If what I heard on the radio today is true we have our ships, troops, and air support ready to attack Iran. They have run through their practice exercises. The top brass is telling Bush that we shouldn't attack, but everything's set. Bush only has a few months left to do what he thinks he needs to do, so the time is right for him to attack Iran if he is ever going to. We have been getting the Iran-bashing from our executive branch for some time, and although it is a weak attempt compared to the anti-Iraq cheerleading it reflects the same agenda. The scary part is, Bush and Co. will probably go through with it even without public support.
As a citizen of the United States, as one of the many employers of the president and his cabinet, I am here to say NO. Don't do it. It was wrong in Iraq, it is wrong in Iran. We are stretched too thin with our military, with our budget, with our reputation and effectiveness on the world scene, with our nerves.
Mr. Bush, you see enemies too easily. You are too scared to talk to those you fear, and in this way you can imagine them into anything you want. Your view of the world is too black and white to include so much reality, and the resulting reliance on fantasy leads to situational ethics, trying to bully the schisms between fantasy and reality, and untoward secrecy so that reality is blocked out. You are too oriented toward profit, so much so that you are selling my government to profiteers whose god is money. There's never enough god.
Your legacy is already set in stone. You don't need to add to it. How many more have to die for you to be satisfied? Are your convictions so strong that YOU would be willing to die for them?
Yes, you only have a few more months with an army to back you up. Do you believe so much in the righteousness of your convictions that you would confront your enemies without a military? Without an army what are you?
I say NO. Don't attack Iran. It would be another preeminent, illegal action that would make another mess that will take decades to clean up. Stop it, Mr. Bush. You've done enough damage.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Next Revolution, Part IV
"Evidence is strong that direct, forceful, aggressive approaches are perhaps the least effective way to help people consider new information and change their perceptions. Such confrontation increases the very phenomenon it is supposed to overcome -- defensiveness -- and decreases the client's likelihood of change."
William R. Miller, quoted in TIP 35, p.10
This quote was given in the context of counseling people with substance abuse issues. But if we change the word client to organization, culture, or nation it would still remain a research-based truism of human dynamics.
In this light, wouldn't it be prudent to expect business, religious, and political leaders to comply with researched-based evidence to decrease the amount of resistance, frustration, rebelliousness, and defensiveness that humankind has struggled with throughout its history? Why would we not want this to happen?
For example, terrorism could fairly be understood as oppressed people lashing back at the oppressors. The current prescription is to beat them back into submission or, failing that, to kill them. But according to the research, this is precisely the wrong action to take as the forceful nature of the cure breeds further resentment and resistance, and escalates the problem. If, instead, we were to take a more effective approach -- empathy, careful direction of motivation and decision-making, every person or entity taking responsibility for its actions and resulting consequences, consideration of a wide range of options, and engendering a sense of self-efficacy in every person and entity -- we could cultivate conditions that work toward positive change and decrease negative schisms.
To be clear, every person or entity taking responsibility means the aggressors as well. In current America the use of preemptive war is seen as a rightous action that does not cause a negative reaction in those it is directed against. At what point do we finally admit that this belief is struck down by the research and strive to replace it with something that is proven effective?
It's understood that making a change like this would take decades to put in place. We are in an age of power politics, and the use of confrontation and aggression is worshipped by the people. But there have been ages that have been less aggressive, and there is no requirement that aggressive people be allowed into positions of power. It's also understood that those who see aggression as a solution, if we parallel this with spiritual development, are at a lower stage of development with an unfortunate inability to see that there are people and methods more mature than their own. They believe that people must be made to comply with the vision that they hold as right. If we are to get past people in this stage holding power we must recognize as a culture that it's not the highest step on the ladder, and that if the culture is to progress and stand as a shining example then people more highly developed must be entrusted with power.
And just imagine: aggression decreases, cooperation increases, there is less tension in the world, money and industry are less concerned with hurting and killing people and instead are concerned with promoting the well-being of all, and with the ensuing calm we are able to focus on moving the human race to heights that we never had the time or energy to pursue when we were so caught up in squabbling and fighting and killing. Fears would decrease and fascinations would increase. It's true that the ruling class would get watered down and become more like common folk, but the loss of the abuse of power would be a welcome compensation for this. There would be far less reason for anger individually and collectively. And above all, we as a race could experience an increase in our understanding and practice of loving like we've never accomplished before. Wouldn't that be something?
William R. Miller, quoted in TIP 35, p.10
This quote was given in the context of counseling people with substance abuse issues. But if we change the word client to organization, culture, or nation it would still remain a research-based truism of human dynamics.
In this light, wouldn't it be prudent to expect business, religious, and political leaders to comply with researched-based evidence to decrease the amount of resistance, frustration, rebelliousness, and defensiveness that humankind has struggled with throughout its history? Why would we not want this to happen?
For example, terrorism could fairly be understood as oppressed people lashing back at the oppressors. The current prescription is to beat them back into submission or, failing that, to kill them. But according to the research, this is precisely the wrong action to take as the forceful nature of the cure breeds further resentment and resistance, and escalates the problem. If, instead, we were to take a more effective approach -- empathy, careful direction of motivation and decision-making, every person or entity taking responsibility for its actions and resulting consequences, consideration of a wide range of options, and engendering a sense of self-efficacy in every person and entity -- we could cultivate conditions that work toward positive change and decrease negative schisms.
To be clear, every person or entity taking responsibility means the aggressors as well. In current America the use of preemptive war is seen as a rightous action that does not cause a negative reaction in those it is directed against. At what point do we finally admit that this belief is struck down by the research and strive to replace it with something that is proven effective?
It's understood that making a change like this would take decades to put in place. We are in an age of power politics, and the use of confrontation and aggression is worshipped by the people. But there have been ages that have been less aggressive, and there is no requirement that aggressive people be allowed into positions of power. It's also understood that those who see aggression as a solution, if we parallel this with spiritual development, are at a lower stage of development with an unfortunate inability to see that there are people and methods more mature than their own. They believe that people must be made to comply with the vision that they hold as right. If we are to get past people in this stage holding power we must recognize as a culture that it's not the highest step on the ladder, and that if the culture is to progress and stand as a shining example then people more highly developed must be entrusted with power.
And just imagine: aggression decreases, cooperation increases, there is less tension in the world, money and industry are less concerned with hurting and killing people and instead are concerned with promoting the well-being of all, and with the ensuing calm we are able to focus on moving the human race to heights that we never had the time or energy to pursue when we were so caught up in squabbling and fighting and killing. Fears would decrease and fascinations would increase. It's true that the ruling class would get watered down and become more like common folk, but the loss of the abuse of power would be a welcome compensation for this. There would be far less reason for anger individually and collectively. And above all, we as a race could experience an increase in our understanding and practice of loving like we've never accomplished before. Wouldn't that be something?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
A Gay Day
While gay couples have the opportunity today to marry in California and the topic is hot, let me weigh in with a couple of thoughts.
To say that gay marriages threaten heterosexual marriages is akin to saying that a man who loses a leg threatens my ability to walk. Expressing such a concern points to an underlying dynamic: those who are weak or insecure on the inside are more easily threatened by things on the outside. Those who are the most threatened by homosexuality are those who suspect their own homosexual urges and are hell bent on denying them. They are unable to accept and integrate that we are not strictly male and female beings, and that there are qualities to greater and lesser degrees of each in every person.
It is within my lifetime that there were laws against interracial marriage.
To say that something one doesn't understand and therefore fears should be illegal is poor reasoning for legislation. To say that civil law in the United States should be drawn from religious law would bring up the question of why Christians have such problems with Sharia rule, and why they have such a hard time with 'do unto others...'.
To say that gay marriages threaten heterosexual marriages is akin to saying that a man who loses a leg threatens my ability to walk. Expressing such a concern points to an underlying dynamic: those who are weak or insecure on the inside are more easily threatened by things on the outside. Those who are the most threatened by homosexuality are those who suspect their own homosexual urges and are hell bent on denying them. They are unable to accept and integrate that we are not strictly male and female beings, and that there are qualities to greater and lesser degrees of each in every person.
It is within my lifetime that there were laws against interracial marriage.
To say that something one doesn't understand and therefore fears should be illegal is poor reasoning for legislation. To say that civil law in the United States should be drawn from religious law would bring up the question of why Christians have such problems with Sharia rule, and why they have such a hard time with 'do unto others...'.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
"No Fear"
"No fear." -- Polly, Diggory, and Eustace in Lewis' Narnia Chronicles.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." -- FDR
"I look forward to the American people understanding the threats that are out there." -- George W. Bush, just prior to the invasion of Iraq.
"Well, as long as it's for security, I don't mind it." -- A friend, talking about a loss of civil liberties.
"Fear not..." -- The angels who appeared to humans early in the New Testament.
The characters in Narnia were using the word 'fear' in an idiomatic way, and as far as I can figure it meant 'of course!' President Roosevelt was trying to calm down the American people so that they could band together in a common cause. President Bush used the concept to get the people to band together behind his agenda. The angels were aware that their awesome appearance frightened humans, and they began their messages so that the people could hear that even in the midst of fear wondrous things can happen.
Fear is a natural part of the human package. It's there to warn us of potential harm; it sharpens our awareness and gives us energy to fight or flee. It bypasses rational thought, which is fine since in emergency situations we may not have time to evaluate. However, it can be overdone, as in 'phobia'. We can be more afraid than we have to.
We live in a world here in America where weather is predicted and broadcast to the neighborhood level, so that we can prepare for and make ourselves safe from severe weather. We have food manufacturing laws so strict that harmful foods have a hard time getting to the market (I know this point can be argued; there are regular outbreaks of salmonella, and it is arguable that many of the processed foods we buy, especially for convenience, are chock full of sodium and sugar and other things in amounts that the human body wasn't designed for. But overall, you understand my point). We have product liability to the point that safety is one of the premiere features of most products we buy. Buildings are built to withstand earthquakes and hurricanes. Really, we probably live in the safest conditions that humans ever have.
Yet we still have phobias. We have a range of anxiety disorders that are experienced and treated every day. We have a government that has played off citizen fears to wage and sustain an illegal war.
We need not fear as much as we do. If we didn't fear irrationally Mr. Bush & Co. would never have gotten their war, and more than four thousand of our troops and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis would still be alive. If we didn't fear irrationally the pharmaceutical companies would make far less in profit and have a much less powerful lobby. If we didn't fear irrationally a citizen would be able to prevail at an airport asking, "What's your probable cause for searching me?" and wait lines would go much more quickly. If I learn what types of spiders and snakes are poisonous I wouldn't have to fear the ones that aren't.
For you see, when security is the issue then the problem is insecurity. We can be insecure individually, and if enough people are individually insecure then we become collectively insecure (which goes into a book-length series of thoughts including economic forces, marketing, parenting, and social conventions that lead to insecurity). Then it is a simple matter for unprincipled leaders to take advantage of the irrational fears to accomplish their agenda. Though we do not like to admit anything good came of the Nazis, Hermann Goerring said it well that all the leaders have to do is increase fears in the public and question their patriotism and then they will follow the leaders into war.
The solution is obvious: to identify those who know how to manage fears in a healthy way and promote them to leadership positions. Ask our potential leaders: if we went to war would you be the first to lead into battle and the last to leave? Anything less is cowardice, and they would be careful to pick the right battles.
No fear!
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." -- FDR
"I look forward to the American people understanding the threats that are out there." -- George W. Bush, just prior to the invasion of Iraq.
"Well, as long as it's for security, I don't mind it." -- A friend, talking about a loss of civil liberties.
"Fear not..." -- The angels who appeared to humans early in the New Testament.
The characters in Narnia were using the word 'fear' in an idiomatic way, and as far as I can figure it meant 'of course!' President Roosevelt was trying to calm down the American people so that they could band together in a common cause. President Bush used the concept to get the people to band together behind his agenda. The angels were aware that their awesome appearance frightened humans, and they began their messages so that the people could hear that even in the midst of fear wondrous things can happen.
Fear is a natural part of the human package. It's there to warn us of potential harm; it sharpens our awareness and gives us energy to fight or flee. It bypasses rational thought, which is fine since in emergency situations we may not have time to evaluate. However, it can be overdone, as in 'phobia'. We can be more afraid than we have to.
We live in a world here in America where weather is predicted and broadcast to the neighborhood level, so that we can prepare for and make ourselves safe from severe weather. We have food manufacturing laws so strict that harmful foods have a hard time getting to the market (I know this point can be argued; there are regular outbreaks of salmonella, and it is arguable that many of the processed foods we buy, especially for convenience, are chock full of sodium and sugar and other things in amounts that the human body wasn't designed for. But overall, you understand my point). We have product liability to the point that safety is one of the premiere features of most products we buy. Buildings are built to withstand earthquakes and hurricanes. Really, we probably live in the safest conditions that humans ever have.
Yet we still have phobias. We have a range of anxiety disorders that are experienced and treated every day. We have a government that has played off citizen fears to wage and sustain an illegal war.
We need not fear as much as we do. If we didn't fear irrationally Mr. Bush & Co. would never have gotten their war, and more than four thousand of our troops and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis would still be alive. If we didn't fear irrationally the pharmaceutical companies would make far less in profit and have a much less powerful lobby. If we didn't fear irrationally a citizen would be able to prevail at an airport asking, "What's your probable cause for searching me?" and wait lines would go much more quickly. If I learn what types of spiders and snakes are poisonous I wouldn't have to fear the ones that aren't.
For you see, when security is the issue then the problem is insecurity. We can be insecure individually, and if enough people are individually insecure then we become collectively insecure (which goes into a book-length series of thoughts including economic forces, marketing, parenting, and social conventions that lead to insecurity). Then it is a simple matter for unprincipled leaders to take advantage of the irrational fears to accomplish their agenda. Though we do not like to admit anything good came of the Nazis, Hermann Goerring said it well that all the leaders have to do is increase fears in the public and question their patriotism and then they will follow the leaders into war.
The solution is obvious: to identify those who know how to manage fears in a healthy way and promote them to leadership positions. Ask our potential leaders: if we went to war would you be the first to lead into battle and the last to leave? Anything less is cowardice, and they would be careful to pick the right battles.
No fear!
Friday, June 6, 2008
Fundamental Question
‘Fundamental’ means the basics at the beginning. Everybody who goes down the road of religion goes through a fundamental stage. Yet some people choose to stay in fundamentalism the rest of their lives. We all go through school; why would some want to stay in first grade for the rest of their lives? I suppose that the further you go down the road of religion the more you approach mystery, just as the further you go with education the more you realize the less you know. For those who aren’t prepared to approach mystery – whether through ignorance, lack of ego strength, fear of the unknown, or cultivated infantile loyalty and dependence on authority to provide answers – growth of the spirit is stopped. What could these people have been? What would the world be like should more people continue to grow spiritually?
Teaching, on the family, social. and spiritual levels, is a big responsibility. To be able to recognize those more advanced than yourself is merely responsible, and humble.
Teaching, on the family, social. and spiritual levels, is a big responsibility. To be able to recognize those more advanced than yourself is merely responsible, and humble.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
The Next Revolution, Part III
Leaders are at the forefront of how a culture functions. The direction the leaders take is what the culture will follow them into. A healthy leader will guide the populace into a healthy culture. An unhealthy leader will guide into an unhealthy culture. Leaders are trusted with the good of the culture. They are trusted with policy, surveillance, intelligence, growth, direction, and the implements of war. A healthy leader will be cautious with these tools. An unhealthy leader will abuse them.
We have the sophistication to test for aberrations in people. We can test for paranoia, for antisocial traits, for hidden personality flaws, for conflicted sexuality, for inordinate power seeking and fascistic traits, for stage of spiritual development. These tests are used every day to select and eliminate candidates in the corporate world, seminary, and the military. They are used on the entrants, however, and not on those who have attained positions of power. Yet we have the potential to eliminate unhealthy people from positions of power.
Why are these tools not used? Easily, it would immediately remove a good number of the current holders of power from their positions, and since they’re in power they won’t allow the use of testing. There are several other possible arguments against the use of such testing:
1. The removal of so many people all of a sudden from positions of control and direction would throw the worlds of government, industry, and religion into chaos.
2.Such chaos would place our nation at risk of takeover by other nations that are powerful and don’t implement the same changes.
3. The world is a ruthless place, and to put principled people in positions of power would place our nation at risk from ruthless leaders of other nations.
4. The power to be the gatekeeper of who is allowed into positions of power would be transferred to those who are doing the testing. What would guard us from unhealthy people doing the testing? Who would watch over them?
5. What would we do with all the former power brokers? What kind of jobs would we allow them to work?
There are counterarguments or answers for each:
1. It doesn’t have to be immediate, and instead a steady progression over a period of several years.
2. This assumes that principled people can’t cope with a chaotic situation, which is a pardonable error in logic if we haven’t had the experience for a while.
3. Ditto. There are principled people who can cope with ruthless people. And ‘the world is a ruthless place’ is a mindset that eclipses one’s ability to look for the good in people.
4. I haven’t figured this one out yet. It is an important problem. The best guess to date is that the entire population would have to police them.
5. Humility is a wonderful thing. People with aberrations can learn to change. There is no law that people with potential have to work jobs at the top of their ability, and if the potential hands them the opportunity to abuse then they shouldn’t be allowed such jobs.
Why should we undertake such a venture? Ask yourself how much you would like to see the elimination of crooked politicians, greedy businessmen, and sexually abusive ministers. What effect would that have on the entire culture if we no longer allowed such people into positions of trust and power that gets abused?
It is a major change of thinking to imagine an entire culture that doesn’t allow the abuse of power. We have the potential; what we need is the collective will.
We have the sophistication to test for aberrations in people. We can test for paranoia, for antisocial traits, for hidden personality flaws, for conflicted sexuality, for inordinate power seeking and fascistic traits, for stage of spiritual development. These tests are used every day to select and eliminate candidates in the corporate world, seminary, and the military. They are used on the entrants, however, and not on those who have attained positions of power. Yet we have the potential to eliminate unhealthy people from positions of power.
Why are these tools not used? Easily, it would immediately remove a good number of the current holders of power from their positions, and since they’re in power they won’t allow the use of testing. There are several other possible arguments against the use of such testing:
1. The removal of so many people all of a sudden from positions of control and direction would throw the worlds of government, industry, and religion into chaos.
2.Such chaos would place our nation at risk of takeover by other nations that are powerful and don’t implement the same changes.
3. The world is a ruthless place, and to put principled people in positions of power would place our nation at risk from ruthless leaders of other nations.
4. The power to be the gatekeeper of who is allowed into positions of power would be transferred to those who are doing the testing. What would guard us from unhealthy people doing the testing? Who would watch over them?
5. What would we do with all the former power brokers? What kind of jobs would we allow them to work?
There are counterarguments or answers for each:
1. It doesn’t have to be immediate, and instead a steady progression over a period of several years.
2. This assumes that principled people can’t cope with a chaotic situation, which is a pardonable error in logic if we haven’t had the experience for a while.
3. Ditto. There are principled people who can cope with ruthless people. And ‘the world is a ruthless place’ is a mindset that eclipses one’s ability to look for the good in people.
4. I haven’t figured this one out yet. It is an important problem. The best guess to date is that the entire population would have to police them.
5. Humility is a wonderful thing. People with aberrations can learn to change. There is no law that people with potential have to work jobs at the top of their ability, and if the potential hands them the opportunity to abuse then they shouldn’t be allowed such jobs.
Why should we undertake such a venture? Ask yourself how much you would like to see the elimination of crooked politicians, greedy businessmen, and sexually abusive ministers. What effect would that have on the entire culture if we no longer allowed such people into positions of trust and power that gets abused?
It is a major change of thinking to imagine an entire culture that doesn’t allow the abuse of power. We have the potential; what we need is the collective will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)