Translate

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Power At Any Price the case of Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly

The following article from Talking Points Memo is a few years old, but I wanted to share it because it illustrates what my friend and writing partner, Allen Laudenslager, and I have been preaching for years. Senior managers often promote and keep people in positions of power despite knowing their abrasive, immoral, and unethical management styles. It's willful ignorance on their part because they like the results. In other words, the ends justify the means. And it happens more often than you'd think in most organizations.

You have to ask yourself, "How did Lt. Gen. O'Reilly ever get past Lt. Colonel?" Simply put, he produced results. But at what price? He figuratively left a trail of bodies on his rise to the top. Well thankfully (now unceremoniously retired) Lt. Gen. O'Reilly's bad behavior finally caught up to him.  As for his superiors...well let's just say they all pleaded ignorance.

TPM MUCKRAKER




Missile Defense Agency Chief Was Nightmare Boss, IG's Office Says


Gqwlcwt2sltucfehm6lh


The report, by the Defense Department's Inspector General's office, found that O'Reilly's leadership style was "inconsistent" with Defense Department and Army ethics and leadership regulations, that he "yelled and screamed at subordinates in both public and private settings," and that he "demeaned and belittled employees." It also found that O'Reilly's conduct "resulted in the departure of several senior staff members, and caused his senior officials to hesitate to speak up and raise issues during meetings with him."

The report was completed in May 2012, but not released to the public. It was obtained by Josh Rogin of Foreign Policy's The Cable blog. The IG's report recommended that the Secretary of the Army consider "appropriate corrective action" in regard to O'Reilly.

O'Reilly's leadership style is described by one person as "management by blowtorch and pliers." The same person compared O'Reilly to a "wife beater," meaning that he would "beat you in private, but -- you know, where the public can't see."

One incident the report examines in detail occurred in February 2010 in Tucson, Arizona. MDA personnel were in town for an executive steering committee meeting, but travel delays kept them from checking into their hotel, the JW Marriott Starr Pass Resort, until 2 a.m. on the morning of the event. It was around then that several witnesses said they heard O'Reilly berating an employee for several minutes, demanding that the employee admit that they "fucked up."

"You fucked up, you tell me you fucked [up], you admit you fucked up," O'Reilly told his subordinate, while they stood near the hotel's elevators, according to one witness.

The issue? O'Reilly told investigators that he had previously informed MDA staff not to book hotels that used the word "resort" in their titles, because they created a perception of waste. He said he had been "dead tired" during the conversation, and that he only lost his temper when he felt that he wasn't getting the acknowledgement he wanted from the employee. From the report:

...O'Reilly further described the incident, which he stated took place in a private and secluded area of the resort. During the last minutes of a 10-20 minute conversation, he lost his composure, yelled, and cursed at two employees. He did not demand that the employees should use profanity and was surprised when one of them said she, "fucked up." He immediately apologized. 

The MDA employee in question, meanwhile, said that O'Reilly never apologized for the incident, but that O'Reilly did later thank him or her for arranging the meeting, and gave them a "Director's coin."

Most of the witnesses interviewed for the report said that O'Reilly is personally very intelligent, "even brilliant," but eight witnesses who spoke with the IG's office made statements along the lines of: "the worst manager I've ever worked for in 26 years of federal service," "as a leader, as a director, whatever, he's the worst," and "in terms of leadership, bottom." One witness said O'Reilly treated external stakeholders well, but staff poorly, and described him as "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde."

In a response to the preliminary report in March, O'Reilly disputed the the IG office's conclusions and questioned the objectivity and accuracy of witnesses. He denied ever yelling or screaming at anyone, or ever forcing a subordinate to use profane language. He called witnesses' versions of events "extrapolations of inaccurate perceptions of isolated incidents." Even after O'Reilly's response, the IG's office decided to stand by its conclusion.

O'Reilly, who became the director of MDA in 2008, began his career at the agency back in the 1990s. He is a a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and has Masters Degrees in Physics, National Security and Strategic Studies, and Business. Lieutenant General O'Reilly is a graduate of the U.S. Army Command and Staff College, the U.S. Naval College of Command and Staff, and the U.S. Army War College. According to Foreign Policy, O'Reilly is scheduled to retire in November.
The MDA's mission is to "develop, test, and field an integrated, layered, ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) to defend the United States, its deployed forces, allies, and friends against all ranges of enemy ballistic missiles in all phases of flight."

37 witnesses were interviewed as part of the IG office's investigation, including 24 current and former MDA senior officials.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Cxoqmqruutzqxfj1fv2b
Eric Lach is a reporter for TPM. From 2010 to 2011, he was a news writer in charge of the website?s front page. He has previously written for The Daily, NewYorker.com, GlobalPost and other publications. He can be reached at ericl@talkingpointsmemo.com

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

A Civil Discussion on a Faraway Law by Todd Neva

A Civil Discussion on a Faraway Law
April 23, 2015, by Todd Neva, guest blogger

It was a noble cause, a valiant effort, but it failed.

An Israeli law entitled “Protection of Literature and Authors,” which passed the Knesset in early 2014, establishes an eighteen-month protection period from the date of first publication. The Ministers of Knesset picked winners and losers.

Americans can look at the pros and cons of a faraway law and make a reasoned decision. We might not agree with each other, but we don’t get emotional. We don’t question each other’s motives. There was plenty of that in Israel.

The proponents of the law were called ignorant and stupid to think that a law of the Knesset could change the laws of economics. The law would increase prices, which will hurt sales. Established authors would do just fine (and, in fact, supported the law), but new authors would be shut out of the market. People will read fewer books.

The opponents of the law were called immoral. Well, not directly: Netanyahu said, “As the People of the Book, we are committed to maintaining the income of the authors who create our cultural treasures.” God was on the side of passing the law, because literature is valuable and should not be treated as a commodity. Literature is too important to subject to free market conditions. Authors deserve a fair wage, and higher prices will attract more authors. Culture will flourish.

The law was designed to boost author income and break up a duopoly between a large, established chain and a newer, discount chain. Those two giants controlled 80% of the market, and they deeply discounted books with such deals as 4 for 100 shekels ($25).

During the protection period, publishers cannot change the recommended price marked on books. Retailers may not discount books — higher prices will result in more profits for the authors. Authors get a minimum royalty of 8% of the retail price for the first 6,000 copies sold and 10% for each copy thereafter. Over a seven-year period, the author will be paid no less than 16% of the actual payment received by the publisher for the books sold.

Both proponents of fixed book pricing (FBP) and free-market advocates wish to promote “bibliodiversity” and to cross-subsidize new authors. How is that common goal best accomplished? Fortunately, we can assess FBP laws in other countries and over the last ninety years. The first FBP law was passed in 1924, and no fewer than eleven countries currently have FBP laws.

France implemented an FBP in 1981 to protect independent booksellers. The law’s credited with preserving 2,500 small stores, representing 22% of sales.

The UK, which abolished its FBP law in 1996, saw one third of independent bookstores close by 2005, and the remaining stores represent only 4% of sales. However, since revoking the law, the book market in the UK has grown significantly and is more vibrant than in France. Finland also saw significant growth in its literary market after it abolished its law 1971.

FBP laws have unintended consequences: Mexico passed a law in 2008 to freeze book prices and save retailers from closing, but without adequate enforcement or penalties for noncompliance, law-abiding retailers closed anyhow.

Countries with FBP laws publish fewer new titles. “A comparison of 14 European Union countries reveals that those with price-setting laws release significantly fewer book titles per 1000 citizens than do countries with… unregulated literary markets,” reported Michael Jaffe in a blog published by The Times of Israel.

Who were the winners and losers a year after the Knesset passed its FBP law?

Prices have risen. New book sales declined about 50%. Fewer titles are planned for new authors. Overall book sales are down 20%. Children’s book sales are down 25%. Established authors continue to do fine. The publishing industry is in financial turmoil — they used to complain about small profits for a large volume of books, and they now commiserate over no profits for a small volume of books. The established chains are smarting, and one even suffered so much financially it was sold to investors for a fraction of its pre-FBP value. Independent booksellers, which did not deeply discount to begin with and mostly catered to niche markets, are holding their own.

The law’s proponents, which are now much fewer, say results are mixed, it will take more time to evaluate, and the law might need a few tweaks. Once enough time has passed, the Israeli book market will reach equilibrium. People will forget how many books they used to read. They will forget that Israeli publishers used to publish as many new titles per year as publishers in the United States.

FBP laws create winners and losers. They help small, independent booksellers. Established authors benefit, too. However, they suppress sales and profitability in the market, and publishers take fewer risks on new authors, because they have fewer marketing levers to promote books. Consumers pay higher prices and read fewer books.

Price-fixing always creates winners and losers. In the United States, antitrust laws prohibit businesses from fixing prices, but then other laws fix prices or set certain market conditions. Our government picks winners and losers when it intervenes, rather than leaving that job to the cruel, invisible hand of the free market.

Minimum wage is an example of price-fixing. Like fixed book pricing, minimum wage laws prevent workers from selling their labor for less than $7.25 per hour, or more in some states and cities. And like FBP, minimum wage laws create winners and losers. Established authors benefit = skilled workers benefit. New authors are shut out of the market = low skilled workers are shut out of the market. Overall book revenue decreases = overall employment decreases. As Americans assess whether minimum wage should be increased, it would be beneficial to have a discussion on the winners and losers without questioning each other’s motives or framing it as a moral argument.

Todd Neva has a Bachelor of Science, Business, and Master of Business Administration from the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. He worked for sixteen years in the fields of marketing research and finance until becoming disabled. He co-authored Heavy: Finding Meaning after a Terminal Disease, which was discounted by Amazon for a year after publication in January 2014. He blogs on the topics of suffering, grief, and disability at nevastory.com, and he typically avoids comment on politics or economics so he can focus on his message of a higher calling.

Sources:

Thursday, April 9, 2015

CHANGE YOURSELF AND YOU’LL CHANGE THE WORLD

CHANGE YOURSELF AND YOU’LL CHANGE THE WORLD
by Bryan J. Neva, SR.




WHAT WE LEARN AS WE GROW OLDER 
Metro Manila, Philippines

Most of us discover at a young age that life is not always fair, and we don’t always get what we need or want or even deserve. As children, many of us came to realize that other children may have come from better families, lived in better homes, wore nicer clothing, played with better toys, or were more healthy, attractive, athletic, intelligent, outgoing, or personable.  If you were fortunate enough to have been blessed with any of those qualities, eventually you may have figured out that not everyone had been blessed like you.

Until we first experienced unkindness, hatred, rejection, or betrayal, we lived in an innocent, kind, loving, and just world.  It was probably as close to heaven as most of us have ever seen.

The differences we discovered as children most likely became more pronounced during our difficult teenage years as those who were below average struggled to get by in a world that values the best, the brightest, the attractive, the athletic, the talented, the articulate, the extroverted, the gregarious, the popular, and the well to do.

As adults, most of us have faced unfairness, injustice, rejection, discrimination, disappointment, selfishness, cruelty, and hatred.  Not everyone is fortunate enough to have the talent, resources, or the opportunity to be financially successful.  Life and work can be analogous to four-letter-words at times.  Whether we came from humble beginnings, we were handicapped in some way, we made some poor choices in life, we experienced broken relationships, or we were victims of circumstances beyond our control (sadly) we all say to ourselves at times: life is not fair!

But certainly not all of life is drudgery and misery.  If that were the case, we’d all be in a hopeless situation.  With all its ups and downs, life can indeed be beautiful when we experience the wonders of nature, the beauty of a sunrise or sunset, the stars in the night sky, the love, support, and fellowship of family and friends, the excitement of romance, the birth of a child, the unconditional love of a pet, the kindness of strangers, the excitement of something new, the joy of learning, the satisfaction of accomplishment, or the pleasures of good food and drink....

Life can be blessings and curses, joys and sorrows, comforts and sufferings, pleasures and pains, health and sickness, fairness and injustice, love and hate, good and bad, successes and failures....

But the unkindness and injustice of life takes on a whole new meaning when we see the rich, the powerful, the attractive, the eloquent, the articulate, or the talented rewarded for their immoral, unethical, or dishonest behavior.  And it’s hard to understand why those who habitually mistreat and oppress others are rewarded with greater wealth, power, or prestige. Sometimes good people are punished while bad people are rewarded.  It’s one of life’s great mysteries.

So maybe if we petitioned our government they could pass laws making life more honest and fair for everyone?  Maybe we could pass a constitutional amendment that will ensure that everyone treats everyone decently?  Unfortunately the government couldn’t possibly pass enough laws or hire enough people to enforce honesty, decency, and fairness. In fact, the government suffers from the same problems we do because people are people regardless of who they are or where they work.  Anywhere you go in the world you’ll find dishonest, immoral, and unethical people. (Sadly, even in sacred places.)  It’s quite impossible to force people to treat others well and to live honest, decent, ethical, virtuous, and morally good lives.  What the world really needs is a change of heart…and only God can do that!


WHAT PHILOSOPHY TEACHES US
Socrates forced to drink poison

Ethical philosophers and thinkers throughout the ages (like the famous Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno) have pondered why and how we should live honest, ethical, virtuous, and decent lives.  Marcus Aurelius, a famous Roman Emperor from 161-180 A.D. and a practicing Stoic philosopher, wrote in his book Meditations, We ought to do good to others as simply as a horse runs, or a bee makes honey, or a vine bears grapes season after season without thinking of the grapes it has borne.   In other words, living a good and decent life is self-evident in nature (or natural law).  We don’t need laws to be written to tell us that lying, cheating, stealing, or killing is wrong.

The famous philosopher Plato (a student of Socrates) wrote in his book The Republic (circa 387 B.C.) an allegory called The Cave (which is probably the basis of all Western philosophical thought).  In the story, Socrates has a conversation with Plato’s brother Glaucon in which he describes a prehistoric theater deep inside a cave where the audience members, since their childhoods, are chained and held captive watching a shadow puppet show (similar to a movie theater today).  The show the captive audience watched were images of the real things and events in the world outside the cave.
Drawing of Plato's Cave
So one day an audience member was set free and told that the shadow puppet show he’d been watching since childhood were not at all real but merely illusions of reality.  At first he was skeptical and didn’t believe it.  So to prove it to him, he was shown the puppets and fire that produced the shadows he’d watched since childhood, but he still wouldn’t believe it.  Finally, he was forcibly dragged out of the cave into the sunlight of the real world.

Initially he was shocked by what he saw as his eyes painfully adjusted to the bright sunlight.  But after awhile, he came to see and appreciate the beauty of the world as it really is outside of the cave.

Later on, however, he started to feel pity for the captives still imprisoned deep inside the cave.  So after much thought, he decided to venture back inside the cave in order to tell them the truth about the cave: that it was all a lie and a poor reflection of reality.

After he went back into the cave and told the others about the real world outside the cave they just laughed at him and said he’d lost his sight and his mind.  He desperately tried to prove it to them, but they still wouldn’t believe him.  And eventually they killed him since they didn’t want him to lead others astray.

The protagonist in the allegorical story represents the countless prophets and sages throughout history that have tried and failed to enlighten society by speaking the truth (e.g. Socrates, John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, or Gandhi).  Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860 A.D., a famous German philosopher) wrote, All truth passes through three stages: first, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

The writings of the Greeks and many other philosophers throughout history continue to be studied to this day, but as we look around us we can see that most of their common sense ideas of how to live rightly haven’t been universally embraced?  Since honesty is rarely rewarded and unethical or immoral behavior is rarely punished, there’s little reason why any of us should strive to live honest, decent, ethical, virtuous, and morally good lives.  The fact is that nice people—more often than not—do finish last!  And it is this sad fact of life that makes our lives so frustrating and meaningless at times!

Around the same time as the famous Greek philosophers, a little known Jewish philosopher and sage named Qoheleth (or the Preacher) asked these same questions in his Biblical book of Ecclesiastes: what is the meaning of life and what is the best way to live?

Qoheleth explored the benefits of a pleasure-seeking, hedonistic lifestyle; he explored the benefits of wealth and success; he explored the benefits of hard-work and academic pursuits; he explored the benefits of power and weakness; he explored the benefits of knowledge, wisdom, and foolishness; in fact, he explored the benefits of just about everything imaginable and he still came to the same conclusion—they’re all pointless, futile and ultimately meaningless!

The reason Qoheleth believed that life (apart from God) was so futile and meaningless was that, ultimately, nothing lasts forever (including us).  Nothing we learn or do or pursue or build or accomplish will have any lasting consequences and eventually everything will be forgotten.  It doesn’t matter if you’re a good person or a bad person, beautiful or ugly, wise or foolish, smart or stupid, rich or poor, a success or a failure, moral or immoral, honest or dishonest, ethical or unethical; ultimately we all suffer the same fate.  So it is death and our fear of death—Qoheleth believed—that makes our lives so pointless, frustrating, and meaningless!

So Qoheleth despaired of life and wondered (like we still do) if it would have been better not to have been born than to live a meaningless life?  Socrates had a similar thought when he said: The unexamined life is not worth living!

But then in a moment of clarity, Qoheleth realized the obvious: that the reason life was so unfair was precisely because of all the unkindness, injustice, and evil in the world!  Evil, injustice, and oppression are perpetuated by the hateful, dishonest, unethical, and immoral ways people behave towards each other.  And it is these that make life so pointless, frustrating and meaningless.

Yet as surely as there’s evil, injustice, and death in the world there’s surely divine justice and retribution, Qoheleth believed.  Despite life’s unfairness, it’s still a very precious gift from God.  And God wants all of us to enjoy our lives, our relationships, our work, and all the other blessings He has given us, but He also wants us to live honestly, decently, ethically, virtuously, and morally good because living this way makes life more meaningful for all of us.

And in the end when we all have to stand before God, our creator, and give an account of our lives, what will He say to us?  Did we love Him?  Did we love others?  Or did we live self-centered, hateful, sinful lives, and treat others badly?

It’s all right to search for purpose and meaning in our lives, but it doesn’t exempt us from obeying God’s moral and ethical commands.  The meaning of life, Qoheleth believed, is not found in any human endeavors; rather, it’s found in our faith in and our obedience to God and his moral edicts for our lives.  We still may never completely understand why life is so unfair, but our faith in God’s eternal plans, in His divine providence, and our obedience to His moral edicts will give us joy, peace-of-mind, and true and lasting meaning for our lives.

Life’s meaning is not found in accumulating material possessions, accomplishing great things, or becoming rich and powerful but simply in how well we live our lives and how well we treat other people.

We should strive for goodness not only because we believe that God will hold us all accountable for the way we lived our lives, but more importantly because only God can make our lives truly meaningful.  And when we live lovingly, honestly, decently, ethically, virtuously, and morally good lives we’ll not only make our own lives more meaningful, we’ll also make it more meaningful for everyone else we come into contact with.

Qoheleth beautifully summarized his thoughts in this way (excerpts from Ecclesiastes chapters 9, 11, 12 NIV):  
So I reflected on all this and concluded that the righteous and the wise and what they do are in God’s hands, but no man knows whether love or hate awaits him. All share a common destiny—the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad… [So] go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do… Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun—all your meaningless days.  For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun.  Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.  I have seen something else under the sun: the race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all…  However many years a man may live, let him enjoy them all…  Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.  For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.
Marcus Aurelius wrote something similar: 
Words that everyone once used are now obsolete, and so are the men whose names were once on everyone's lips….  For all things fade away, become the stuff of legend, and are soon buried in oblivion.  Mind you, this is true only for those who blazed once like bright stars in the firmament, but for the rest, as soon as a few clods of earth cover their corpses, they are 'out of sight, out of mind.'  In the end, what would you gain from everlasting remembrance?  Absolutely nothing.  So what is left worth living for?  This alone: justice in thought, goodness in action, speech that cannot deceive, and a disposition glad of whatever comes, welcoming it as necessary, as familiar, as flowing from the same source and fountain as yourself.


WHAT PSYCHOLOGY TEACHES US

Dr. Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987), a Harvard University Professor of Psychology, developed a widely accepted theory on the stages of our moral development in the 1970s.  Basically, he believed that people progressed in their moral reasoning and ethical behavior through a series of six identifiable stages:

Level 1: Pre-Conventional
1. Obedience and Punishment orientation—a primary school level of moral and ethical behavior where people behave because they are told to do so; they’re rewarded for their good behavior and punished for their bad behavior.

2. Self-Interest orientation—a middle school level of moral and ethical behavior where people behave because it’s in their own self-interest.

Level 2: Conventional
3. Social norms orientation—a high school level of moral and ethical behavior where people behave in order to gain the approval of others.

4. Law and Order orientation—a mature adult level of moral and ethical behavior where people behave because they want to be dutiful, law-abiding citizens.

Level 3: Post-Conventional
5. Social Contract orientation—a personally intrinsic level of moral and ethical behavior where people behave because of social mutuality and a genuine interest in the welfare of others.

6. Principled Conscience orientation—a universal principled level of moral and ethical behavior where people behave because of their individual conscience.

Dr. Kohlberg believed that people cannot skip from one stage of moral development to another, but that we can only progress through each stage one at a time.  In order to get to the next higher stage of moral development, we must comprehend a moral rationale for going to the next higher level.  In fact, most all of us often will regress to earlier stages of moral development and have to relearn the rationale for getting back on track (e.g. people issued tickets for moving violations, convicted criminals, those who are trying to overcome addictions like alcohol, those suffering the consequences of bad behavior, etc.)  He also didn’t believe the majority of us ever get to the last stages of moral development.  In the past century, maybe only Mahatma Gandhi or Saints like Pope John Paul II or Mother Teresa ever achieved these levels.

Contemporary Psychologist and author, Dr. David Lieberman in his book Make Peace with Anyone makes a compelling argument that to be happy, have good relationships, and be psychologically balanced, a person must feel good about themselves.  Feeling good about ourselves is called self-esteem or self-respect or self-love.  And self-esteem is a byproduct of how we live our lives.  If we do not respect ourselves then we cannot truly love ourselves nor respect and love others.

In order to have self-esteem, Dr. Lieberman argues, we must consistently make wise and morally good choices.  In other words, if we do what is right we’ll (more often than not) feel good about ourselves and improve our self-esteem; but if we do what is wrong, we’ll feel guilt, embarrassment, and shame and lose our self-esteem.

Furthermore, our personal freedom and independence allow us to make choices; so if we’re coerced into making certain choices, it’ll rob us of our personal freedom and harm our self-esteem.  This is what sparks many human conflicts, writes Dr. Lieberman.

Dr. Lieberman explains that there are three underlying motivations behind our choices:

1) We can choose what feels good (Dr. Kohlberg’s level one); for example, overeating, laziness, abusing drugs, alcohol, or tobacco, or any immoderate, unwholesome, behavior;

2) We can choose what makes us look good (Dr. Kohlberg’s level two); for example, not living for ourselves but for our image; any behavior that projects a worldly, materialistic, self-centered image; being consumed with money, power, control, or vanity; or

3) We can choose what is good! (Dr. Kohlberg’s level three).  Only the third alternative of choosing responsibly and wisely will give us true freedom, self-respect, improve our self-esteem, and allow us to live at peace with others.


ALL WE REALLY NEED TO KNOW WE LEARNED IN KINDERGARTEN
Kindergarten nap time

The Reverend Robert Fulghum in his famous book All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten eloquently describes the wisdom we all learned as children:
All I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be, I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not at the top of the graduate-school mountain, but there in the sand pile at Sunday school. These are the things I learned:  
Share everything.
Play fair. 
Don’t hit people. 
Put things back where you found them. 
Clean up your own mess.
Don’t take things that aren’t yours.
Say you’re sorry when you hurt somebody. 
Wash your hands before you eat. 
Flush. 
Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you. 
Live a balanced life—learn some and think some and draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day some. 
Take a nap every afternoon. 
When you go out into the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands, and stick together. 
Be aware of wonder. 
Remember the little seed in the Styrofoam cup: the roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we are all like that. 
Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the Styrofoam cup—they all die.  So do we. 
And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books and the first word you learned—the biggest word of all—LOOK. 
Everything you need to know is in there somewhere: The Golden Rule and love and basic sanitation; ecology and politics and equality and sane living. Take any one of those items and extrapolate it into sophisticated adult terms and apply it to your family life or your work or your government or your world and it holds true and clear and firm. Think what a better world it would be if we all—the whole world—had cookies and milk about three o’clock every afternoon and then lay down with our blankies for a nap. Or if all governments had as a basic policy to always put things back where they found them and to clean up their own mess. And it is still true, no matter how old you are—when you go out into the world, it is best to hold hands and stick together.
In short, the keys to living well are really quite simple: if we wouldn’t allow our children to behave in certain ways towards others, why would we behave that way towards others?


THE FABLE OF THE STARFISH

In a popular motivational fable by an unknown author there was once an old man who had a habit of walking along the beach every morning.  One morning when he went to the beach he discovered there had been a strong storm the previous night that had washed thousands of starfish up onto the beach.

Then at a distance, he spotted a young man dancing along the beach. How odd the old man thought to himself; the beach is littered with soon to be rotting starfish and this young guy is dancing?  So he ran up to him to see why he was dancing.  As he got closer he saw that the young man wasn’t dancing at all but instead was reaching down and picking up starfish and very gently throwing them back into the ocean.

The old man asked him, “Good morning! What are you doing?”

The young man replied, “Throwing starfish into the ocean!”

“Why are you throwing starfish into the ocean?” the old man asked.

The young man replied, “The sun is up, and the tide is going out; and if I don’t throw them back in the ocean they’ll surely die!”

“Young man, don’t you realize that there are miles and miles of beach, and there must be thousands and thousands of starfish along it. You can’t possibly make a difference!”

The young man listened politely, then bent down and picked up another starfish and gently threw it back into the ocean and said, “It made a difference for that one!”

The old man paused a bit and contemplated the enormity of the task and then bent down, picked up a starfish and gently threw it back into the ocean....



CHANGE YOURSELF AND YOU'LL CHANGE THE WORLD
Each of us has the innate ability to learn from experience and make free choices in our lives.  This is what sets us apart from the animals.  We’re not locked into certain behavior patterns.  Each of us has the freedom to choose to become better people: more loving, honest, decent, ethical, virtuous, and morally good people.  We can choose to continue to live self-centered lives, or we can choose to live others-centered lives.

Bill FitzPatrik of the American Success Institute (www.success.org) wrote: 
You do not need to prove your might at the expense of others.  You do not need diplomas, awards or the acclaim of others to know who you are.  You do not need an audience to do the right thing.  You do not need a lot of money or many physical possessions to be happy.  You do not need stand first in line.  You do not need coaxing to fulfill your religious obligations.  You do not need lessons to act civilly.  You do not need prompting to help someone in need.
The Lorax (1971) by Dr. Suess (Theodor Suess Geisel)


When we live loving, honest, decent, ethical, virtuous, and morally good lives, we make life more meaningful and better not only for ourselves but for everyone else around us.  When we change for the better we help make the whole world a little better.  The Greek and Jewish philosophers all believed this, the science of psychology affirms this, and deep down inside we all know this to be true (natural law).  Mahatma Gandhi once said: We must become the change we want to see.  So if we want to make our world a better place to live in, then, individually, each one of us must change for the better.


Featured Post

Capitalism vs. Socialism vs. Distributism

Capitalism vs. Socialism  vs. Distributism by Bryan J. Neva, Sr. Since ancient times, people have bought, sold, and traded land,...