Enlightened Conflict

do your best

July 19th, 2012

(alternative title: making use of what is not)

So.

This one was trickier to write and share thoughts on than I thought it would be.

Why?

Well. Mainly because I wanted to write something hopeful … but I didn’t want to compromise my beliefs on responsibility <and responsibility of actions>.

And the balancing act was trickier than I thought.

Ok. That said.

I imagine most of us probably feel like we are ‘doing’ somewhere between okay and good in most areas of life. We are, in our minds, doing a decent job day to day. Some days better than others but overall decent.

But doing your best?

Whew. I don’t think so.

Maybe at moments … but all the time in life?

Well. Ok. The key point, or issue, comes down to ‘definition of best.’

Because unless maybe ‘best’ is simply another way of saying ‘doing enough’ (or “doing what I can with what I have”) most of us are really not factually doing our best.

See. This is where it got tricky for me.

Does suggesting “doing your best” become just another way of condoning mediocrity?

Is ‘decent job’ the same as ‘doing your best’?

Is it instead simply used to make someone work harder for goals?

Or maybe it only reminds you that you can’t be perfect and to take it easier on yourself.

Anyway.

I began writing this because … well … we <or at least I> seem to hear “just do your best” all the frickin’ time.

Just do your best at work.

Just do your best as parents and your kids should turn out okay.

Just do your best in school.

Just do your best on this project.

‘Do your best’ … bla bla bla.

Me?

Say what? I get confused.
Simplistically … one would think that “do your best” should be … well … our best.

No ifs, and or buts. Bottom line … the absolute best you can do.

Unfortunately it is not that simple.

It seems often <too often in fact> “just do your best” often ends up meaning “just do something” <or maybe, to be kind, ‘I did the best I could given what I had’, what the situation was and/or whatever you want to add here>.

So.

Under the harshest spotlight you would never truly, in your heart of hearts, judge this as really your best.

It is a caveated best.

A derivative of best as it were.

And because ‘best’ has been watered down so much I think people begin using the phrase to mean “don’t overdo everything and exhaust yourself trying to meet everyone’s expectations.”

Wow. Is that what it’s supposed to mean?

Or maybe it is actually “decide for yourself what ‘your best’ is and strive to meet that goal.”

<reprise> Wow. Is that what it’s supposed to mean?

I am not sure which is worse.

Well.

Actually.

Neither is particularly bad … it is just neither really has anything to do with ‘best’ and yet they are both associated in some form or fashion with ‘best.’

Ok.

And this next thought I know I am guilty of …

We are very quick to suggest … “you are doing the best that you can.”

And, in actuality, we are not.

You know you could do more (if the measure is truly our best).

Look. I recognize chasing perfection is exhausting and I truly believe chasing perfection is an endless pursuit. And, frankly, if you try to do this you only put yourself under unbearable pressure aiming to be the perfect version of who you are.

And, inevitably, this quest can only bring disappointment … because not only is being perfect an impossible task but it becomes exponentially more impossible (ok … how can something that is already impossible become exponentially so? … its kind of like getting three death sentences …) if you actually attempt to do “it” all the time.

Someone can waste far too much time and energy trying to be the perfect whatever. Sure. None of us want to be ‘less-than-perfect’ in anything we do but it is a fact of life.

But. Here is some news. Ok. No. Here is the fact.

Doing your best isn’t about perfection … it isn’t always trying to be perfect.

Because doing your best is about … good enough that you can actually do … not perfection.

And realizing that making use of what is not is often doing your best.

“Take advantage of what is there by making use of what is not.” – chapter 11 of Tao te Ching

There is a famous quote that suggests do what you will with you have <usually cited to good ole Teddy Roosevelt>.

I assume Teddy created his quote as sort of the antitheses of the Tao quote above.

This is a great quote.

A greater (deeper) thought).

So often people say “I don’t have what I need” as an excuse for not doing their best.

Stop.

Stop it.

Instead feel good about making use of what is not there.

In doing so it suggests finding an advantage, a freedom in other words, to do something … well … because something isn’t there to impede you. It isn’t a lack of resource but rather a freedom to find that which will make you successful.

You are unencumbered by what may be there and instead free to build upon the little that is there.

In the business word it is “find the empty space.”

In the Bruce world (who doesn’t really buy the fact that there is ever – maybe rarely – really empty space) it is more … in fact it is not actual empty space … it is ‘where do you want to sharpen your elbows and  create some elbow room’.

That is all about taking advantage of “what is not.”

I don’t care what is not is made up of … but let me suggest first and foremost … its attitude. Or belief.  Or whatever words you want to put to that thought.

Buddhism is infamous for focusing on what is not apparent.  Ignoring the obvious and focusing on what is really important (the intangible).

Am I suggesting that Buddhism (or Taoism) should guide your life? Nope.

Am I suggesting their perspective on how to approach things you face in everyday life (or business) may be enlightening? Yup.

It’s quite possible that this is the contrarian in me that makes me believe this way (which I have to assume would send some Tibetan monk through some proverbial roof to hear) but who cares … it’s thoughtful .. its insightful … its stuff that maybe makes you think about things in a different way than maybe other people around you thinks of things … and frankly … in my eyes … that is enlightened thinking.

Ok. In the end.

Don’t think about perfection as ‘your best.” Best is ‘effort + attitude’.

And … just … well … do your best.

Choose the moments and truly do your best <and admit the other times just aren’t your best you are just muddling through>.

Why? Well. I believe every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Therefore if you perform any action the results will come, maybe not today or tomorrow … but at some time.

So if you keep your mind in that place and truly do your best at the right time and mentally unattach yourself from the outcome of the ‘best’ actions <and the concept of perfection> I think more people would be happier … and they may actually do their best more often. And, maybe more importantly, if you do not try and fool yourself into believing you had done “your best” in certain situations you may be able to manage your life expectation-wise a little better.

Regardless.

Doing your best.

“We don’t need to be anything or anyone. We can just be us.”

Be yourself.

Cause I believe we would all like to be the best version of ourselves. Oh. And isn’t that “doing your best”?

character & tough love

July 2nd, 2012

“clearly, the moral decline among our young people affects all of society.” - anonymous

The quote was stated from someone at TED.

Note: I don’t subscribe to the depths of that depressing thought. Well. I do believe a moral decline in our young people would affect society but I don’t believe there is a moral decline in young people.

But.

I do believe in a world where … well … it is a world and not an American society or Brazilian society or an Egyptian society … anyway … where individual character will be tested in ways never tested before parents <or adults in general … because it is a shared responsibility where actions within the home and actions outside the home need to be aligned within a moral behavior compass> need to build the character of children more now than ever before.

I guess I am suggesting that rather than make apocalyptic statements with regard to the moral decay of our young people we should be taking steps to insure their moral compass remains true.

So.

In the 1950’s a guy <ok. A sociologist> named Gorer did a study on character. Kind of a sweeping assessment of how large groups/countries evolved to a more orderly society (which I assume he believed was a reflection of a society’s character).

While he identified two overarching keys … the first being the creation of a citizen constables force <call it a judgment of a peer like force> and the second was a curbing of aggression by “guilt.” Ultimately, what I cared most about, was actually a sub-assessment that has been highlighted as of late … tough love style of parenting.

Ok. This tough love thing. Great Britain actually cited ‘tough love’ in a study on the effects of child poverty <called The Foundation Years>. And before anyone suggests this a tenuous link I will draw similar findings came from a think tank study called Building Character.

The conclusion? The gap between the respective life chances of a poor child and a rich child all but vanishes when a child is reared by “confident and able” parents offering “tough love” <that is a direct pull from the report>.

Now.

I am not suggesting poverty, or material inequality, doesn’t matter. It does. Actually poverty and character both matter. And as the report indicates they are often linked in that bad choices can make poverty worse and it is more difficult to make good choices when faced with a dire material situation.

But, I would tend to believe we all like to think that strong character can be attained regardless of your economic situation (and I would imagine we have seen enough examples to believe this). And with that thought we should always be examining the development of character and the formative, or foundation, years.

And while data can be conflicting, in general, character is less affected by an “unstable family structure” then we would like to blame. In other words it is less relevant to have both a mother & father in the household than it is to have clear “tough love” direction from whomever is actually in the household family structure. Yup. Divorce and parent gender and single parent households is less relevant than what actually happens within the household.

Oh.

And let me define tough love. The study assessed tough love by ‘sharp prods’ and not nudges.

Now.

‘Sharp prods’ doesn’t mean kicking the shit out of the kid or smacking them … Gorer summed the parenting style as “see what Johnny is doing and tell him to stop it.” And the most favored parental action was actually deprivation – take away toys, treats and/or liberty. While I am not sure how this would play in today’s world … one mother said it was “a day locked up in his bedroom for a day with only bread & water” curbed bad behavior … I sense that, political correctness aside, there is a lot of common sense understanding in this.

I wrote many months back that I believed we were raising a generation of ‘non-losers.’ In a politically correct world we are showing children that it doesn’t matter whether you win or lose … and therefore deprive them of the learning of “how to be a winner” and “how to lose.” Part of tough love is showing that life is about balance … as in a balance sheet. You can lose things and losing things sucks. Oh. And rather than whine and pout and throw a tantrum … the child learns to deal with ‘loss’ as well as manage Life decisions to minimize ‘loss.’

Regardless of how you elect to address this topic it is all about building character.

And I imagine we all, those with children and those without, are concerned that children obtain good character traits. I also believe we understand that much of the character in a person is learned as a young child. They are taught right from wrong, as well as attitudes toward dealing with challenges and other people. Character lessons should be provided on a consistent basis.

In my own research on this topic I read an incredibly depressing book called “The Death of Character: Moral Education in an Age Without Good or Evil” which suggests that this youth generation is completely devoid of the character necessary to evolve the moral fortitude of the world <and it will increasingly create issues of conflict>.

Wow.

That was a depressing read. And I don’t buy what they are selling.

Now. I do believe we have issues that need to be addressed.

A survey conducted in 1992 by the Joseph and Edna Josephson Institute of Ethics found that:

-          33% of all high school students admitted they had stolen merchandise from a store within the past year

-          61% of the students admitted cheating on an examination during that year

-          83% said they had lied to their parents

-          33% of students said they were willing to lie on a resume or job application or during an interview to get a job <16% said they had already done so>.

In addition, in a 1997 survey of teachers conducted by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, more than half of the respondents reported perceiving a decline in student morality since they began teaching. Even among those teaching 5 years or less, 44% said they have seen a decline in ethical values and an increase in illegal drug use among their students.

Issues? Yes. Death of Character? No.

Because I believe no matter how cynical an adult or parent … they are all trying to teach children how to be caring, confident, self-aware and respectful of those around them.

Researchers at The Institute for Global Ethics report that five core values — truth, compassion, fairness, responsibility, and respect — consistently cut across cultural, religious, and socioeconomic lines. Another foundation suggests the core ethical values of caring, fairness, trustworthiness, citizenship, responsibility, and respect for self and others, calling them “values that form the basis of good character” and “principles that are common to all cultures and religions” are the keys to building character.

I cannot argue with any of them. In fact I actually like both lists. All things children should, at minimum, recognize as choices <in terms of actions> and at maximum actually applying in life.

Ok. Back to what we adults can do.

Tough love & respect.

I know the world has changed but growing up I do not remember idolizing anyone in particular. There wasn’t a celebrity, or anyone really, that stands out to me that I really wanted to be like.  I learned character traits from the adults around me … my parents, aunts & uncles and grandparents. They were not perfect but they offered a lot of good qualities that I inevitably evaluated my own behavior later in life.

Sure. Some lessons were tough. And some lessons I still resent today. But this isn’t about me or my parents … this is about the fact a study suggests that tough love in youth builds character.

And something as simple as that could insure no one states the quote I began this post with ever again. And maybe it is as simple, and complicated, as that.

not just following in footsteps

June 7th, 2012

“I had to be true to my original promise: unlike some series in which the protagonist never ages, I set out to have each book show the main characters not only aging, but changing as well. Even dying. This series is all about “Family of Choice.” All the members of Burke’s family share this truth: The most righteous of parents don’t want their children to “follow in their footsteps,” they want their children to walk past those footsteps. Burke’s family have always walked the outlaw road, and can never walk another. But as the children reach adulthood, it is the family’s blood obligation to fork that road for them. And that time has now come.” - author Andrew Vachss

When I read this quote it made me think about something I heard one of my favorite mothers <wife of one of my best friends> say to her daughter during an argument/discussion (whatever a mother and a tween have).

Daughter: “but I am sure you & dad did it.”

Mom: “you will have to ask your dad about what he did … but let me tell you what I believe … I made my mistakes … and you will make your own … but know this … I want you to be better than I was and, ultimately, than I am.”

Personally I believe all children should hear that they won’t simply be as good as someone, even their own parents, but better. Or at least that is the goal. And ‘better’ can be anything or any aspect.

Anyway.

The whole concept of permitting children ‘to walk past those footsteps’ means we have an obligation to not only better them in some form or fashion but, possibly more importantly, protect the children.

Ok.

Let me be upfront.

I don’t have any children.

So it is difficult for me to explain why I am so passionate about protecting our youth (their minds and physically). Maybe because somewhere inside of me I think of an Edith Cavell quote:

“Someday, somehow, I am going to do something useful … something for the people.” Yeah. Comparing myself, and my thoughts, to Cavell seems egotistical if not pure fantastical. Trust me. I am not comparing myself to the person … only the sentiment. And, in this case, what I do know for sure is that I am an “uncle” to numerous friends’ children and I know I am extremely protective of them. And I am sure I would like everyone within the younger generation to ‘walk past my own footsteps.’

And, me being me, recognizing if I am protective the actual parent must be exponentially so versus me. All that said. I cannot envision many things more important than protecting our youth. And I don’t mean making them mamby pambys by over protecting them (because I actually believe the politically correctness and sensitivity has gone a little bit too far) but protecting them from the evil that resides within life …until they can actually defend themselves.

All that gobbledygook aside … here is what I am sure of …

(1) for whatever reason, and I won’t question it, I am an advocate of youth, and

(2) I want Andrew Vachss on my side.

If you have never heard of Andrew Vachss or read his books <in particular the Burke series> he is a lawyer/author who has helped build laws to protect children <assisting abused children and attacking predators of children>.

His Burke character, and plots, are often brutal, grinding, disturbing and hopeful.

His books: “A gripping tale of evil, cruelty, retribution and love.”

—Cleveland Plain-Dealer

The Burke book series is an awesome series <particularly the first 4 or 5> but a brutal look at the underbelly of society (and I don’t mean the poor or less educated but rather the evil that lurks right around the corner from you and I) and children.

Vachss took on child abuse and child porn before anyone else really believed it was an everyday issue.  And while he did it under the guise of a fictional character there was always a thread of what was really there … and happening (if we cared to look around for it).

The other thing Vachss does is show us that all parents, regardless of background and income, want the best for their children.

And will go to any lengths for them and go to extremes to have their children walk beyond their own footsteps.

A hope that they be better, do better and, ultimately, have better.

As I said before … the stories can be brutal … and disturbing … but always laced with a good dose “doing what is right” with regard to children and friends. The only real code, or moral compass, is “best interest of the child.” With an extra degree of ‘best interest’ … with no boundaries on how to attain “best interest” in Burke’s eyes.

If you liked Omar in The Wire I bet you will like Burke.

Burke, like Omar, does ‘wrong things’ but they are the ‘right things’ to do in that time and place.

I imagine most of you, particularly parents, like me … like the idea of someone like Burke looking after our children.

Someone who acts beyond the law … because maybe there is no law for those who abuse children.

Look.

I believe in the legal process … and the fact we have a system. But <yeah, this is a big but> when it comes to protecting our youth … I am not sure justice could ever be harsh enough.

Before you judge me too harshly on this … read the books.

If even a portion of the stories are true, what judgment would you put upon these types of predators of our youth? And wouldn’t you like someone like Burke looking out for our children’s interests?

Regardless. All that said.

I loved what Vachss said about his last Burke book <although I was not  huge fan of the book itself>.

And what he says about parents and children.

I would imagine the greatest mistake a parent can make is to believe your children will be just like you. The world is always changing and it always belongs to the next generation.

And we should all wish they could all walk beyond our own footsteps.

What a wonderful thought.

Omar

September 7th, 2011

Every once in awhile tv writers create the perfect character.

A character that embodies the contradictions in life perfectly.

Omar.

Omar is one of them.

If you haven’t seen The Wire, you should watch it just to meet Omar.

He is a complex character. Filled with contradictions.

And the contradictions are relentless. So relentless that he almost makes you rethink that being a good person is relative.  Relative to where you are and what you are dealing with.  Omar makes you think about all the moralistic mumbo jumbo we middle class white folk voice with regard to what is right and what is wrong.

In fact Omar makes you realize there is a difference between bad things and bad things.

Omar is a sociopathic african american robin hood in his Baltimore neighborhood.

Oh. And he doesn’t steal from the white  rich … he steals only from the drug dealers.  And he gives the money to the kids and the poor.

Oh. And he is willing to shoot someone with his sawed off shotgun at any time (as long as they are in ‘the game’).

Oh. And he is gay in a very non-gay world.

Oh. And he knows that the Greek god of war is Ares not Mars.

Oh. And he fully admits that his “job” is stealing from drug dealers … in court.

Ilene: And what is your occupation?

Omar: Occupation?

Ilene: What exactly do you do for a living, Mr. Little?

Omar: I rip and run.

Ilene: You…

Omar: I robs drug dealers.

Ilene: And exactly how long has this been your occupation, Mr. Little?

Omar: Well, I don’t know exactly. I venture to say maybe ’bout eight or nine years.

Ilene: Mr. Little, how does a man rob drug dealers for eight or nine years and live to tell about it?

Omar: Day at a time, I suppose.

Oh. And he is also smart enough to stop the lawyer (who is defending a drug dealers hitman) diatribe in court to ask what is the difference between he and his shotgun and the lawyer and his briefcase.

Levy: You are amoral, are you not? You are feeding off the violence and the despair of the drug trade. You’re stealing from those who themselves are stealing the lifeblood from our city. You are a parasite who leeches off–

Omar: Just like you, man.

Levy: –the culture of drugs… Excuse me, what?

Omar: I got the shotgun. You got the briefcase. It’s all in the game, though, right?

Omar scares the shit out of people.

Omar has the respect of people we respect (police and children).

Omar has the disdain and the respect from the people we despise (the drug dealers).

Omar is articulate. Scary. Sociopathic. Caring. Gay. Fearless. Tough. Thug. Savvy.

He clearly has distinguished in his mind what is wrong (drugs).

What is right (it is ok to kill drug dealers if necessary).

He won’t ask anyone to do what he won’t. He is a one man army against everything white america despises.  And yet he scares and confuses us … and we know he is a bad man doing wrong.

But the contradictions confuse us (particularly us white folk).

Because he lives in a different world with different rules.

Am I absolving him of any moral responsibilities?  Nope.

But I l do like that he is on my side (on this issue). I like having someone take on the responsibility for what I know is right but wrong. Maybe it makes me feel better because I sense he is smart.  Certainly as smart as I am (even if that simply means being the tallest midget in this case). He just didn’t have the same opportunities I had. Maybe that is the way I justify how I accept he is on my side.

Think about what he says ….

“We’re born into a world where the rules are already defined.  The game is out there. It’s either play or get played.”

Omar chooses to play the game his own way, adopting a style that allows him to be true to himself and his personal beliefs.   He plays the game the only way he knows how, and he plays it well.  He plays the game solo rather than becoming part of a team (on a team of drug dealers).

Omar chooses his own path becoming an opportunistic thief who robs drug dealers for a living.

But.

He also has a code.

detective: So, you’re my eyeball witness, huh? [Omar nods] So, why’d you step up on this?

Omar: Bird triflin’, basically. Kill an everyday workin’ man and all. I mean, I do some dirt, too, but I ain’t never put my gun on nobody that wasn’t in the game.

detective: A man must have a code.

Omar: Oh, no doubt.

Omar is a rebel, Robin Hood of the streets and kind of a noble savage (I saw that description somewhere).  He makes you think.

Is it possible that someone who has chosen an occupation consisting of ruthless murder and robbery could be a hero?  And why do I find myself rooting for Omar?

Maybe its because he is doing something (in part) I wish I could do … or at minimum stand up for.

Maybe it is because Omar is dedicated to playing the game his own way – as an individual,

Maybe it is because even he draws a line somewhere.

Regardless.

I like Omar because he captures the contradictions in life.  The complexity and inexactness of good and bad. And the fact that rules are established by the game you are playing. And sometimes it is difficult to understand the rules if you have never played that game.

“All in the game yo, all in the game”

As Omar would say … “indeed.”



Help Wanted

December 11th, 2009

Who the heck answers the help wanted ads in The Economist?

The Economist may be the greatest magazine of all time. Easy to read. Sometimes even fun in the way it’s written. And always interesting.Seems like it is written for the uber-smart people of the world <the quasi liberal ones I imagine>.

I would imagine I am a pretty run-of-the-mill reader of the magazine (kind of an everyday businessperson). I am not a billionaire, nor a millionaire nor a CEO and speak only one language (and I am sure not that well either).

But.

I admit.

I would love to feel qualified to respond to a help wanted ad in The Economist. They are frickin’ awesome. Folks … this ain’t the help wanted ads you see in the back of your local newspaper.

And, honestly, who the heck answers these ads?

Chief Trade Advisor – Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat.

Senior Technology Transfer Officer – Global Environment Facility

Head, Supply Management Services in Budapest Hungary – United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees

Regional Director Asia – Micronutrient Initiative

Director General – International Food Policy Research Institute

Junior Scientific Officer – European Chemicals Agency

Project Complaint Mechanism Officer – European Bank for Reconstruction & Development

Advisor to the Minister of Economy on Intellectual Property rights – European Union Advisory Group to the government of Armenia

Head of Finance and Accounts – Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

Chief Economist – Telecommunications Regulatory Commission British Virgin Islands

Senior Project Manager – Open Society Justice Initiative

Editor – international Seabed Authority

Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland – The Partnership for Maternal, Newborn & Child Health

Senior Economist – Bank for International Settlements

Director Latin America – World Economic Forum

Manager Statistical Capacity Building – the African Development Bank

Chairperson of Utility Regulatory Authority – Republic of Mauritius

Executive Director Kingdom of Bahrain – the International Institute for Strategic Studies

Senior Infrastructure Finance Specialist – the World Bank
Secretary to the Commission – International Whaling Commission
Advisor Social Sector Strategy and Policy – UAE government entity

I admit. These look like really cool jobs. (although I am a little unclear what some of them really are…which I would imagine is part of the issue for me responding to some of these.  I also admit I am not a big regret guy (kind of feel like growing up is learning how to leave regret behind).

But every time I flip through an Economist and see these help wanted ads I do have a twinge of regret.

Maybe a little regret that maybe I should have applied myself better early on in life. It gets a little worse (looking back) when you consider that even then I probably had an inkling I may want to be able to respond to one of these help wanted ads (even though I am relatively sure I had never cracked open a magazine beyond Sports Illustrated).

Well. I certainly won’t be able to respond now. (although that won’t stop me from looking at them).

But. Sometimes looking into your past helps shape things you do in the future. I won’t give credit to The Economist specifically but maybe it contributed to something I try and do every year – donate a day, or two, of my time to my graduating high school. And I like to teach college classes too when I have a chance. Sure I teach marketing and business stuff, but most importantly I hope to kick start some kid’s motivation to learn. I don’t talk about regrets. I try and talk about opportunities and hope. Because regardless of whether I am qualified to respond to an Economist help wanted ad or not, I feel very fortunate with the opportunities I have had and the things I have been able to do.

And maybe my message to kids is that you may aim for an Economist career ad or you may aim for something else but give it a shot. Cause whatever I did in my youth, good or bad, I never gave myself a shot at being able to answer an Economist help wanted advertisement.

And, in the end, who the heck answers these ads anyway?

Enlightened Conflict