowed post after post of ridiculous logical gymnastics AGAINST feminism, with only a gratuitous tsk-tsk from Moses.
something’s out of kilter here. ::: shakes head :::

Moses Seenarine chris is a new passenger here; there may be some hope for him and his dedication to patriarchal legalism; jed’s a loss cause

besides, chris is attempting to dismiss teresa’s important point; if background violence is assumed to be male by the media, then why seek to glorify some forms of it (wars) and dehumanize others for doing the same thing; it’s not’s male violence they are framing, but the violence of only some males (and they’re never white!)

Moses Seenarine the only “male” violence that counts as violence is violence against capital and some men (propertied/white); all other forms of male violence (against women and nature) are minimized and discounted

Monique O’Reilly well, i didn’t read that much into it, but granted i’m not as educated and experienced in discourse as you are, so i’ll wait it out. you do bring clarity to many topics and dare to touch subjects that others dance around so i’ll fade into background and listen for now. thanks.

Moses Seenarine ecofeminism exposes linkages between the construction of masculinity and male violence in all of its forms; no other analysis does this

Christopher Libby Moses: Thank you for issuing this challenge. It has given me an opportunity to look further into the issue of men addressing men’s violence. For your consideration, I submit the following men as examples:

Heather Cottin Moses you said, ” only “male” violence that counts as violence is violence against capital and some men (propertied/white); all other forms of male violence (against women and nature) are minimized and discounted. ” But they are NOT minimized and discounted…they are encoraged and organized and legitimized culturally and economically! They are trained and is promoted by the “gift” of make supremacy and all that means, but it utterly brutalizes men and makes them dissociate from the human race. The capitalsits buy them! The essence if this was when DSK got away with known rape, brutal rape! And the world’s male media applauded. Arrogant white Zionist French imperial man who can’;t keep his dick in his pants and his hands to himself, this sick bastard was freed to attack again. And they publically internationally pilloried his victim! Says it all.

Heather Cottin This is not academic. It is life, Moses. We aren’t competing here, we should be intreraccepting unless we lack reason.

Christopher Libby Todd Minerson, Exec. Dir., White Ribbon Campaign; Raymond Ludwin, Pres., White Ribbon Campaign; Ulester Douglas, Assoc. Dir., Men Stopping Violence; Eduardo Correia, Board Dir., Men Stopping Violence; Moshe Rozdzial, Co-Chair, NOMAS (Nat. Org. for Men Against Sexism) ; Barry Goldstein, Board Dir., NOMAS; Dr. Michael Flood, Editor-in-Chief, XYOnline; Neil Irvin, Exec. Dir., Men Can Stop Rape

Moses Seenarine heather, i couldn’t agree more and stand corrected; the “reward” of female oppression is the single most important reason why capital/social hierarchy reins supreme, since it co-opts and easily obtains the complicity of oppressed men of all classes/stripes; with liberal and socialist feminist, men will always play along just to get along but their heart will never be in full empancipation

Moses Seenarine chris, i haven’t even bother to look , but i can assure you they all fail distinctly in the specific criteria i outlined and still challenge to produce a single line from this esteemed bunch against militarism, male nationalism and male supremacy; do it!

Monique O’Reilly There’s Quinten Walcott, i don’t know, maybe he’s a male supremacist too? http://www.facebook.com/quentinwalcott

Monique O’Reilly Quinten is the director of CONNECT – Safe Families, Peaceful Communities. maybe he’s a got a secret hankerin for the military. anything’s possible, i suppose.

http://www.facebook.com/CONNECTinc

Moses Seenarine quentin is just like other “sensitive” men opposed to domestic violence but who are without a clue as to how it is related to masculinity and all other forms of male violence; this is not to say that dv isn’t important, but it’s a small part compared to militarism, and male violence against animals and nature; we need a holistic perspective on male violence, not a fragmentary one that barely scratches the surface

Moses Seenarine and like upton said in my previous status, all of these sensitive men’s salaries is dependent on them not understanding male violence

Christopher Libby Thank you for your additional challenge. I continue to learn. White Ribbon campaign has a statement online called “The Seven P’s of Men’s Violence” that speaks out against militarism, male nationalism and male supremacy, I believe. Also, it seems Dr. Michael Kaufman, their International Director has written extensively in opposition to these paradigms. I will continue to research the others.

Moses Seenarine chris, more wishful thinking; not a word on militarism, male nationalism and male supremacy

Moses Seenarine ok, to be fair, kaufman and others do talk about a bit about male supremacy, and there is a very limited sense of patriarchal dualisms, but not a single word on militarism or nationalism; and the talk of supremacy is not linked to animals and nature, a major limitation, if not a fatal one

Christopher Libby Ulester Douglas, Assoc. Dir. of Men Stopping violence uses an ecological model to investigate male supremacy, male nationalism and militarism in his work “Deconstructing Male Violence Against Women”, which I’ve just read.

Moses Seenarine so what does ulester say about the construction of masculinity and violence against women and nature?

Moses Seenarine ulester and co. uses the word ecological to refer to community, and there is nothing even remotely ecological in their approach, nor is there a single word on militarism or nationalism;

violence careerists are in this strictly for the $, and are pimping domestic violence interventions for a fee; not one of these male fools have the slightest interest in learning about male violence

Christopher Libby Moshe Rozdzial and Barry Goldstein of NOMAS would not fit your criteria it seems, they self-identify as pro feminist, anti-racist, and gay-affirmative but do not deal with ecology, militarism or nationalism.

Christopher Libby Dr. Michael Flood, Editor-in-Chief, XYOnline, while hosting some articles that relate to nationalism and male supremacy, is not the author of same. His work appears to be more about the cultural underpinnings of male violence.

Christopher Libby Neil Irvin, Exec. Dir., Men Can Stop Rape would also appear to lack an ecological focus, instead studying the effects of masculinity definitions on male violence, the bystander effect, and DV prevention programs.

Heather Cottin Are they recieving pay for this? If they are, they are men and they are profiting from the male-chauvenist system their so-called good hearts are in the hands of the Soros and MacArthur and Ford Foundations and the grantmeisters that keep the system down, and help not a soul, Not even their own. They are part of the fake and nefarious NGO game that changes absolutely nothhg on earth.

Christopher Libby I concede defeat. Of my original eight names I submitted as examples of men who speak out about male violence who are also not “sensitive” men who want to embrace their feminine side, and who are against domestic violence, the military, male nationalism, and male supremacy, as well as employing a strong ecological approach (ecological defined in an naturalist sense), it seems I have failed to present one who fits all of your stipulations for consideration of having legitimately and sufficiently spoken out about men’s violence.

Heather Cottin They may be nice, Chrius, but they are still not really challenging the system. But the problem is…who is?

Christopher Libby I have asked Moses to consider: “why you feel that only wholly blameless men are legitimately considered to have spoken out against male violence? Is speaking out against male violence pointless unless the speaker is blameless of a host of other offenses you have stipulated?”

Moses Seenarine well, it’s not pointless for dv pimps; they’ve all probably paid off a house in the city and one in the country, and are now working on a second vacation home; and as a result of all these pimps getting paid, a few court-appointed abusers may have learned not to remain abusive to women, but i would argue that we’d get more out of the public money if we focused more on reporting and implementation of existing laws

the problem of male violence is an extinction-level event; yet the few men who are remotely concerned with this issue are in it purely for profit; it only leads one to conclude that men are hopelessly selfish and beyond redemption

Christopher Libby I’ll add “unpaid” to the list of stipulations. So, Catherine Campbell’s comment “Men won’t dare to speak out against men” is true in your opinion in so far as the efforts of any man to do so are not eligible for consideration unless the man in question is: not a “sensitive” man who wants to embrace his feminine side, who is against domestic violence, the military, male nationalism, male supremacy, employs a strong ecological approach (defined in the naturalist sense), and draws no pay from the speaking out against men.

Moses Seenarine thanks, chris

given 10,000 years of male domination, i expect all men working on women’s issues to act with complete sincerity and altruism; accounting for this long history means that all men are suspect until proven innocent of opportunism

taking male violence seriously enough to include issues of violence against women and nature, militarism and nationalism, is the basic minimum given the extent of the problem and its intractable nature; the fact that this challenge appears out of reach for most all men, even the professionals, speaks volumes on male entitlement, false privilege and denial – all conveniently self-serving, of course

Christopher Libby this has been an informative exchange. thank you. best wishes until we cross paths again.

Note: [this entry is part of a ninety night blog challenge I've given myself. This is Night Twelve.]

La Bete

I almost forgot to post tonight. Ironic, no?

What to post about? My day went from kinda crappy to possibly OK.

I realized today I can’t stand other people getting embarrassed, but I don’t mind if I am. In fact, I’m more comfortable if I put myself in an embarrassing situation to spare someone else. To me, embarrassment is like heartbreak, only in tiny little steps. Like crik, crack, krinkle, shatter, burst. I just can’t stand it. I suppose there is some deep psychological reason for this because I don’t feel I’m particularly empathetic. Pathetic, certainly, but not em-pathetic.

Yikes, OK, this essay is running down a side track. Just a minute, please…

Oh, hey, I got my car back today. I don’t think I’ve mentioned the car before, have I? It’s the mid-life crisis mobile!!! Yay!!!! <> Do I at least get points for knowing that? No? Ah well…

“Black Betty” as she is known around here, or “La Bete” as I know her in my heart is a jet-black, suicide-door, 460hp hunk of Detroit steel otherwise known as the 1969 Lincoln Continental.

Oh my God, this beast is so fun to drive, you just cannot believe it. It is a monster. And slowly but surely I’m going to get her back in fighting condition. Things left to fix: electric windows, climate controls, radio, clock, minor trim work, transmission re-pack, exhaust manifold repair/replace, upholstery and dash, and hood lettering. Think I’ll work on electrics while I save up for the transmission work.

Note: [this entry is part of a ninety night blog challenge I've given myself. This is Night Eleven.]

Five Best Father/Daughter Thrillers

You wouldn’t think that the Father/Daughter Thriller would be a big genre, but it is. There’s something primal about a father trying to rescue or avenge his daughter. It makes for great cinema, that’s for sure. So here are my picks for the top five father/daughter thrillers:

5. Cape Fear (1962) – Don’t bother with the remake, nobody’s creepier than Robert Mitchum as Max Cady. Robert Mitchum’s Max Cady famously says “I got somethin’ planned for your wife and kid that they ain’t nevah gonna forget. They ain’t nevah gonna forget it… and neither will you, Counselor! Nevah!” Oh, but it’s Gregory Peck’s Sam Bowden who gets the final word: “we’re gonna take good care of you. We’re gonna nurse you back to health. And you’re strong, Cady. You’re gonna live a long life… in a cage! That’s where you belong and that’s where you’re going. And this time for life! Bang your head against the walls. Count the years – the months – the hours… until the day you rot!”

4. Mystic River – I love the book by Dennis Lehane, whom I had dinner with once (nice guy). But the movie is an event all its own. My goodness, Eastwood directs, and you’ve got Kevin Bacon, Tim Robbins, and Sean Penn as childhood friends coming up hard in Boston. Sean Penn, as Jimmy loses his daughter to a murderer early in the movie, and decides street justice will be his response. Jimmy is a lot like some of the dads my dad hung out with. These are the the dads that are at the root of all the “mean dad” stories that get related to young men wanting to date other men’s daughters. He told me once that a “friend” was someone who’d help you hide a body, and a “best friend” was someone who’d forget where they buried it.

3. Taken – I don’t know who you are, but if you don’t let my daughter go, I will find you. I will kill you.” Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson). Always nice when Daddy used to work for the part of the government that we don’t like to talk about. He runs through Paris like a knife through foie gras and carves up half of Albania in the process. A great little antidote to Amelie.

2. The Limey – Terrance Stamp. Oh my. This is one bad daddy. Fresh out of lengthy stay in prison, he’s on the trail of who killed his daughter. Mild mannered and jovial Brit one minute, badass daddy the next. His calling card? “You tell him. You tell him I’m coming. Tell him I’m fucking coming!” Yeah. If Terrance Stamp is after your ass, being Peter Fonda is not going to help you. Only Stamp could make the sentence “Tell me about Jenny” sound blood-curdling.

1. To Kill A Mockingbird – Gregory Peck (again) in the best father/daughter thriller ever. Now you look me in the eye and tell me you didn’t want to be Jem or Scout when you saw this movie. How cool is he, thinking he can stop a lynching with nothing more than a chair, a lamp and a good book? And didn’t you always speculate about your dad having some secret super cool awesome ability – like being the best shot in the county? And really, there’s nothing more thrilling than watching your dad stand up for what’s right and true.

Sum Total

Are we the sum total of our experiences or the sum total of our aspirations?

Is a child, once a victim of the unspeakable, not also later a man of moral conviction?

Is the mother, bereft of her child, not still the giver of life?

I like to think of give and take. Of things given to me not equaling what I take.

I like to believe that while I may have come to this point through my thoughts and my words,
in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, that I am not just that.

That I am instead what I have taken from these days and these night allotted to me, that I am what I breathe in and what I illuminate with my breath, that I am carried along by the pull of my dreams, but not aloft but for the stones of wisdom in my pockets.

Note: [this entry is part of a ninety night blog challenge I've given myself. This is Night Nine.]

Empathy v. Sympathy

I wonder if our social media and web-connected world has had an effect on our ability to feel empathy and sympathy. Remember when we were kids and mom told us to eat our vegetables because there were kids starving in China? Well, now we can see those starving kids, wherever they may be, any time we like.

You may be aware of the Somalian drought and famine happening right now. How do you feel about that? Are you doing anything about it?

Did you do anything during the 1984-85 Ethiopian famine? You might remember that one – it spawned Live Aid.

Surely, Bob Geldof is not the difference between your humanitarian action and indifference, is it? I wonder if the problem is that now it is much easier to know that droughts and famines didn’t suddenly start in 1985, or 2011. There was famine in 2010 in the same region, and in 2009, and in 2008 (twice), and in 2006, 2005, 2003, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1992, 1991, 1973, 1972, 1971, 1970, 1969, 1968, 1966, 1958, 1949, 1929, 1914, and 1912.

And I’ve only counted the Horn of Africa.

I suggest that while our ability to know about humanitarian crisis has increased, it has also reduced our ability to sympathize or empathize with those effected. I wonder if more and more of us are suffering from “compassion fatigue” when it comes to humanitarian crisis.

I am troubled however, by the notion that if we are aware of a humanitarian crisis and do not respond, to what extent are we culpable in the crisis? Now I know that legally, there is a long history which indemnifies an individual for choosing to aid or not aid someone in crisis. In most cases, there is no duty to render aid.

But ethics and law are two separate things. How do you feel about this? I am…uncertain.

Love, Hope, Optimism

My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.

All my very best,

Jack Layton

For those of you outside of Canada, I’ll need to let you know that Canada lost an important part of it’s democracy today. New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton died after a fight with cancer. Jack, as he was known by everybody, fought proudly and publicly until the end, in keeping with his life of fighting for all Canadians. His final words, which I’ve copied above, come from his final letter to the public released upon his death.

They serve as a reminder to us all of our duty to one another above all else. To be loving, hopeful and optimistic about one’s fellow man is the basis of any great people. As Canada mourns, ask yourself, “Do I get more out of love or anger? Do I gain more from hope or fear? Do I see others through a lens of pessimism or optimism?”

As for me and mine, we’ll practice love, hope and optimism. I hope you will too.

Note: [this entry is part of a ninety night blog challenge I've given myself. This is Night Seven.]

My Best Friend

Guys, who’s your best friend? Married guys, you can’t pick your wife. Dating guys, you can’t pick your girlfriend. Got someone in mind? When was the last time you saw them face-to-face outside of work? If it wasn’t this week, they don’t count.

A lot of guys my age struggle to come up with the name of a guy they would call a “best friend”. Women don’t seem to have this problem. Why is that? Outside of a bonding experience like military service, peace corps service or the like, many men don’t seem to have the close friendships that women have.  Adding to the difficulty for men to make friends is the demise of institutions like bowling leagues, civic clubs, and the like. In some locales, if you don’t hunt or fish or have a kid in sports, your chances to make male friends is even more limited.

Is social media making it any easier? I wonder because I certainly care as much about some of the people I know only through Twitter (my social media of choice), as I do about people outside my family in real life, and these are people I’ve never even met in person!

I find it very hard to make friends. I have scads of acquaintances, but I am fairly mystified by what I’ve come to term “how to make friends with humans”.  Professional connections I have in the hundreds. People I could call tomorrow night for a beer? Not so much.

I have all the excuses needed not to make friends: personal preferences to spend time with family; a natural proclivity for solitary activities like reading; a lack of interest in stereotypical male interests like sports, hunting, or gambling; a persistent need to work.

But I have one good reason to make friends: someday I might like to share my thoughts with another adult male. I fear at some point after my work life is over, there will simply be nobody to talk to who might share a viewpoint shaped in part, like mine, as a result of being a man.

Note: [this entry is part of a ninety night blog challenge I've given myself]

The Night (Ninety Night Blog Challenge #5)

So I woke up this morning with the feeling that everything was going to be alright today. That’s always nice, as is a good night’s sleep.

Hat tip to a friend who wrote about mymeditation on their blog.  I downloaded it and found it worked quite nicely.  A little three minute excursion into Guided Breathing was just the trick. Knocked me right out despite having a raving mind at the time.

Does anyone else get that, I wonder: a raving mind late at night?  I am, without a doubt, a “night owl“. I excel in the late hours of the day and well into the night. For me, it has always been this way.  I love the night.

One of my favorite books is by Haruki Murakami, entitled “After Dark” (アフターダーク) which takes place in the course of a single night in the backstreets of Tokyo. To explain the plot is to try and explain the plot to a Thelonious Monk tune. It’s not about the plot, it about the feel of the night, of how your focus sharpens, people are brighter, and the electricity between people and of ideas is visible.

Some of my favorite people are/were night people: Percy Blythe Shelley, Marcel Proust, and James Joyce. I used to love to stay up and play Beethoven’s Piano Sonata #14, the name of which you can guess, after everybody had gone to bed as a sort of lullaby.

In fact, while writing this, I am reminded that my father used to play the Sinatra album “In the Wee Small Hours” in the evening when I was a kid. I remember hearing it from my bedroom.

Then, of course, there’s my favorite song:

sleep tight everybody…

Note: [this entry is part of a ninety night blog challenge I've given myself]

Solitude and Companionship (Night 4)

 ”Solitude is a funny thing. It’s almost like another person. After a while it will keep you company if you let it.” - Toni Bernhard

I found myself “alone in a crowd” for most of today, and dealing with that is sort of how I spent my day. Oh sure, I was absolutely surrounded by people, sometimes a great number of them, and sometimes with more than one at a time demanding my attention and engagement. But it was this feeling of being alone that was the main focus of my energy today. Hmmm…let me tell you how that went.

For the early part of the day I was quite content to walk with my solitude hand-in-hand. I engaged with people, took part in their lives and needs, but didn’t really allow them inside the little huddle I had with my solitude. That makes for a certain outward expression of detachment or self-involvement. I found it nice to be inside there, but people who care about me wondered if I was OK. I react with annoyance when that happens – so not helpful. I want to say “Yes, yes, I’m fine, I’m just in here at the moment.” But for them, it’s like dealing with a guy who is walking around all the time taking notes on a little hand-sized notebook. You can’t help but be suspicious.

So for a bit, I was quite “not happy” with this feeling and set myself up against it. That, however felt like a fight that I was not in a position to win. I didn’t have control over someone to the extent that I could demand companionship, nor could I force any of the people around me to engage me in any sort of deep, meaningful way. It was, as a wise man once said (and I paraphrase) “a suffering caused by the desire for circumstances over which we have no control.” So clearly, getting pissed off about it wasn’t going to work. That just makes me a cranky a-hole around people and that leads to very poor interactions and consequences.

So in the end, I just decided to take that feeling I had of solitude and channel the energy I expend in railing against it, or holding it too close in a huddle, and focus it on short, deep interactions with one person after another. It’s my version of that enviable skill some people have to make you feel like you are the only person in the room, and you have their full attention. I don’t have that particular skill, but I tried my version of it with a couple of people and it seems to work. You pull them in, and make your little bubble all about them for a few minutes. It was kind of interesting and made for the quick passage of time, to boot. Curiously, it seemed to have the side effect of allowing me to retreat into my solitude between interactions without anyone coming along to ask me if there was something wrong.

Try that and see what it’s like.

Compassion Has No Prerequisite – Ninety Night Blog Challenge

I noted a post on FB today:

Thank you Florida, Kentucky, and Missouri, which are the first states that will require drug testing when applying for welfare. Some people are crying and calling this unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional? It’s OK to drug test people who work for their money but not those who don’t?… Re-post this if you’d like to see this done in all 50 states..

I hesitated to comment, so I simply posted.

No. I think this is wrong.

Compassion has no prerequisite. I fail to find a passage in any religious text that states “show compassion to the poor, but only if they behave”. So from a religious standpoint, it seems we are compelled to help the poor, regardless of their behaviour.

But hey, we’re talking public policy here, not religion, so we’ll try and argument from a non-religious perspective.

There may be three reasons to show compassion to the poor:

1. Doing so keeps them from taking stuff from you. Rebellion, robbery, what-have-you would conceivably be bad for you, so a little charity might be done to secure your own long-term security.

2. Society might be better served as a whole to remediate the effects of poverty, in so far as it would have the effect of having more members of the society operating at a level at which they can contribute to the common good.

3. There is a natural law which places an obligation on those with much to share with those with little. Pick your moral basis, but it is quite likely a universal constant that ethical codes strongly encourage sharing.

I just fail to see any substantial reason to impose a prerequisite on compassion from either a moral or ethical standpoint. So I think that making people pass a drug test to get welfare is wrong.

Here’s a story to illustrate my point that compassion is an obligation:

V.P. Menon was a key figure in India’s struggle for independence from Britain. He was equally well known for his integrity and his charity.  As a senior member of the Indian government both before and after British rule, he was instrumental in India’s transition.

His daughter tells the story of one of his first trips to Delhi to seek a job with the government.

When Menon first arrived in Delhi, all his possessions were stolen at the railroad station. He would have to return home on foot, defeated. In desperation, he turned to an elderly Sikh, explained his troubles, and asked for a temporary loan of fifteen Rupees to see him through until he got a job. The Sikh gave him the money. When Menon asked for his address so that he could repay the man, the Sikh said that Menon owed the debt to any stranger who came to him in need, as long as he lived. The help came from a stranger and was to be repaid to a stranger.

Menon never forgot that debt. Neither the gift of trust, nor the fifteen Rupees. His daughter said that the day before he died, a beggar came to the family home in Bangalore asking for help to buy new sandals, as his feet were covered with sores. Menon asked his daughter to take fifteen Rupees out of his wallet to give to the man. It was Menon’s last conscious act. (source)

Ninety Night – Night 2 (Tao of Management Verse Twelve)

So, I’ve been working for some time on this idea that the lessons of the Tao Te Ching can be applied to modern management. One of the things that always bothered me was what I saw as a lack of personal ethics carry over from my personal life to my work life. Things that I studied on my own, be they Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, Judaism, or Islam didn’t really seem to be reflected in the writings I studied on my work time.

Now I love to study philosophy and religion as much as I love to study management theory and best practices, so there would literally be nights where I would put down the Harvard Business Review and pick up the Koran, or set aside a nonprofit management tract from Standford and pick up the Tao Te Ching.

There wasn’t always a lot of cross-over there. And that bothered me.  Was it possible, I wondered, to apply Taoist practice to modern management practice?  Inspired by a series running over on the Wandering Taoists, I decided to take a stab at it. You can go dig all my old posts up by clicking Tao in categories or just start with this one – they pretty much all follow the same pattern.

I will say this, whether they are convincing to you are not, they are having an effect on me, and one that I hope I can carry into my next job.  Check it out and see what you think.  Leave a comment if you like.

Tao of Management Verse Twelve

So can Taoist practice be applied to modern management practice? Well, that’s the question I’m trying to answer with this series, so dive in won’t you?  Feel free to venture an opinion, I know I’m no expert at this.  Here’s how it works: I post a verse from the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tse, then try my hand at applying my interpretation to management issues faced today.  That’s it. Pretty simple really, just like the Tao.

Verse Twelve

THE five colours blind the eye.
The five tones deafen the ear.
The five flavours cloy the palate.
Racing and hunting madden the mind.
Rare goods tempt men to do wrong.

Therefore, the Sage takes care of the belly, not the eye.
He prefers what is within to what is without.

 

 

 

My version:

Too much flash blinds you to a lack of content.
Too much razzle dazzle deafens you to truth.
Too much stuff dulls you to what matters.

Racing around for the latest fad will make you mad.
The temptation to possess will push you to transgress.

Therefore, the good manager takes care of his people, not his desires.
He prefers to keep content rather than chase after glory.

Look, I realize the irony in posting something like this in a series that basically just adds one more wrinkle to the mass of advice on how to manage well.  So I’ll just acknowledge it. Yes, the advice here is that you should ignore all these fads and latest theories of management and trying to be the “best employer” or “best place to work” or on some national or international ISO or TQM or whatever is the “best practice” coming out of Harvard of Standford.

Take care of your people. Take care of your environment at work. I saw a great example of this today.  A very smart new Executive Director got her nearly all new staff together over the weekend and they redesigned their offices. Gone are the institutional colors and the racks of office supplies and in are bold colors and ingenious paint jobs and tasteful new furniture in the break room.  She took care of her people by putting them in the center of the work space.  The space now serves them, and it is theirs.  They made this, just like they make the company.

Ninety Night Blog Challenge

I am inspired by Kiki to commit to blogging every night for ninety nights. I don’t expect to write nearly as well as she does, but I’m hoping that the discipline it takes will spill over into others parts of my life as it did hers. It was such a joy to read her blog through the ninety days that I encourage you to go there and do so yourself.

So here’s the deal: every night after the kids are in bed and before I go to sleep I will write something. Who knows what it will be about, but it will be posted every night for my challenge. I’m not very good at these kinds of challenges, for example my forlorn triathalon training attempt, so please wish me luck and comment when you can – it will make me better.

Tonight is a particularly apt night for me to start. It is the six month anniversary of being laid off. So from the economist’s point of view I now fall in a different category of the unemployed. I’m no longer counted in the statistics that are frequently stated for public consumption. Here, look:

What is U6 unemployment rate ?
The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts “marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons.” Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the “marginally attached workers” include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over

I am neither marginally attached, nor discouraged, nor have I stopped looking. And I do still want to work – full time – with an office and everything!

I’m hoping that the next ninety days will see that come true. If so, it will be good material for this challenge.

So stick around, this might get interesting.

(Theme Music)

Tao of Management: Verse Eleven

Can Taoism, a philosophy over 2,000 years old, be applied to 21st Century management issues? This series examines the verses of the Tao Te Ching and attempts to translate them into modern management advice. Today we look at emptiness.

Verse 11

THIRTY spokes converge upon a single hub;

It is on the hole in the center that the use of the cart hinges.

We make a vessel from a lump of clay;
It is the empty space within the vessel that makes it useful.

We make doors and windows for a room;
But it is these empty spaces that make the room livable.

Thus, while the tangible has advantages,
It is the intangible that makes it useful.

My interpretation:

All things return to the center,
but the center must be empty to receive them

The things, systems, teams we build around us,
depend on our openness to work properly.

We create engagement strategies and preach transparency
but this does not work unless there is space within to receive.

So while your structure, and strategies and plans are well and good,
Remember it is the space you make within yourself and your organization to receive
that makes it all worthwhile.

This is one of my favorite verses and why the concept of an empty bowl is so important to my notion of “Taoist Management”. For far too long I was all about the planning, the strategy and the team building, but left no space within myself to actually receive the wisdom that these plans, strategies, or teams brought to me. As for me, all these things I created were outward expressions of the hard nut of certainty I had within myself. They weren’t so much expressions of openness to external input. That changed this year.

To often, I think that companies focus so much on having ways to bring new ideas into the company that they forget to build a structure within to actually receive and process these ideas. For example, I find that leaders think that if they have a social media plan and function, that this is enough. They fail to plan for the input they might receive, and if they do it is more than likely a plan to address negative feedback by way of justification, distraction, or duck-and-cover.

I think leaders must personally ask themselves how much they are willing to change, and ask their companies how much they are willing to change before they spend any more time on “engagement” or “transparency”.

Welcome To Earth, Baby

originally from thisisnthappiness