Enlightened Conflict

aging gracefully, scandals, legacy & judgment

April 10th, 2013

Sorry.

This will be a winding post including Rick Pitino, Margaret Thatcher, Ray Lewis, Annette Funicello and Rutgers.

But the past several days has made me think about legacies … and judgment. We judge every day … sometimes simply an event … or a moment … and sometimes reflectively. All I know for sure is that we seem to be quick to judge, relentlessly unforgiving in the moment and oddly selective in circumspect.

Anyway.

Rick Pitino.

Rick Pitino is a great basketball coach.

But he also shapes young men. The other night I was watching a group of 18- to 22-year-old young men teach us a lesson about life.

<side note: to all the boomer 50/60something managers out there who bitch & moan about managing younger generations maybe you should put a picture of Pitino up in your office because he is 60 now … and was 40something when he brought a group of 20somethings to another championship and he was in his 30’s when he brought another group to a Final Four … maybe it isn’t the younger generation … maybe it is you? … oops … I digress>.

It would be easy to focus on his recent success … but his path to where he is today <I was tempted to use ‘greatness’ but didn’t> was not a straight line. There were failures and transgressions. Simply put … today he is not the man he was in his 20’s. Do we judge him on his hall of fame career? Do we judge on basketball statistics? How his young men athletes do in Life? How he did in his own personal life? Or do we judge him in totality?

Margaret Thatcher.

Margaret Thatcher was neither the smartest <a British paper used the word ‘cleverest’> nor the most eloquent politician of her generation. But she was without question one of the most determined. Maggie’s <that is what I called her> unwavering belief in her convictions is most likely her most important characteristic. Whether you believed she was right or wrong … you knew she said what she meant and meant what she said. It was never about style it was always about substance. The content was almost irrelevant because the intent drove in to the minds of people. Maggie did not become a great prime minister by being nice. She was tough-minded, determined, and convicted. Do we judge her on popularity? The success, or lack of success, of things she implemented? Do we judge her as a mother? Or do we judge her simply as one who led and not any specifics?

Annette Funicello.

On the same day Maggie died … Annette Funicello died at the age of 70 from complications of multiple sclerosis <which she had had for more than 25 years>.

For anyone growing up in the 1950s, Annette Funicello was a huge celebrity, one of the original Mouseketeers on Walt Disney’s “Mickey Mouse Club.” After it ended she had a couple of records and starred in Beach Blanket movies … then she left the business to raise her children. <trivia: Paul Anka wrote “Puppy Love” about her>.

Do we judge her on her insanely bad Beach Blanket Bingo movies? Do we judge her on being a Mouseketeer? Do we judge her on her moral compass? Do we judge her on the way she dealt with multiple sclerosis? Do we judge her in total?

Ray Lewis.

Ray Lewis is probably the polar opposite of Annette Funicello. Retired this year more as a motivational inspirational leader than the truly monsterly talented football player that he was. He was a beast on the field. So much of a beast that we may tend to forget that he didn’t become a beast simply by walking on the field … he dedicated himself off the field to not waste his talent. He was an imperfect man off the field … but focused on not wasting the one true talent he had – playing football. And you know what? His motivational ability was simply him sharing that conviction … make the most of what you have <and don’t let the other shit get in the way>.

Oh. Yeah. Ray may have shot someone. He may have just been with someone who shot someone. Ray was definitely a young punk in the 90’s. Brash, arrogant and wandering. Do we judge him as that? Or how he has matured? Do we judge him on an event or a series of events? Do we judge him simply for the fact he didn’t waste an incredible talent despite the fact at one point he could have chosen another path?

Ah.

The Rutgers basketball coach … and that path to choose I just mentioned with Ray.

If I were to judge this coach on a 30 minute video tape I would not judge him well. Please note that I believe this is not about any ‘generational style of coaching’ … his actions are, and were, unacceptable for someone who has the ability to shape and mold young men for life beyond sports.

But.

We never get to see the thousands of hours of coaching video that would make him look like a first round Hall of Fame coach.

Look. Someone could make a 30 minute video of me from my entire professional career that could make unhireable for the rest of my life. On the other hand someone could make a 30 minute video of me that could put me in the top boardrooms in the world.

Highlights, or lowlights, are just that … the peaks or the valleys. And it is silly to assume we are always at the peak of our best. You should notice that most of the great coaches being interviewed have been very careful about how they discuss the situation … why?

Geez. I bet even Pitino is sitting there thinking “whew … if someone went back to when I was a younger coach and created a 30 minute lowlight film I bet I wouldn’t look so good.”

We are being awful quick to judge this coach.

And being awful quick to judge how it was initially handled. Beyond the fact we are in a maniacally litigious world and the university is kind of trapped between ‘being in the right to fire’ and ‘providing the opportunity to improve’ … it would seem like the university <which is in the business of teaching people and improving them for future success> actually gave someone, who must obviously have some redeeming professional value, a good spanking, some good support … and then sent them back out to be a better person.

We are quick to judge the coach … and the university. And from the outside looking in sometimes objects look closer than they really are <sorry … that’s the side view mirror perspective on Life>.

Me?

What he did was unacceptable. What the university did was acceptable <in some ways>. Everyone should be careful how they judge … the event … as well as legacy of the event.

The point of all this?

We seem so quick to judge people these days. We judge with a strong dose of nearsightedness.

In addition we debate judging people on character, deeds or sometimes even lifetime consistency.

We forgive … but we don’t forgive.

Here is a Life truth.

If you sift through the rubble of anyone’s life you will find some cherished mementoes … and some rubbish.

Some people will hold the mementos high and declare sainthood.

Other people will flaunt the rubbish as proof of poor character.

It is all silly.

These people may not have been the smartest nor the most talented nor even the nicest. But they all had conviction.

Despite challenges and any transgressions they may have encountered they got their proverbial train back on the tracks and moved forward with conviction on what mattered to them.

Pitino has always been a great basketball coach. He is now a better man … and a shaper of young men.

Thatcher was never a great mind. She was a leader … not just listening to what people wanted to showing them what they needed.

Ray Lewis has always been a monsterly talented football player. He is now a monsterly talented football player who did not waste his talent.

Annette Funicello was never the most talented. But in the end she could certainly be judged well on moral compass and integrity and heart.

But what did they all have in common?

Conviction.

The Rutgers coach? He is at a crossroads. After the witch hunt has died down and we stop judging him as evil incarnate he can decide where he goes from here. And he has a lifetime to build events that will ultimately decide how he is judged. He will find this is a test of his conviction.

Ok.

I say all that to show judging a person is tough. They have professional success and sometimes Life success … and sometimes one or the other … and certainly some failures along the way.

And in the moment you are simply judging … well … a moment. Life is a series of events. Some good and some bad. Some gooder than others and some a lot badder than others.

But people have a lifetime of events to build a legacy for the rest of us to judge them on. And in the end they will be exactly as we expected them to be … flawed.

Me?

I imagine I would like to judge people not on their greatness or even individual events but rather how they dealt with the flaws in their life.

We can isolate specific events within a Life and find something good or something bad. That is easy. In fact … that is lazy judgment.

But judging how someone deals with the flaws … the mistakes.

Well, maybe, just maybe, that is judging their conviction.

And, well, conviction is a reflection of character … not brains nor genius nor talent nor skills.

wisdom

March 18th, 2013

The word wisdom is such a lofty word.

It is such a broad term. It embraces a rare combination of discretion, maturity, keenness of intellect, broad experience, extensive earning, profound thought and compassionate understanding. It outranks all synonyms. And in its fullest most robust sense it is noble in its morality as well as intellect.

And, yet, wisdom is attainable to any and all. Higher educated people do not have the corner on the wisdom market.

Why?

Because at its core wisdom is about simplicity. Stripping away the theoretical mumbo jumbo and all the high falutin’ philosophical meanderings some people get all trapped up in.

“Wisdom is ofttimes nearer when we stoop than when we soar.” – William Wordsworth

Wisdom is actually more about the ability to discern what is important from what is unimportant … and making a decision, or conclusion or judgment, based on that which is the simplest and most important.

Does that mean everyone is wise? Nope.

Does that mean anyone is capable of making a wise decision? Yup.

I tend to believe the wisest among us are the happy few who understand ‘it is what it is’ and nothing more … nor anything less. That truth doesn’t reside in the wretched hollow of guessed intentions or ‘what ifs’ but rather in things as they are.

“More wisdom is latent in things as they are … than in all the words men use.” – Antoine De Saint-Exupery

Look.

I am not suggesting making wise decisions is easy and that everyone is good at making them. Nor am I suggesting wise, or wisdom, shouldn’t be a compliment to the few who deserve it.

Having the ability to understand situations … anticipate consequences … and make sound decisions is a great and honorable <and enviable> aptitude.

But wise isn’t all about fancy words or lofty philosophical platitudes.

Wise is often stooping to simplicity rather than stretching for the complex.

Wise is often simply in what is … not in what it could be.

Wise is often in the guy schlepping in the mail room.

Wise is often in the mother who insures her kids get a square meal every day.

Wise people, and wisdom, is often found in the neighborhood park rather than at some podium or in some talking head on TV.

I say this because we all have it within us … we often know what is right … and the best … and we don’t need some supposedly wise people spewing forth supposed wisdom to tell us what to do and what to think.

We all have wisdom. And we would be wise to ponder that.

middle east thought for the day

November 18th, 2012

I read so much hate from people … mostly directed toward Israel, who do not even live in the Middle East, with regard to what is happening between Israel and Palestine.

How we have reached a point where we seem to be on the brink of a conventional on-the-ground war has been decades in the making.

One of which I have written about several times but suffice it to say Israel is on a geographic island surrounded by an ocean of people who would prefer Jews not have a country there <for some reasonable reasons … Muslim holy land … and some unreasonable reasons … Judaism is not a viable faith>.

I truly struggle with what I would do if I were in a decision making role with regard to going to ground war.

That is until I came across a visual posted by a teenager who I sense was also struggling with perspective.

The teen gave me perspective.

When I saw this graph I immediately starting thinking that for all those comments I have read about Israel being aggressive and ‘killers’ I wanted to jump online find the Israel haters and say “is it possible they are the most patient resilient country in the world?”

If anybody believes your own country wouldn’t have brought the wrath of Khan down on the missile shooters <on the ground, in the air and by water if they could find any> after looking at the chart I want whatever it is you are smoking.

It would have all been over by now if it were any of us.

news’s secret weapon

November 3rd, 2012

So.

I had to watch a boatload of news, in fact, significantly more news than any one person should ever be exposed to, to make sure I got this one right. I even bypassed my beloved ESPN several times to endure the background research. I watched Foxnews, MSNBC and CNN.

Why? In case you haven’t been paying attention … news on television has a new secret weapon – CNN. Yeah. I know CNN has been around for a while but they really have picked up their game lately.

And while I was fairly certain, mostly because I am a centrist, that CNN doesn’t skew republican/democrat/liberal/conservative I did do some personal research.

CNN has truly become the news network who’s vision is ‘enlightening people.’

In a world where TV ratings seem to be defined by one of two things, disaster <or negative> news coverage and telling people what they should think <to people who already want to think those things> CNN is truly differentiating themselves by … well … just making people think.

In Bruce words they day in and day out seem to focus on fighting ignorance with well-rounded information … their objective? Don’t tell people what to think just tell them what to think about. I love it.

MSNBC <which has so low ratings I am fairly sure liberals do not really watch TV> is definitely skewed liberal/democrat.

Fox is shamelessly skewed republican/conservative.

Both stations stock their newscasts with blabbing talking heads who speak directly to the viewership saying exactly what they either want to hear or what they should think <and felt that they should have been thinking just that anyway>.

CNN? Not only are they brutally bi-partisan/non-partisan showcasing an equal amount of biased talking heads <and brutally disagreeing with them on air> but they also have some really nice panels of people who are obviously skewed in their perspective but also fair with how they communicate and share ideas.

And when they don’t? The newscasters/news moderators shut them down.

Unfortunately <hence the reason I called this the news secret weapon> most tv viewers seemingly don’t want to think … they want someone else to think, and provide an opinion, for them.

I guess they want to only watch someone who pursues sharing information skewed to how they already think.

Tell ‘em what they want to hear seems to be the strategy.

Maybe that’s why CNN ratings aren’t as high.

Instead they, CNN, tell ‘em what they need to hear as a strategy.

I imagine I have always known this and that is why when I decide to watch the news I switch over to CNN <if I cannot get BBC>.

It is sad.

Because CNN’s ratings have hit record lows. The company is still making money thanks to an international presence, but U.S. viewers seem to rather watch the more opinionated competitors at MSNBC and Fox News.

And it is really sad because they really have dialed up their “open minded/open view” editorial attitude during this election period.

Maybe it is because we are in a political season where opinions are so skewed it gets scary, they seem to have sat down in an editorial meeting several months ago and decided to really dial up the non-partisanship delivery. And I mean REALLY dial it up.

Piers Morgan, while being respectful, has been bringing a dialed up British common sense bullshit meter rhetoric to his interviews.

Soledad O’Brien has been shutting down guest onscreen interviews when they simply are not answering the question and trying to deliver their ‘party line.’ And she isn’t just shutting them down subtly she is saying “if you won’t answer the question then, thanks, goodbye.” <by the way … I believe she may be one of the most underrated newscasters out there today>

They have probably the two best open minded partisan correspondent/experts onscreen …

This young guy named Will Cain who is clearly conservative but if all conservatives would actually be as articulate and pointed with regard to his thoughts as he is … well .. maybe we would understand what the heck politicians actually say. But … he is a prime example of a CNN correspondent relentlessly pursuing truth. He is young. Smart. Articulate. A great communicator … and listener.

<note: I don’t care your particular views … you should check him out … he is excellent>

On CNN’s “Starting Point” Will Cain confronted Debbie Wasserman Schultz about Congress’s refusal to tackle some of the tough fiscal issues until after the election.

- “I think that’s an interesting quote you put up also recognizing the amount of work that you guys have to do over the next six months,” Cain said, addressing the Congresswoman. “You have what is equivalent of all of the Bush tax cuts expiring, you have the budget resolution, you have to come together on those forced cuts. I think the total package is over $4 trillion. Larger than any stimulus passed and any tax cut that’s ever passed. Why aren’t you working on it yet? Why are you waiting until supposedly after the November election to address these issues?”

“You guys?” Schultz asked.

“I’m not in Congress,” countered Cain.

“But Speaker Boehner is the leader of Congress and controls the agenda with Eric Cantor…” said Schultz.

“I’m not in Congress,” reiterated Cain. “I’m asking you because you are a member of Congress.”

“I’m a member of Congress in the minority, unfortunately, which I plan to help change in November,” Schultz shot back. “But the people who control the agenda right now in the House of Representatives are the Republicans. Ask them why they haven’t brought a single jobs bill to the floor since they took over the majority. Ask them why they are getting ready to allow the student loan interest rates to double.”

“So put out a package right now to extend the Bush tax cuts, you would be on board with that is what you’re saying?” Cain asked.

“No, I’d be opposed to that,” affirmed Schultz.

“Then you would be obstructing that,” observed Cain.

“The Bush tax cuts adds $700 billion to the deficit. Why would we extend them?” argued Schultz. “We need to continue to focus on President Obama’s agenda, giving tax breaks to the middle class and 18 different tax breaks he’s given to small businesses –”

Cain cut off the DNC chief in mid-sentence to point out Wasserman Schultz didn’t want to address the issues at hand.

“It’s clear all of the things coming up before the end of the year, you’re not interested in working on those right now,” said Cain.

and the second one at CNN is Fareed Zakaria, who I sense may be slightly liberal, but almost always errs on the side of common sense from a global perspective. His show, GPS, is a breath of fresh air providing broader longer view perspective amid all the senseless finger pointing which seems to occur over individual events. In general, foreign policy gwonks can just bludgeon you with a relentless array of boring factoids but Fareed has an incredibly common sense no bullshit way of articulating some fairly complex issues. In a landscape of partial truths he steps in and clearly states the situation and possible solutions. And he has absolutely no hesitation calling out politicians who abuse the facts.

And every once in a while CNN has a delightful guest named Ana Navarro, who is certainly a Republican pundit … who unabashedly says she is not a Romney fan.

They actually have a nice array of no-bullshit correspondents. The economic experts take the job reports, tear apart the ‘spin doctors’ rhetoric, tell you the truth behind the numbers and tell you what you should know <in a nice common sense way>. I have even seen one of the newscasters, I think maybe Erin Burnett, say on air, during an interview after hearing another politician spout forth the tried & true <and trite> same ole same ole sentences … “I will be glad when this is over and I will never have to hear those words again.” Nice honesty.

Awesome.

I wish more people would watch CNN.

I may be in a minority but I think it helps to hear some information, and views, that make you a little uncomfortable. I like the onscreen sparring of views. I think CNN has the best bullshit-ometer on television today … on any and all issues.

I like to see CNN for hard news. I like the intelligent commentators. I like their obvious non-bias toward any view other than a straightforward non-bullshit view.

They may not be as warm & fuzzy as the local news stations.

And they certainly aren’t as biased as other news networks.

But if you really want to understand the issues happening in the news, and you don’t have hours to research issues on your own online, CNN is a good home for your news viewing.

I do not begrudge biased viewing. It is always nice to hear someone articulate the complex nebulous thoughts you have in your own head well … in words you can repeat when asked your own opinion on things.

The difference is CNN makes you think. They may not give you your desired “sound bite to sound smart” they just make you think for yourself. It is harder work, harder viewing, but I find it hones my thoughts better than any station out there.

We could use more CNN-like vehicles today.

Iran says rural white US would rather have a beer with President of Iran Ahmadinejad than Obama

September 28th, 2012

Iran says rural white US voters would rather have a beer or go to a baseball game with President of Iran Ahmadinejad than Barack Obama

This is awesome.

You can’t make this shit up.

Well. You actually can. The Onion did <the original story>.

And then the Iranian news agency Fars used the Onion article as actual news.

Yup. The satirical newspaper’s claim that Americans would rather hang out with Ahmadinejad over Obama was taken seriously in Tehran.

Wow. I guess my first question would be “did USA ratings of approval improve after the story?”

By the way … the original Onion article is a brilliant piece of satirical creative writing (the Onion original: http://www.theonion.com/articles/gallup-poll-rural-whites-prefer-ahmadinejad-to-oba,29677/). The quote was an inspired idea and the use of a research source brilliant.

The article was beside the other fascinating piece <which I am surprised wasn’t also used .. “George W Bush Returns To America After Spending 4 Years In The Himalayas.”>

This is awesome stuff.

Here is the Guardian story <because they are better writers than I>:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is extremely popular in the US, according to Tehran’s Fars news agency (and the Onion).

So the white, rural gun-toting conspiracy theorists were right.

Put a secret Muslim president in the White House and next thing you know America’s in bed with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Except, according to Tehran’s Fars news agency, it is white rural Americans who are big fans of the Iranian president. They like him much more than Barack Obama.

In an article which has now been removed from the Fars feed, the news agency reported that 77% of rural white US voters said they’d rather have a beer or go to a baseball game with the anti-Semitic Iranian leader than their own president.

“I like him better,” Fars reported West Virginia resident Dale Swiderski as saying. “He takes national defense seriously, and he’d never let some gay protesters tell him how to run his country like Obama does.”

Fars also reported that according to the same Gallup poll, 60% of rural whites said they at least respected that Ahmadinejad doesn’t try to hide the fact that he’s Muslim.

Fars doesn’t say where it got its story but it seems to have missed out the equally exciting reports alongside the original: “George W Bush Returns To America After Spending 4 Years In The Himalayas”, “Neil Armstrong’s Wife Glad To Finally Get Rid Of All The Space Hobby Crap” and “DC Residents Can Remember Exactly Who They Were Murdering When Nationals Clinched First Ever Playoff Berth”.

For the Fars report is almost word for word copied from the satirical magazine The Onion.

But then, if you’re sitting in Tehran reporting the pronouncements of the Holocaust-denying Iranian leadership, George Bush hiding in the Himalayas may not seem so far-fetched.

Side note.

This may explain some things about Iran.

Anyway.

I wonder if Iran is interviewing New York PR agencies to help with their image?

israel and crazy horse

September 26th, 2012

This may be a crazy perspective but I am going to talk about Israel … and Crazy Horse. Not just so I can type something because I am bored but I actually have a point for my readers to think about.

I have been thinking about Israel and with everything happening in the Middle East and the fact Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon I know there has been a lot of discussion about Israel … and their aggressiveness to proactively <sometimes> protect themselves.

Now.

I believe it is difficult for Americans to grasp the Israel situation because our country is isolated by miles of water on two sides with cheap labor on another side and the world’s nicest people <and some Moose> on the other.

I cannot imagine what it would be like to be surrounded by people, on all borders, who, at minimum, would prefer you not being there and, at maximum, would like to eliminate you from the earth.

Oh. And many of them with guns & rockets.

What I do know is that I am not Jewish so I could never understand the cultural core within Judaism and the spiritual tie to the region.

What I do know is the Jewish people have forged something strong enough to withstand consistent attempts at genocide for thousands of years. And I do know it is stronger than simple borders of a country. And yet … the country … and its holy sites are also stronger than simply symbols.

I also know as I thought about Israel somewhere in my pea-like brain I began thinking about the American Indians.

It probably began when I saw this quote in National Geographic:

“They tried extermination, they tried assimilation, they broke every treaty they had with us, they took away our horses, they outlawed our language, they made our ceremonies forbidden. And yet our ceremonies survived, our language survived.” – Alex White Plume (Oglala Lakota/Sioux)

And, no, I am not an American Indian (native American, Sioux, Iroquois, whatever) and therefore could never presume to understand the true essence of their cultural being.

Yet.

I thought of both as I read a National Geographic article and had a long complex discussion with a friend about Israel and Palestine and the Middle East in general.

Rather than blather on in my own words let me just place a number of quotations from a variety of people and let you think about it a little as you read:

“We are going to make Israel not safe for Israelis. There will be no place they are safe … intend to murder jews wherever they are, they will be safe no place.” “ Hossein Safiadeen told a conference that included the Tehran-based representative of the Palestinian group Hamas and the ambassadors from Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian Authority.

“The whites were always trying to make the Indians give up their life and live like the white men – go to farming, work hard and do as they did – and the Indians did not know how to do that, and did not want to anyway….If the Indians had tried to make the whites live like them, the whites would have resisted, and it was the same with many Indians.” – Wamditanka (Big Eagle) of the Santee Sioux

Sayyid Ali Khamenei, Iran’s chief of state, also known as the supreme leader - “The fake Zionist government is a cancerous tumor and the cause of different diseases and political, economic calamity in the region … it is a cancerous tumor that must be removed … Israel is ‘an infidel that should be warred against.’ ”

In 1807, Thomas Jefferson said: ”And … if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi … in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them”.

“We have always said that in our war with the Arabs we had a secret weapon — no alternative.” -Golda Meir, Israeli politician, prime minister

“Whole Indian Nations have melted away like snowballs in the sun before the white man’s advance. They leave scarcely a name of our people except those wrongly recorded by their destroyers. They have passed the mountains, and have settled upon Tsalagi (Cherokee) land. They wish to have that usurpation sanctioned by treaty. When that is gained, the same encroaching spirit will lead them upon other land of the Cherokees. New cessions will be asked. Finally the whole country, which the Cherokees and their fathers have so long occupied, will be demanded, and the remnant of the Ani Yvwiya, The Real People, once so great and formidable, will be compelled to seek refuge in some distant wilderness. There they will be permitted to stay only a short while, until they again behold the advancing banners of the same greedy host. Not being able to point out any further retreat for the Cherokees, the extinction of the whole race will be proclaimed. Should we not therefore run all risks, and incur all consequences, rather than to submit to further loss of our country? Such treaties may be alright for men who are too old to hunt or fight. As for me, I have my young warriors about me. We will hold our land.” -Dragging Canoe, Chickamauga Tsalagi

“It will be a war of annihilation. It will be a momentous massacre in history that will be talked about like the massacres of the Mongols or the Crusades.” – Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League

“We preferred hunting to a life of idleness on the reservation where we were driven against our will. We preferred our own way of living … all we wanted was peace and to be left alone.” – Crazy Horse

“The truth is that if Israel were to put down its arms there would be no more Israel. If the Arabs were to put down their arms there would be no more war.” – Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister

(testifying to the commission in 1891 after Wounded Knee – 12/29/1890 event)

“There was a woman with an infant in her arms who was killed as she almost touched the flag of truce … of course it would have been alright if only the men were killed … we would almost feel grateful for it. But the fact of killing of women, and more especially the killing of the young boys and girls who are going to make up the future strength of the Indian people, is the saddest part of the whole affair and we feel it very sorely.” – Oglala leader American Horse

Lastly.

In 1980 the US Supreme Court awarded $106million to the Sioux as reparations for the Black Hills. The Sioux rejected it. They insist the Black Hills will never be for sale. The Sioux asked everyone to think of this insult. Mt. Rushmore is in the Black Hills. “The leaders who broke every promise and every treaty with my people have their faces carved in our most holy place.”

My point in including this last quote was to say that a holy place has no price, in terms of dollars, I would assume it can only be measured in blood if it can not be bought but only taken.

So.

I imagine I have offended a number of people with this post as well as probably shown some naiveté in some form or fashion. I apologize. But I don’t apologize for making anyone think. Maybe open their mind up to different perspectives.

Every day I look around the world, and before I open my pie hole, I try and put myself in their shoes. I know it isn’t really possible but there has to be some value in the attempt.

Anyway.

Israel.

But, in the end, after all the religious & holy & statesmanship words … I believe Crazy Horse summed up why I thought about Israel and the Indians when he said … “We preferred our own way of living … all we wanted was peace and to be left alone.” – Crazy Horse

Isn’t that all Israel is asking?

piers and ahmadinejad

September 26th, 2012

I am not a huge Piers Morgan fan <CNN> but when I saw he was going to interview Iran president Ahmadinejad I had to tune in. Heck. My site is called enlightened conflict. How could I ignore the opportunity to hear from a source of conflict and possibly gain some perspective?

Reminder 1: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the sixth and current President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the main political leader of the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran, a coalition of conservative political groups in the country.

Reminder 2: Some things Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said in the past:

- “Iranians defend and present their Islamic and Iranian identity to other people worldwide.”

- “The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.”

- “For this reason, the expansion of relations with all countries is on the agenda of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I mean balanced relationships, based on mutual respect and observation of each other’s rights.”

- “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”

- “Israel has reached the end of its function and will soon disappear off the geographical domain.”

- “We’ve never been anti-Semitic.”

Reminder 3: Let me note a president is a president. I know that may sound obvious, if not silly, but it is a reminder that no matter what perception you may have from sound bites and news flashes a leader of a country is charismatic, articulate, crafty-savvy and smart. He was all of these.

Reminder 4: He fully recognized CNN represented a global communications platform. Some of his answers were not answers and almost all of his words were measured but within the entire interview you certainly gained some perspective.

That said.

Some things he said:

Ahmadinejad: We condemn ‘extremism’

Ahmadinejad: Homosexuality ‘ugly’

Ahmadinejad: Iran has right to defend itself

Ahmadinejad: ‘Very close’ with Iran Jews

Here are some of my thoughts.

- Americans should watch this interview. Your point of view may not change but taking a moment to look at how our actions can be seen thru another’s eyes is always worth a moment or two.

I will paraphrase this thought but as he noted the American 9/11 event as a tragedy where 3000 died he immediately qualified it by asking if it justified the reaction in which Muslims dying in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeded 900,000 and almost 1.7 million injured <combatants & civilians>.

Not saying I agree it is just perspective/point of view. Just pointing out if we wonder on occasion why the Middle East may have a chip on their shoulder.

- He reminded me of something Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in his new book: “america needs to remember that its foreign policy is inextricably linked to domestic actions.”

Ahmadinejad said something like “the Arab spring was a reflection of the fact the middle east is in need of reform … in my eyes the entire world should be seeking to reform.” Ah. Reading between the lines …”doesn’t America need to reform?” … leading to “how dare America tell me what I can or cannot do when they can’t even keep their own house in order.” Beyond that … the implied was “would you quit talking to me about what I need to do to reform because I am not the only one who needs to.”

- Governing within a religious construct suggests freedom with some pretty tight rules.

Some of the things he talked about (homosexuality in particular) sounded eerily like what a Christian fundamentalist would say. His answer with regard to his thoughts on homosexuality could have come straight out of the mouth of a Christian fundamentalist. I never begrudge anyone their religious beliefs and whether I agree or not with how they allow it to guide their lives I believe it is their choice. Oh. That is called ‘freedom of choice.’ Extreme religious leadership imposes limitations on freedom of choice. My point? Individuals certainly can be guided in such a way n their own lives but an entire country creates issues <assuming 100% of the people will not agree all the time>.

- With regard to that stupid amateur film disparaging the prophet he nailed the issue: “freedom of speech is not the same as abuse of speech.”

His words:

“Fundamentally, first of all, any action that is provocative, offends the religious thoughts and feelings of any people, we condemn, likewise, we condemn any type of extremism. Of course, what took place was ugly. Offending the Holy Prophet is quite ugly. This has very little or nothing to do with freedom and freedom of speech. This is the weakness of and the abuse of freedom, and in many places it is a crime. It shouldn’t take place, and I do hope the day will come in which politicians will not seek to offend those whom others hold holy.”

Personally I couldn’t agree with him any more on that one particular issue <not having much to do with freedom of speech>. I have written this before … freedom of speech is a responsibility. And it is also not freedom to be provocatively stupid, moronic & offensive to others’ beliefs.

Beyond that. He did not condone the violence. He walked a fine line on this topic – but I noted as I listened that I had to think hard about this. He governs within a religious construct – Iran is basically a religious state. We in America, and many nations for that matter, have elected to not govern that way. His response <in words and thoughts> is going to be different than most of ours. We see the film as a moronic example of freedom of speech. He sees the film as a religious affront. He doesn’t try to justify the reaction he simply gets aggravated we don’t understand the depths of the affront.

- Whew. The Israel-Palestine discussion.

As a Muslim, and a Muslim leader, his perspective of self-determination skews his view to “don’t Palestinians have a right to determine their future.”

His words:

“If a group comes and occupies the United States of America, destroys homes while women and children are in those homes, incarcerate the youth of America, impose five different wars on many neighbors, and always threaten others, what would you do? What would you say? Would you help it? … Or would you help the people of the United States?”

Ahmadinejad asked in response to whether Israel should be “wiped off” the face of the map, as he once said.

“So when we say ‘to be wiped,’ we say for occupation to be wiped off from this world. For war-seeking to (be) wiped off and eradicated, the killing of women and children to be eradicated. And we propose the way. We propose the path. The path is to recognize the right of the Palestinians to self-governance.”

He is relentless with imposing ‘self-determination.’

Oh. He surprised me when asked how he would feel if his daughter fell in love with a Jew when he said “I would have to see who that Jewish man or woman would be. I see love amongst people as completely acceptable. There are many Jews living in Iran with whom we are very close. There are … some Muslims that marry into Jewish families or marry Christians.”

“I — we have no such problems,” he added.

Well. I cannot even come close to fathoming how he thinks on this. It is so far out of my dna I can’t grasp it.

Now. I honestly don’t believe it is quite as simple as that in Iran but given how measured he was on other touchy topics it was enlightening to hear him go on record with that <and I share my perspective on this in my conclusion>.

- When asked whether he believes in a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Ahmadinejad declined to comment.

“I cannot express an opinion. That is their prerogative but the people of Palestine must be allowed by everyone, and helped by everyone, to allow them, to give them the right to choose for themselves.”

- The Holocaust.

I won’t even touch the holocaust discussion. He will not admit there was ever a Holocaust or directly answer a question about whether $6million jewish people lost their lives in WW2. Suffice it to say he didn’t answer the question (did he believe the holocaust occurred) and there was certainly a point where it looked like if he had a holy scimitar handy he would have sliced Piers head off right then and there.

Bottom line on the interview?

1. Perspective.

I believe any time we can see our own actions thru others eyes it cannot hurt. Did I agree with at all? Absolutely not. Did it make me think a little? Absolutely yes.

Foreign policy is complex. It is not just “make a strong stance” <or drawing some colored line in the sand like kids getting ready to challenge each other>. He also reminded me of another thing Brzezinski said on TV the other day … “if we <America> act unwisely the region could erupt.” Because whether I agree with Ahmadinejad or not he said something like “some of US actions have prompted extremism.” The point? Taking actions in anyone’s backyard generates some response particularly if it is perceived as a religious affront. Do I believe if the West did nothing that there would be no activity? Surely not. Do I believe countries around the world believe USA is ‘soft’ or isn’t as dangerous as it ‘used to be’? Absolutely not. America has the strongest, most far reaching, capable military in the world. The struggle is actually America itself … the bulk of America talks tough about foreign policy but doesn’t really have the stomach <nor should they> for doing some of the things that would need to be done to step in.

Beyond that … Ahmadinejad clearly points toward the best path is one in which the Middle East resolves their own issues if it can be done that way. We Americans tend to like to think that everything is about us … but here is a truth about the Middle East situation – it is really a war between moderate Muslim and radical Muslim. At its heart & soul it is a religious war. The best person to manage Iran is a relative sharing the religion … not a distant neighbor who does not.

2. Frankly, Ahmadinejad concerned me for a number of reasons.

(a) He is smart, crafty smart.

He portrays himself as an enlightened, reasonable person who thinks everyone should just be left alone to do whatever they want in their own country. He complains about a world where Israel can threaten Iran over suspected nuclear ambitions and in the next breath refuses to recognize Israel as a state and has said that he wants the current Israeli political regime to cease to exist. Iran also funds and supports militants & terrorists on Israel’s border who have thousands of rockets aimed at Israeli population centers. The concept that Iran just wants to live in peace and security with its neighbors is a fiction … well … as long as Israel is one of its neighbors that is.

(b) He is intolerant within a religious construct.

This has nothing to do with Sharia law but everything to do with whether you believe the Koran <or Bible for that matter> is a metaphorical guide for actions or an actual guide for actions. Just as he wields ‘self-determination’ like a bludgeon <see c.> he wields the Koran as his unswerving constitutional guide … not just for moral direction but also for leadership action.

Think of it as almost exactly opposite of say Turkey.

This creates internal country issues but let’s imagine any country can elect to govern as they wish. However, it also creates massive external repercussions globally in dealing with other governmental constructs. And, more importantly, within the Middle East in which while he may chafe with his more moderate brethren he happens to have a neighbor, on the same street mind you, that has a country founded upon a completely different religious construct. With such a rigid, values based <which makes it a ‘divine’ construct> construct I cannot envision the tolerance and flexibility needed for realistic compromise that takes place in any diplomacy.

(c) He invokes “self-determination” nonstop (which invariably stokes resentment anytime anyone from the west decides to be involved in the region’s business).

This circles back to the crafty smart comment. Self-determination is an American foreign policy lynchpin established by Woodrow Wilson post WW1. It is stated beliefs that the established population has a right to self determine their future as a state/country.

Well, in a wildly imagination-driven world even I addressed this <in my ‘remapping the middle east’ post: http://brucemctague.com/a-new-map-of-the-middle-east) but there is always a relationship to the ‘bigger picture’ regardless of whether it simply be regional <Middle East> or globally <the globe>. Most self-determination type discussions involve domestic <what is right for me at home> and internationally <what impact will this have economically and exchange of trade/ideas/etc.>. he is only showing us one side of the coin.

He is also crafty with regard to self-determination and Israel.

This next thought may get me in trouble but here goes … Ahmadinejad may not be anti-Jewish but rather simply anti-Israel <he continues to refuse to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate state>. But, heck, he may not even give a flip about Israel … if it was say maybe located near Paraguay or Luxembourg.

The crux of this thought/concern? I do believe he would guide his country to take any steps possible to eliminate Israel from the Middle East but I believe his whole self-determination argument suggests that he believes the REGION would self-determine that Israel just didn’t belong there. It is a frightening argument. And one that takes you down an inevitable path where Israel is not going to simply move near Paraguay/Luxembourg therefore the leader of Iran is suggesting if they don’t move we will move them. Ultimately that is why this man, and this situation, is dangerous.

I am glad I watched.

It reminded me of something I wrote last week … it is becoming more and more difficult to discern the good guys from the bad guys. When reasonable is so intertwined with unreasonable it becomes easy to think ‘that makes sense’ and … well … just move on. What I have found is that the unreasonable are excellent at wielding the ‘reasonable’ thoughts like a surgeon … cutting into doubt just enough that you hesitate from saying what you know in your heart of hearts is the right thing.

Watch it.

It never hurts to listen.

the futurist

July 11th, 2012

This is going to discuss a book called The Futurist <by a guy named Ottmer>. But before I discuss the book … this overall topic is one of my favorites … ahhhhhhhhhhhh … let me clarify … one of my favorite cynical topics … the fact that there are these bullshit slinging presenters and trend watchers wannabes who make an amazing living off of sound bite thoughts.

Do I begrudge them the ability to find a sound bite? Nope.

What I do have a grudge against is that I, and many other people, then have to invest an inordinate amount of energy explaining to people that the sound bite is just that … a sound bite … a simplistic meaningless irrelevant concept in the real world.

And then I found a book with someone who apparently has the same cynical attitude with regard to these ‘trend spotters.’

<note: I wish I had written this book>

So.

I have a stack of books next to my bed which invariably has some books that have been waiting a while to be read. I just finished The Futurist. In case you don’t want to read this well written quasi-fun, quasi-cynical fictional look at the “buzz creator” future trends world, here is nutshell look at these pop-culture bullshit artists using the opening speech at the Futureworld conference (a fictional conference) by JP Yates (a fictional person/futurist) in the book:

I realized this morning over breakfast that I’ve spent a good portion of my life seeking the approval of people I can’t stand. Including myself.

The truth is, I know nothing. Understand nothing.

I try. I am not lazy. But the more I try to understand something the more intertwined and complex it seems. The more I realize I am out of the proverbial loop. The literal loop. The existential loop. The more I think of things the more I question whether anyone is properly looped. In fact, I challenge the very existence of the loop, proverbial, literal or metaphorical. So this is a fundamental problem, being out of a loop that I don’t even believe in.

Most books or movies or creation myths have a hero who knows all there is to know about at least one thing. And he uses that gift to overcome an obvious and blatant evil adversary. He has insider knowledge. Special gifts. Ingenious ways of getting to the core of things. The answer. The solution. The truth. He knows what’s right and wrong. He knows what’s next. And he knows what to do about it.

I don’t.

I don’t understand the present let alone the fucking future.

Yet we claim to understand. Pretend to. Some actually believe it, that they do know. You know the people. The ones who talk about such things with such cocksure passion that you think, shit, maybe they do know, maybe they really do. They speak in absolutes. Blacks and whites. They speak with soothing partisan simplicity. They speak with their hands and use Powerpoint like a sword. They quote people you ought to know more about. They work on a privileged higher plane and posit their views with a condescending subterranean confidence, convincing you not to worry, that forces are at work on other levels, levels that simple folks like us cannot even begin to fathom, so it’s best not to worry your pretty little head about it and trust them, the experts, that this is the way it is. And the way it will be.

People get rich and powerful operating this way, perpetuating the myth of the uber level, the exclusive loop. Dispensing their wisdom and opinions and edicts to the masses. Breaking down the conflicting moral, political and economic issues of 52 billion people into a binary proposition. Yes or no. War or peace. Good or bad. With us or against us. Ginger or Mary Ann.

Presidents work on this level. And dictators. Talk show hosts. Professional wrestlers. Actresses on the steps of the capitol. Conservatives. Liberals. The members of VFW Post #442. CEOs. Madison Avenue. Wall street. Sesame Street.

They’re all in the loop. All working on another level.

I’m not.

I don’t believe in the scared loop or the secret level.

In fact, I think the more people claim to absolutely know, the more clueless and insecure thery absolutely are. Of course, I can’t be sure of this.

Which brings me to us. And to me. Who do we think we are? Who did I think I was?

How can I call myself a futurist when I missed the most cataclysmic event of our time? How can I predict tomorrow when the world is on fire today?

How did I see reality TV coming but miss this?

And let’s be honest: we all did.

We make all these pronouncements but none of us ever goes back to check on their accuracy. Shit, if the people in this room were right just 1percent of the time, we’d all be telecommuting from Tahiti, eating dinner in a pill form, and having literal sex with our virtual selves. But if you talk shit long enough, sooner or later you may actually be right, and if by some fluke that is the case, watch out, because any successful prediction is always followed by the cannibalistic scramble for credit – the blood grab to brand an original thought as your own.

We all want to be the first to be there to identify a “click moment”, but we live in a world that may never click again.

We’re great at telling people the future they need to buy into instead of the present they should be making the most of.

And what’s hilarious is that we all believe it. That we are geniuses. That we are all responsible for and deserving of our wealth. More deserving of the privileged life than, say, a teacher or a mason. A cleric or a hot dog vendor. Despite the fact that 99% of us did not create our good fortune. The markets did. Or luck. Or heredity.

I believed it.

But not anymore.

You see, we may be able to identify cool, but we can never invent it. Cool is never manufactured. You never try to be cool. It happens.

Same goes for goodness. And truth.

And the only truth I know …is that I know nothing. And even though you may dress the part – the missoni scarves, the yellow jumpsuits, the tiny glasses, the all-whites, the all-blacks, the Nehru’s, the sandals, the glittering gadgets – none of you know anything either. Sorry about that.

We are not innovators. We are fucking abominations.

To paraphrase someone smarter than me, who still knows nothing, the philosophical task of our age is for each of us to decide what it means to be a successful human being.

I don’t know the answer to that, but I would like to find out.

In the meantime, I know absolutely zilch.

I am the founding father of the Coalition of Clueless.

Ok.

“We are not innovators, we are fucking abominations.” <note to everyone: awesome>

Cynical? Sure.

Have I felt this listening, or reading, to some of the popular trend spotter ‘gurus’? You betcha.

Do I wish I had written this? Absofuckinglutely.

Ok. The book.

It is the kind of book that may remind you of Joseph Heller (Good as Gold and maybe a business version of Catch-22).

By the way … a ‘futurist’ is one of those nifty bullshit words business nowadays uses for those pop psychologists who identify trends and recognizers of ‘future cool.’

And I also loved the book because it permitted me a glimpse into why I could have never been a successful ‘futurist’ … well … beyond the fact I suck at identifying meaningful trends of course … and that is futurists need to be blindingly optimistic with regard to prosperity … and I would be screwed because I am too pragmatic.

That said. If you are a cynical pragmatist like me and you care about this topic you will love this book.

Each chapter has a paragraph summary of former achievements of the protagonist/Futurist.

“He once spoke before the graduates of a Bible college in Virginia about the future of God and one week later delivered the keynote address to the Adult Video Distributors Conference in Vegas about the future of porn, and received standing ovations at both.”

Another. The Futurist as described by one analysis in the book:

“He used to believe that things were getting better. He thought that science had a heart and that progress had a conscience. Then came doubts, followed by questions and alarming insights. Soon this high-profile, big-ticket trend prognosticator was prophesying doom and gloom.

He began to criticize the present, and he warned of a more damaged tomorrow if we refused to change. He gave heads-ups and watch-outs, supported by facts and scientifically validated forecasts and cautionary tales. But this kind of outlook left his audiences feeling troubled, which was not the desired effect. It was suggested that he might want to put a bit more of a smile back on his work. So he switched gears and began telling those audiences what they wanted to hear.”

That is a truth.

I guarantee it. Seth Godin. Faith Popcorn. Tipping Point guy. First of all they are not sharing unique ideas … they are simply <mostly … just to give some ideas the benefit of the doubt> taking other people’s ideas … or thoughts … or portions/fragments of thoughts … and re-presenting them not only with gusto but also in a slightly different sound bite <sic: bullshit> way to capture the interest of whomever they are writing to and for.

a stern light

July 11th, 2012

This is a follow up thought to the Futurist. A follow up maybe because this has to do with the present … and learning from the past.

“if men could learn from history what lessons it might teach us! But passion and party blind our eyes, and the light which experience gives is a lantern on the stern, which only shines on the waves behind us!” – Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1831)

So often in our desire to ‘figure out’ today we stand upon steps built upon hopes of tomorrow. Our lessons from history to often shine upon the waves behind us instead of maybe lighting our way. It is unfortunate. Because while I not only believe we can learn from the past I also believe that much of what happens is a derivative of past actions <if you look hard enough>.

Well. That is certainly a valid thought but there is more important thought with regard to the present.

And I think Max Dublin says this thought the best:

“It is myopic and evasive to forget that most questions that can be posed about the future can be more meaningfully and forcefully be posed about the present. If we only used the knowledge we now have, and used it only for the good, we could have heaven on earth, without one further innovation or discovery, and thereby create a better world than any of our false prophets are capable of envisioning. It is not a matter of ingenuity but of character, and it is the key to any and all possible futures. ” – Max Dublin

Max is correct.

Oftentimes we are so unhappy, or possibly so fearful, of what is … we invest a shitload of energy seeking and sinking ourselves into what could be <notice I didn’t say ‘what will be’>. It is natural. If today doesn’t look that good inevitably we cast a hopeful eye to the horizon. Heck. I know I do.

But.

What if.

What if we used all the energy and knowledge we currently have to try and solve what would be good for today … whew … I bet we could create a pretty kick ass world for everyone. Today … and, well, tomorrow.

Yeah .. yeah .. yeah. Maybe we wouldn’t have the 15^th version of the i-phone or a new even lighter creamier but less caloric mint double chocolate chip ice cream but maybe we would have less poverty or less obesity or less of something bad that needs to be solved.

I sometimes believe in our capitalistic fear of being left behind we ignore what is.

I imagine it is a real fear that one stops thinking about the future and others invest in the future and they get it wrong and get passed by … and I imagine all businesses have this fear.

But.

Here is a truth.

We do not need a 15^th version of the i-phone.

We do not need a new improved lower caloric ice cream.

We do not need a lot of the new innovations that are constantly thrown upon us.

Ok. Do we ‘want’ … or maybe ‘like’ the new innovations? Sure. We are human.

But do we ‘need’?

C’mon. Be serious. Of course not.

A Max truth <which I agree with>.

It is not a matter of ingenuity … it is a matter of character. And, as usual, character is the key to all possible futures <not making money>.

Yeah. I know. This is a pipe dream in the world of business. A world where “creating a sustainable world” is simply a bolt on to “how much money can I make” in the corporate world.

But <this is a huge but>.

What if some company invested all their innovation money in not coming up with a new widget but rather coming up with a better way to use what we have?

I know.

Heresy.

Maybe myopic and evasive <as Max says>.

Oh. Maybe it is just not what Futurists want to hear.

Oh well.

It is a great quote. A smart quote. And, more importantly, a great thought. It’s the kind of thought someone in a position that matters should be thinking.

enlightenment and the Cheshire cat

August 5th, 2010

“The uninformed must improve their deficit, or die.” – Cheshire cat

I have used Thomas Jefferson, Gandhi, Winston Churchill and a variety of other really smart luminaries as spokespeople for enlightened conflict and curiosity and fighting ignorance.

And now I can add the Cheshire cat to the list (you may have missed him because I think he disappeared right as he said the smart thing).

In Wonderland if you sought wisdom the queen sought to take off your head. On the other hand wisdom was the only way to keep your head.

Whew.

Now there is some conflict to deal with.

Being uninformed is truly a type of death.

It may end up being the slow death of ignorance but it is death in the end. Because being uninformed means you get left behind (or someone who is moving decides to cut off your head … like the Queen in Wonderland).

I am not going to waste a lot of words on a topic I have written a lot about. Fighting ignorance. Feeding your curiosity. Continuously learning.

And even unlearning to learn (which is really what I believe the Cheshire cat is truly talking about) is an important path to living a full Life. We all have a knowledge deficit. Similar to your own household balance sheet if you go too far in debt it is very very difficult to get out of debt and a stable base. More importantly … if you don’t solve your intellectual deficit you just die in society. You will get passed by those who keep growing. Simply … knowledge is power. Knowledge has a value.

Bottom line.

Being uninformed is silly. And, frankly, being uninformed decreases your value … and value in Life.

With all available to us there is no excuse for remaining uninformed.

Oh. That is, of course, you seek to not live a high value Life.

I guess it just means you have decided to die intellectually. Or, as the Cheshire Cat does, disappear from Life.