Lisa McCormack
According to Amy Chua, a Chinese American law professor at Yale and author of the soon-to-be-released book “The Triple Package: Why Groups Rise and Fall in America,” the answer to this question is yes.
According to Chua and her husband, Jed Rubenfeld, co-author of “The Triple Package,” there are eight cultural and religious groups that are inherently more likely to succeed because of three specific traits. Not surprisingly, the daring duo happens to belong to two of the groups who made it onto their exclusive list:
- Jewish (Rubenfeld’s background)
- Indian
- Chinese (Chua’s background)
- Iranian
- Lebanese-Americans
- Nigerians
- Cuban exiles
- Mormons
The underlying message in this book that some groups of people are “just superior to others and everyone else is contributing to the downfall of America” has already sparked a firestorm of controversy and has become a hot topic of discussion in the social media world.
Chua and Rubenfeld explain that these eight “cultural groups” — carefully avoiding the words “racial” or “ethnic” — have three traits in common, the so-called “triple package”: a superiority complex, insecurity, and impulse control. The sense of superiority allegedly generates a belief in deserving the best, while the underlying inferiority complex fuels the need to compensate for feelings of worthlessness. Impulse control is seen as not only the ability to delay gratification, but also the strength to persevere in the completion of difficult tasks.
As a follow-up to her previous highly controversial book “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” where she boldly declared Chinese mothers to be superior, Chua and Rubenfeld are asking their readers to adopt a thought process which is eerily reminiscent of the type of thinking which fueled some of history’s most horrific events, such as slavery and the Holocaust, and which encourages belief systems that, to this day, continue to empower radical groups like the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church, by suggesting that one entire group of people is better than another simply based on race or religion or some other aspect of diversity.
According to the New York Post, “As for why African-Americans don’t make the list, the authors believe that the Civil Rights Movement took away any hope for a superiority narrative, and so the black community is screwed — even as they cite Mitt Romney’s loss to Barack Obama as evidence of Mormon ascendancy. ‘In this paradoxical sense, equality isn’t fair to African-Americans,’ they write. ‘Superiority is the one narrative that America has relentlessly denied or ground out of its black population.’”
“That certain groups do much better in America than others — as measured by income, occupational status, test scores and so on — is difficult to talk about,” Chua and Rubenfeld write. “In large part, this is because the topic feels so racially charged.”
Is it a racial issue? Is it a religious issue? Does Chua make a fair argument here? Are some of us predisposed to live a “successful life” and some of us not? What defines “success” for you? If you happened to have drawn the short straw and were placed into this world within a cultural group other than the elite eight, such as myself, are we truly at a disadvantage and better luck next time?
Believing in the illusion of superiority could be one of the most damaging choices one can make to the well-being of humanity as a whole, not only because it perpetuates the disparity between the haves and the have-nots and fosters a “them” and “us” mentality, but it suggests that if God did not create you as one of the chosen few – or eight, as Chua opines – or if you do not select to associate yourself with the appropriate religion, that, well, you are doomed.
Your thoughts? Your opinions? Your insights?
(Lisa McCormack is a Feature Editor at The Global Conversation and lives in Orlando, Florida. To connect with Lisa, please e-mail her at Lisa@TheGlobalConversation.com.)
There are moments in life when we are each called upon to make choices that directly and significantly impact not only ourselves, but which drastically alter the path of others. These decisions can often be the most difficult ones we find ourselves placed in front of. What makes this process even more challenging and painful for many people is when their personal heartfelt choices are met with resistance and opposition by the cold, hard reality of the law.
Such is the case with Erick and Marlise Muñoz, a young couple residing in Crowley, Texas, with their first-born 15-month-old son. Erick Muñoz found his wife, Marlise, collapsed in their home in November due to what doctors now believe to have been a blood clot in her lung. She has had no brain function since that time and has been declared dead based on neurological criteria, meaning her brain can no longer keep her body alive and functioning, and has been physically sustained by life-support machines since November 26, 2013.
And while Marlise did not place her desires in writing, she made her wishes clearly known to her entire family that she did not want to be kept alive by artificial means should unfortunate circumstances arise. But her family’s requests to honor her end-of-life desires and remove her from artificial life support have been denied by John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas, because of the fact that Marlise Muñoz is 14 weeks’ pregnant.
At issue is a 1989 Texas law that blocks doctors from denying “life-sustaining treatment” to pregnant, terminally ill patients. And as a result of this law, even though the physical condition of the in utero baby is undetermined at this time, Marlise Muñoz’s body is being artificially sustained in order to harvest the body of her unborn child. Doctors are not able to ascertain at this early stage if or how long the baby was without oxygen or whether the automated external defibrillator device and heavy drugs used on the mother in an attempt to revive her have had an adverse effect on Baby Muñoz.
Erick Muñoz and her parents are petitioning the court to disconnect and discontinue all support systems, as they adamantly assert this was and is Marlise’s desire. “It’s not a matter of pro-choice and pro-life,” her mother told The New York Times. “It’s about a matter of our daughter’s wishes not being honored by the state of Texas.”
The hospital’s medical staff continue to implement and maintain life-preserving measures to Marlise Muñoz, as it is the law they must follow. And the life of the now 20-week-old baby nestled in the womb of Mrs. Muñoz hinges upon the choices placed before everyone involved.
Now that the decision has been placed in the hands of the legal system, what will happen? What should happen? Is this, contrary to what Marlise Muñoz’s mother said, simply a matter of pro-choice or pro-life? Whose choice is it? Whose life is this about? Does this choice belong in the court system? Does this choice belong to Marlise Muñoz? Does this choice belong to her family? Does her 20-week-old baby have a choice?
As in every occurrence, every happening, and every event that takes place in our world, I am wondering if there is a spiritual perspective that someone could offer which might provide us a deeper understanding or which could give us some wisdom or insight as we try to make sense of this complicated and heartbreaking situation.
Your thoughts?
(Lisa McCormack is a Feature Editor at The Global Conversation and lives in Orlando, Florida. To connect with Lisa, please e-mail her at Lisa@TheGlobalConversation.com.)
What do undershirts, boxer shorts, and athletic socks have to do with chickpeas, lemon, and garlic? Still thinking? Scratching your head? Yeah, me too. And so is small business owner, Yohannes Petros, founder and owner of Hanes Hummus, an emerging Canadian company which makes and distributes hummus to local food stores, and who is being threatened with a lawsuit by underwear manufacturer Hanesbrand, Inc., for trademark violation.
Petros’ growing business was born out of a delicious hummus recipe, a passion to pursue his dream, and the support of his local community. Naming the business “Hanes Hummus” seemed only logical and fitting to the man whose life-long nickname has been “Hanes.”
A cease and desist letter sent to Yohannes Petros from Hanesbrand’s attorney, Richard S. Donnell warned Petros, “The mark HANES HUMMUS is essentially identical and confusingly similar to the HANES mark. Your client’s mark incorporates the distinctive HANES mark in its entirety and the mere addition of the generic wording HUMMUS does not distinguish the marks.”
But Yohannes is not backing down to the boxer short baron’s request to immediately destroy all materials containing the words “Hanes Hummus” and is preparing to stand up to the oppressive and bully tactics of this multi-billion dollar corporation.
How many more mom-and-pop businesses and companies are going to be squeezed out by huge corporations with deep pockets and well-paid attorneys at their disposal? Most fledgling local businesses such as Petros’, with a staff of four, do not have the wherewithal or resources to face off to a company this powerful and many are confronted with the harsh reality of closing their doors in these situations.
So how do we combat corporate greed? How do we create a more even playing field when the rules, as they are currently structured, are designed to make sure one side always wins?
By talking about it, by spreading the word, and by supporting our local businesses. We can use our voices to educate and inform. We can use our dollars to make conscious choices and declarations of who we are. We can say no to the covetous corporations who undercut and overpower the creativity and spirit of the neighborhood dreamers and doers.
How much is enough? How much is too much? Is there truly enough to go around?
Maybe I am just simply missing something here. Perhaps Yohannes Petros’ small hummus business will cripple the highly successful undershirt maker with his tasty healthy treat. I guess it is possible that the name “Hanes Hummus” might confuse and derail the average consumer who visits their local department store looking for a comfortable bra into mistakenly purchasing some delicious hummus instead.
Seriously?
Does Hanesbrand, Inc., a company whose own press release anticipated net sales at $4.6 billion for 2013, have cause to be worried by the “Hanes Hummus” or the “Hanes Plumbing” or the “Hanes Pet Grooming” entrepreneurs of the world? Will they suddenly be forced to pay Michael Jordan only a small fraction of his multi-million dollar contract to promote their briefs? Will Hanesbrand CEO Richard Noll, who recently sold 30,000 shares of Hanesbrand stock for $2,064,000.00, be unable to survive on his remaining 621,163 shares in the company, valued at approximately $42,736,014?
When will we, as a society, stop supporting gigantic corporations with our money, big businesses who function from a place of greed and who engage in these arm-twisting techniques, just so we can save a buck or two?
(Lisa McCormack is a Feature Editor at The Global Conversation and lives in Orlando, Florida. To connect with Lisa, please e-mail her at Lisa@TheGlobalConversation.com.)
The ushering in of a new year is symbolic, a time for reflection, contemplation, and transformation as many people look back upon the events which took place during the preceding year. Some of these events made headline news around the world. And many of these headline news stories sparked heated debates.
Some of the more controversial happenings placed even the most agreeable minds at odds with each other: George Zimmerman’s acquittal in the trial for shooting Trayvon Martin, the release of the activist film against SeaWorld “Blackfish,” the rolling out of Obama Care, the federal government shutting down, Pope Francis’s nontraditional stances, the legalization of gay marriage in many countries and states, and, yes, even the show Duck Dynasty had some time in the spotlight, just to name a few.
Our planet earth is a magnificently diverse home for all of us. And while it is undeniable that there are plenty of places we could improve on the way we interact with each other and treat each other and support each other, is there also an equal amount of room for us to understand and accept each other on a higher level? Are these hot-topic news stories only controversial because we box ourselves into one way of seeing things and then expect others to see that way, too? Do our differences of opinion create change or stifle it?
I’m just wondering, as we take our first steps into 2014 and think about what we want to accomplish, where we want to go, and who we want to be, if some thought might be given to recognizing that the stories yet untold and the events yet to be experienced will all be heard and experienced through the eyes of differing perspectives and filtered through the data of each individual’s unique past. How might that level of awareness impact the way we communicate with each other? The way we create with each other? The way we love one another?
Is life meant to be more of a plain vanilla experience? Are we really trying to get to a place where we all think and act alike? Or are the occurrences in our lives, personally and globally, providing us much larger opportunities here? Can we live peacefully and collaboratively within the shifting realm of our differences?
There are approximately 7,203,608,340 people in the world. And as I write these words, that number continues to expand rapidly. Perhaps the next time life presents us an opportunity to be “right” about something or we feel compelled to assert our knowingness upon someone with a differing point of view, we might consider the possibility that there is not only one side to any given story, nor are there only two sides; there are potentially 7,203,608,340 sides to every story. And might it be possible that, ironically, somewhere deep within that complicated kaleidoscope of multifaceted thoughts and feelings and experiences lies the one thing that humanity is longing for: peace?
(Lisa McCormack is a Feature Editor at The Global Conversation. She is also a member of the Spiritual Helper team at www.ChangingChange.net, a website offering emotional and spiritual support. To connect with Lisa, please e-mail her at Lisa@TheGlobalConversation.com.)
‘Tis the season to observe and hear the familiar sights and sounds of the Salvation Army red kettles, accompanied by the bell-toting, red-apron-wearing volunteers who faithfully stand in front of the big stores and busy street corners in hopes of being the recipient of your spare change. In response to some establishments banning the sounds of the bells and requiring the infamous holiday bell-ringers to wave at passersby in silence, my first thought was how much I had grown accustomed to and actually enjoyed the sound of those bells as a symbol of the beginning of the Christmas season, almost as much as my first delicious cup of eggnog each year.
But there is a larger and darker underlying story here in relation to the Salvation Army bell-ringers, one that might make you think twice about tossing a coin or two into those famous red kettles.
The Salvation Army has been facing a growing backlash over the past several years because people are discovering that their organization is an evangelical Christian church which actively advocates against the civil rights of gays and lesbians around the world, in addition to discriminating against gays in employment.
The website NoRedKettles.com has created a historical timeline which demonstrates the religious-backed organization’s anti-gay history:
“In recent years, the Salvation Army has come under fire for its lengthy history of anti-LGBT political maneuvering and other incidents. The church has publicly articulated its belief that homosexuality is unacceptable, stating:
‘Scripture opposes homosexual practices by direct comment and also by clearly implied disapproval. The Bible treats such practices as self-evidently abnormal. … Attempts to establish or promote such relationships as viable alternatives to heterosexually-based family life do not conform to God’s will for society.’
While such statements were recently removed from the Salvation Army’s website, the church has yet to repudiate any of its explicitly anti-gay beliefs. And though these positions may seem to be limited to the group’s internal doctrines, they’ve become a persistent element of the church’s overtly political activities – activities which have negatively impacted the Salvation Army’s ability to provide charitable services, and have aimed to limit the rights and benefits of LGBT citizens in multiple nations.
1986 – The Salvation Army of New Zealand collected signatures against the Homosexual Law Reform Act, which repealed the law criminalizing sex between adult men. The Salvation Army later apologized for campaigning against the Act.
1998 – The Salvation Army of the United States chose to turn down $3.5 million in contracts with the city of San Francisco, resulting in the closure of programs for the homeless and senior citizens. The church backed out of these contracts due to San Francisco’s requirement that city contractors must provide spousal benefits to both same-sex partners and opposite-sex partners of employees. Lieutenant Colonel Richard Love stated:
‘We simply cannot agree to be in compliance of the ordinance.’
In 2004, the Salvation Army in New York City also threatened to close down all of its services for the city’s homeless due to a similar non-discrimination ordinance.
2000 – The Salvation Army of Scotland submitted a letter to Parliament opposing the repeal of Section 28, a law prohibiting ‘the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.’ Colonel John Flett, the church’s Scotland Secretary, wrote:
‘We can easily envisage a situation where, due to active promotion of homosexuality in schools, children will grow up feeling alienated if they fail to conform.’
The Salvation Army of Scotland has never retracted or apologized for its suggestion that homosexuality would be promoted in schools or that children would be encouraged to become gay.
2001 – The Salvation Army of the United States attempted to make a deal with the Bush administration ensuring that religious charities receiving federal funding would be exempt from any local ordinances banning anti-gay discrimination. Church spokesman David A. Fuscus explained that the group did not want to extend medical benefits to same-sex partners of its employees. The deal fell through after it was publicized by the Washington Post.
2012 – The Salvation Army of Burlington, Vermont fired case worker Danielle Morantez immediately after discovering she was bisexual. The church’s employee handbook reads, in part, ‘The Salvation Army does reserve the right to make employment decisions on the basis of an employee’s conduct or behavior that is incompatible with the principles of The Salvation Army.’
Later that year, Salvation Army spokesperson Major George Hood reaffirmed the church’s anti-gay beliefs, saying:
‘A relationship between same-sex individuals is a personal choice that people have the right to make. But from a church viewpoint, we see that going against the will of God.’
2013 – The Salvation Army continues to remove links from its website to religious ministries providing so-called ‘ex-gay’ conversion therapy, such as Harvest USA and Pure Life Ministries. These links were previously provided as resources under the Salvation Army’s section on dealing with ‘sexual addictions’.”
I wonder how many people actually know any of this? I wonder how many people, even if they did know any of this, would care?
Do you?
Does the fact that the underlying belief system for this organization is one that breathes discrimination into our world change whether or not you toss money into that red bucket? It is undeniable that the Salvation Army aides thousands of people every day with food and shelter and other types of charitable assistance. I remember as a child, when a devastating tornado tore through our small neighborhood, The Salvation Army was quick to serve food so graciously to all those affected. All things considered, perhaps that high level of compassion and humanitarian assistance becomes the most important piece of the equation here. Or does it?
In a world where many feel powerless when it comes to implementing the types of social changes we desire to see, isn’t one of the most effective ways to create change realized in the way in which we choose to spend our money? I am fairly confident that a large percentage of people have no idea who or what they are supporting with their dollars…nor do they think ever about it.
Conversations with God says “Every act is an act of self-definition.”
Who are you defining yourself as when you give your money to an organization which espouses intolerance? Who are you defining yourself as when you have no idea where your money is going and what it is supporting, but continue to do it anyway? Who are you defining yourself as when you make conscious choices to share your money with organizations which are in alignment with who you really are?
According to NoRedKettles.com:
“The Salvation Army claims to offer its services ‘without discrimination.’ NoRedKettles.com therefore invites the Salvation Army to live up to its claims of non-discrimination by affirming the following:
- That the organization will no longer withdraw its charitable services from municipalities in order to avoid complying with non-discrimination laws.
- That the organization’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees, as well as their partners, will no longer face discrimination or unequal treatment in hiring, promotion, or the provisioning of employment benefits.
- That the organization will cease any and all political activities against fully equal rights and benefits for LGBT citizens of any nation.
These actions represent meaningful, concrete steps that the Salvation Army can take to show the world that it is genuinely and unreservedly committed to the cause of non-discrimination and equality for the LGBT community. Countless major charities worldwide are capable of effectively carrying out their charitable functions on a large scale without anti-LGBT political activities or anti-LGBT employment policies. NoRedKettles.com believes the Salvation Army is capable of doing the same.
We recognize that the Salvation Army is capable of extraordinary goodness. This year, we’re optimistic that the Salvation Army will choose to truly ‘do the most good’ by opening their hearts to treat everyone with equal love, dignity, and respect.”
If you are reading these words, the time has come for you, too, to make a choice. Of course, no choice being right and no choice being wrong, but all choices, rather, being a declaration of your own truth and an expression of who you know yourself to be.
So the next time you find yourself faced with a bell-toting, red-apron-wearing volunteer waving a bell in front of a red kettle, hoping silently for your contribution, what will you choose?
(Lisa McCormack is a Feature Editor at The Global Conversation. She is also a member of the Spiritual Helper team at www.ChangingChange.net, a website offering emotional and spiritual support. To connect with Lisa, please e-mail her at Lisa@TheGlobalConversation.com.)
We protest mightily to any possibility of our lives being spied upon, traced, monitored, and kept track of. We want our whereabouts to be kept private and our comings and goings to be off the grid. For many, imagining that the government, big brother, or any other external entity has the ability to observe our every move is a chilling prospect.
So it is puzzling to me why the same doesn’t always hold true when it comes to what we tell our children.
“You better watch out.
You better not cry.
You better not pout.
I’m telling you why,
Santa Claus is coming to town.
He sees you when you’re sleeping
He knows when you’re awake
He knows if you’ve been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake!”
Yes, these are the lyrics to a well-known Christmas tune, one which is being sung over and over and over again to many children this time of year, especially in the few weeks leading up to Christmas Day, the day that the fat man with the white beard and red coat slides down the chimneys of all the houses in the world to give gifts to those boys and girls who have been good. You know, those special children who have earned it and who deserve it.
And apparently the monumental job of keeping tabs on the do-gooders and wrong-doers has gotten too big for Santa. Now he has elicited the assistance of an elf, an elf who sits on a shelf inside the homes of families around the world and reports back to Santa on a daily basis who is being naughty and who is being nice, which, as we all know, has a direct correlation to the amount of presents, if any, children stand to receive.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m quite fond of the jolly old fella and enjoy the magic and wonderment his character brings to the holidays. I’m just wondering, could our children be given a better opportunity within which to understand what gift-giving is truly about? Do they need to be spied upon, their choices tallied up by an elf who sits on a shelf, and their actions judged so harshly by this mysterious man who visits once a year and his loyal round-the-clock sidekick? How do we expect our children to grasp larger concepts like a nonjudgmental God when we continue to throw ideas like a judgmental Santa Claus at them?
Isn’t one of the main reasons we struggle so much in our relationships because somewhere along the way we have been taught that in order to get something, we must give something or do something or be something? We withhold our love when we think we are not receiving the love of another. Maybe the best gifts we could give to a child are an appreciation for the gift of life itself, a deeper knowing of why we are all here in the first place, and the experience of giving and receiving in the spirit of love and compassion instead of one that is mired down by the heavy weight of consumerism and laced with lofty expectations.
If we tell our children that if they don’t behave, Santa won’t bring presents; or if we tell our children if they don’t straighten up, the policeman will take them away to jail; or if we tell our children if they aren’t good, God won’t let them into heaven, what is the underlying message we are really conveying to our kids?
(Lisa McCormack is a Feature Editor at The Global Conversation. She is also a member of the Spiritual Helper team at www.ChangingChange.net, a website offering emotional and spiritual support. To connect with Lisa, please e-mail her at Lisa@TheGlobalConversation.com.)
Did you know that there are approximately 30 high schools located in the U.S. whose mission it is to enroll students committed to being abstinent from alcohol and other drugs and working a program of recovery? These recovery high schools understand that in order to create and sustain long-lasting positive change in these young adults’ lives, their recovery process must be supported by an environment which nurtures those choices and continues to provide ongoing peer mentoring and social acceptance.
Did you know there is an entire educational movement called Unschooling? According to Allen Ellis, 23, a former Unschooling attendee, “Unschooling is an exciting alternative to contemporary schooling that empowers students to create their own education. Much like homeschooling, families are free to explore opportunities outside of the public school system, and even outside of the curriculums that many homeschoolers use. Unschoolers pursue their interest of the moment, and in the process find their passions of a lifetime. Conversations with God, Book II talks about a new education system which is based on the values of awareness, honesty, and responsibility; a system that teaches the student to think critically, come to their own conclusions, and gives them a sense of “unlimitedness.” Unschoolers have been doing this for decades in our modern era, and humanity has been doing this in a sense for our entire history. Babies “unschool” themselves in learning how to talk and walk: Unschooling families simply let their children unschool the rest of life, too.”
Did you know that there are approximately 1,000 schools located throughout 60 countries in the world which operate under the Waldorf Education model? This program is an extraordinarily unique educational experience which, according to their website, “Is based on a profound understanding of human development; provides a detailed, richly artistic curriculum that responds to and enhances the child’s developmental phases, from early childhood through high school; cultivates social and emotional intelligence; connects children to nature; ignites passion for lifelong learning; and is the fastest growing educational movement in the world. For the Waldorf student, music, dance, and theater, writing, literature, legends and myths are not simply subjects to be read about, ingested and tested. They are experienced. Through these experiences, Waldorf students cultivate a lifelong love of learning as well as the intellectual, emotional, physical and spiritual capacities to be individuals certain of their paths and to be of service to the world.”
Of course, these three examples are only a handful of some of forward-thinking, mold-breaking, sameness-shattering groups of people on our planet who are no longer accepting status quo as good enough for the youth in our world. It’s not difficult to follow the dotted lines and grasp the idea that each next generation becomes humanity’s next decision-makers. So if we want to keep seeing more of what we have now, I guess it makes perfect sense to continue siphoning our children through the same narrow educational funnel that we currently filter them through. But if we are expecting different results, if we are looking to experience some truly significant changes not only in the way our society functions, but in the way it thrives, isn’t it time to at least consider a different approach to our educational system?
But what does that different approach look like? What kind of educational system will the masses embrace if it doesn’t sustain itself on a platform of students memorizing dates and achieving 4.00 grade point averages and sitting in overcrowded classrooms and filling their heads with arbitrary facts in order to pass “standardized tests” which are taught by underpaid teachers?
The news is saturated with daunting stories of bullying, teen suicide, school shootings, teen pregnancy, rampant drug use, eating disorders, drinking, depression, and social anxiety. Aren’t these painful symptoms enough for us to collectively stand up and declare that the way we are currently doing this clearly isn’t working? How many more bricks do we need to hit us in the head before we are finally willing to try something different?
Will there ever be a day when the God of each individual person’s understanding will be allowed in school? Will discussions about spirituality ever be as commonplace as saying the Pledge of Allegiance? Will students ever be able to engage in the kinds of conversations we here on The Global Conversation enjoy, conversations about God, about Life, about Who We Really Are? Could this be the biggest missing piece of the puzzle, the freedom and opportunity for our children to express their deepest thoughts and to hear, really hear, the deepest thoughts of their peers in an environment which creates the space for them to do so? Can we imagine a framework which operates not in the spirit of obtaining sameness or achieving conformity, but in the spirit of developing spiritual awareness and experiencing love without conditions, a system which creates real choices and true freedom?
Could this ever work?
Are we willing to even try?
(Lisa McCormack is a Feature Editor at The Global Conversation. She is also a member of the Spiritual Helper team at www.ChangingChange.net, a website offering emotional and spiritual support. To connect with Lisa, please e-mail her at Lisa@TheGlobalConversation.com.)
How many of us have played the “if I had a million dollars” game? You know the one where you imagine what it would be like to find yourself the lucky beneficiary of a sudden windfall of $1 million and then opine on the ways in which you would spend it?
Well, let’s up the ante a little bit here, shall we?
What if you had a billion dollars? Or more? Would that change anything?
Would you invest it? Buy a big house, or two? Travel? Finally own that fleet of luxury sports cars? Eat at the finest restaurants?
Would you be willing to give the majority of it away to charity? Just simply give the bulk of it away without receiving anything in return?
That is exactly what billionaires and renowned philanthropists Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are asking the wealthiest people in the world to do by inviting them to take what they’ve called the “Giving Pledge.”
According to the Giving Pledge website, the pledge “is an effort to help address society’s most pressing problems by inviting the world’s wealthiest individuals and families to commit to giving more than half of their wealth to philanthropy or charitable causes either during their lifetime or in their will. The Giving Pledge is specifically focused on billionaires or those who would be billionaires if not for their giving.
“The idea takes its inspiration from efforts in the past and at present that encourage and recognize givers of all financial means and backgrounds. We are inspired by the example set by millions of people who give generously (and often at great personal sacrifice) to make the world a better place.
“Initially, the focus was on the wealthiest families and individuals in the United States. Since there have been enthusiastic responses to the Giving Pledge around the world, the pledge now includes people from a mix of countries around the world.”
To date, according to the website, there are 115 people who have publicly taken this pledge since the concept was first introduced in 2010. See the list here.
So what holds these tycoons’ feet to the fire when it’s time to actually follow through with their hefty promises? Nothing. Participation in the program is entirely honor-based.
Sure, it may be less of a fiscal pinch for someone to give away $12 billion when they still have a nice comfy cushion of $8 billion in the bank for them to live luxuriously on. But I felt compelled to recognize and talk about this handful of extremely wealthy and influential human beings who have chosen to declare themselves as active participants in creating positive change in our world.
Are their altruistic gestures dampened by the fact that, even after their significant contributions, they still remain in the powerful 1%, without any negligible or obvious sacrifice to be had?
Do we need to see some level of personal sacrifice or hardship in order to appreciate the efforts of another? Or does this type of movement signify a start, a beginning, a step in the direction that so many of us have been yearning to see, the ultra rich letting go of a bulk of their empires to better the lives of someone else?
According to the Forbes website, in the current year, 2013, there are 1,342 billionaires in the world. 115 of them have stepped forward to voluntarily participate in the Giving Pledge. Not a large number, but definitely something to notice. What do you think it would take for the remaining 1,227 on this exclusive list of those who have billions, potentially more money than they could spend in one lifetime, to choose to give it away?
What do we have to change in our world to pierce through the illusion of “not enoughness” and to alter harmful ideas of superiority? Are we demonstrating what we desire to see from others in our own life, through our own actions? Are we each giving of ourselves financially, energetically, and physically as we move through each moment of our day-to-day affairs?
Perhaps today is the day for us all to make our own “giving pledge.” What might that look like for you?
Are you willing to say yes to that invitation?
(Lisa McCormack is the Managing Editor & Administrator of The Global Conversation. She is also a member of the Spiritual Helper team at www.ChangingChange.net, a website offering emotional and spiritual support. To connect with Lisa, please e-mail her at Lisa@TheGlobalConversation.com.)
Every day, an estimated 20,864 people die from hunger-related causes in our world, according to statistics provided by The World Bank.
Some 80 million people, around 43% of America’s working-age adults, didn’t go to the doctor or access other medical services last year because of the cost, according to the Commonwealth Fund’s Biennial Health Insurance Survey.
And while it is difficult to pinpoint exact numbers, a study of homelessness in 50 cities found that in virtually every city, the city’s officials estimated the numbers of homeless people greatly exceeded the number of emergency shelter and transitional housing spaces. And of the 1.9 billion children from the developing world, there are an estimated 640 million (1 in 3) without adequate shelter.
The average annual income for school teachers around the globe spans anywhere from a meager $10,604 in Egypt to $45,755 in Singapore (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development).
However….
At the same time, in Limburg, Germany, Bishop Franz Peter Tebartz-van Elst was busy renovating his lavish residence to the tune of $43 million dollars, an indulgence that has earned him the nickname “Bishop of Bling” and which also led to his suspension from his Bishop duties by Pope Francis. By the way, interestingly, the Vatican’s wealth has been valued to be between $10 billion and $15 billion.
On another note, just two years ago, people from around the world excitedly turned on their television sets in order to catch a privileged glimpse of Prince William and Kate Middleton’s extravagant $34 million royal wedding.
And let’s not forget to include in our observations the number of golf fans who continue to be mesmerized by Tiger Woods’ extraordinary ability to sweep the floor with his competitors, which earns him a cool $78 million a year.
In addition, we have billionaire timeshare mogul David Seigel, who is continuing to move forward with construction of what is being touted as the largest home in America, measuring a whopping 90,000 square feet and costing upwards of $65 million upon its completion.
I know, I know. Don’t judge. Love what is. Pick yourself up by your bootstraps. Suck it up. Everyone has the same opportunities and choices. Oh, and I almost forgot the best one of all: When life gives you lemons, made lemonade.
Well, those spiritual and motivational platitudes are easy to roll off the tongue, but I’m not so sure they are particularly helpful to someone whose last meal was yesterday or perhaps the day before or maybe even the day before that, nor are they soothing to the elementary school teacher who holds down an additional part-time job in order to pay her bills, nor are they useful to the homeless person who has been sleeping on the streets for a longer period of time than most of us could ever possibly imagine doing.
Does everyone truly have the same opportunities in our current system the way we have constructed it? Are we all afforded the same pool of choices from which to choose? As we all know, with money comes power. And with power comes the ability to be the rule-makers. And the end result is not surprising — those who get to make the rules tend to do so in a fashion that benefits them.
In a world with enough inherent resources to take care of the needs of all of humanity, why is there not enough to go around? How is it that “enough” is not actually enough?
I guess the answer to the “why” question may be easier to answer than the ensuing question: What can we do to change that? Surely, there must be something. Is there a way to account for and then distribute the planet’s natural commodities in a way that would more evenly benefit all human beings?
How far back do we have to unravel the current paradigm to begin rebuilding a system that works for more than just a few? What will it take to create a world where grotesquely huge houses and disturbingly overpaid athletes will be a thing of the past because they will no longer represent who we know ourselves to truly be?
When will “enough” actually demonstrate itself to be enough…for everybody?
(Lisa McCormack is the Managing Editor & Administrator of The Global Conversation. She is also a member of the Spiritual Helper team at www.ChangingChange.net, a website offering emotional and spiritual support. To connect with Lisa, please e-mail her at Lisa@TheGlobalConversation.com.)
In August of this year, Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg unveiled his plan to improve humanity by expanding internet access into the developing world, touting it as “one of the most important things we will do in our lifetimes.” He published his thoughts and visions in an online document where he asks the question: “Is connectivity a human right?”
Zuckerberg goes on to say, “I’m focused on this because I believe it is one of the greatest challenges of our generation. The unfair economic reality is that those already on Facebook have way more money than the rest of the world combined, so it may not actually be profitable for us to serve the next few billion people for a very long time, if ever. But we believe everyone deserves to be connected. The internet not only connects us to our friends, families and communities, but it is also the foundation of the global knowledge economy.”
However, Microsoft mogul Bill Gates has reacted publicly with some harsh criticisms about Mark Zuckerberg’s plan, calling the Facebook entrepreneur’s mission “a joke.”
“As a priority? It’s a joke,” Gates told CNBC in an interview. “I certainly love the IT thing. But when we want to improve lives, you’ve got to deal with more basic things like child survival, child nutrition. Take this malaria vaccine, [this] weird thing that I’m thinking of. Hmm, which is more important, connectivity or malaria vaccine? If you think connectivity is the key thing, that’s great. I don’t.”
Gates, co-founder of Microsoft and someone who has been labeled the richest man in the world, has devoted himself to humanitarian causes since stepping down from a full-time role at Microsoft in 2006, personally investing millions of dollars from his own personal fortune into efforts to eradicate illnesses such as polio, HIV, and malaria on a global scale. His website www.gatesfoundation.org thoroughly outlines many of the other social issues Bill Gates and his wife Melinda are getting in front of, including extreme poverty and poor health in developing countries and the failures of America’s education system.
At first glance, it is easy to mock Zuckerberg’s “get the world online” plan when contrasted against the sobering perspective offered to us by Bill Gates, who also blasted Google’s dream to bring the internet to the world’s unconnected population by floating hundreds of weather balloons equipped with solar-powered radios in an attempt create an aerial wireless network with up to 3G-like speeds. “When you’re dying of malaria, I suppose you’ll look up and see that balloon, and I’m not sure how it’ll help you,” said Gates. “When a kid gets diarrhea, no, there’s no website that relieves that.”
But setting aside for a moment the disapproving commentary by Bill Gates, is it quite possible that Mark Zuckerberg is onto something here, too? He believes that “bringing everyone online will not only improve billions of lives, but we’ll also improve our own as we benefit from the ideas and productivity they contribute to the world. Giving everyone the opportunity to connect is the foundation for enabling the knowledge economy. It is not the only thing we need to do, but it’s a fundamental and necessary step.”
No stranger to philanthropy himself, Zuckerberg and his wife were the second-biggest charitable donors in the United States last year, giving roughly half a billion dollars to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, a charitable organization whose causes in 2012 ranged from programs to teach immigrants English, to groups providing food and shelter to the needy, to funds for victims of the California wildfires. In addition, he donated $100 million to help schools in the U.S.
Can the crises humanity is facing right now – hunger, poverty, homelessness, illness, lack of education – be alleviated by both of the innovative ideas of these two powerful men who are more than willing to put their money where it matters?
Are we willing to risk an extraordinary opportunity for significant positive change to occur while we sit back and debate with each other who is right and who is wrong? Isn’t the biggest obstacle we currently face — the one thing that stands in the way of real, positive, and beneficial change taking place — our inability to embrace each other’s perspectives as “another way,” not a “better way”?
Can the internet be counted as a fundamental and basic necessity for everyone in our world? Or is it a tool, a resource, a luxury that should be reserved for those who can afford it? If the latter is true, are we simply playing into the continuing the cycle of “those who have” and “those who do not”?
Do people who have no running or clean water, families with barely enough food to sustain their bodies, and those who struggle with life-threatening illnesses on a daily basis really even care about having internet access? Is the information superhighway, as Gates contends, just not, “in the hierarchy of human needs, in the first five rungs” and instead we should be placing our intentions and financial wherewithal elsewhere?
According to a senior United Nations official, “Helping developing countries build their citizens’ access to the Internet is akin to giving them a tool that boosts their chances of achieving sustainable economic growth.”
Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, it doesn’t have to be one or the other, this or that, yours or mine? Can you imagine a way these two humanitarian giants can work hand-in-hand, supported by a new framework of understanding, clarity, and wisdom which would give rise to the harmonious implementation of both of their powerful visions and creative ideas?
Personally, the prospect of that level of collaboration and heartfelt cooperation is something I would definitely hit the “like” button for.
(Lisa McCormack is the Managing Editor & Administrator of The Global Conversation. She is also a member of the Spiritual Helper team at www.ChangingChange.net, a website offering emotional and spiritual support. To connect with Lisa, please e-mail her at Lisa@TheGlobalConversation.com.)
