The Global Conversation
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.)
Russell Brand’s “Newsnight” interview with Jeremy Paxman has gone viral across social media, attracting over a million YouTube views a day since it first aired on October 23. The English comedian, actor, radio host, and author who is notorious for incorporating drug use, alcoholism, and promiscuity into his comedic material, was recently appointed as guest editor of this week’s issue of London’s political and cultural magazine, New Statesman. The interview began with the question: “Russell Brand, who are you to edit a political magazine?”
See what he had to say about that question and more in this video:
Wow, is he on to something here?
How do you feel about the fact that he has never voted, and encourages others not to?
Brand says, “It’s not that I’m not voting out of apathy, I’m not voting out of absolute indifference, and weariness, and exhaustion from the lies, treachery, deceit of the political class that has been going on for generations now and has now reached a fever pitch, where we have a disenfranchised, disillusioned, despondent underclass that [is] not being represented by that political system, so voting for it is tacit complicity with that system.”
How many other people feel this way, too, but don’t have the courage to say it? Do we actually, as a society, have influence or power in the way our current voting system is structured? Or are we willing to consider the possibility that if we want to see some significant changes in our current paradigm, we may be called upon to take some significant actions?
Do the ideas which Russell Brand shares represent the kind of revolution Humanity is yearning for? These certainly are the types of radical changes that will rattle powerful cages and cause the status quo to quiver in its tightly laced shoes, but is someone like Russell Brand too unrealistic, too “out there,” too unbelievable, too incredible? He has been criticized for not offering actual and practical solutions. But might it be possible that the solutions will unearth themselves in our choice to take the first step, which could be as simple as listening to each other?
For so many, “politics” has become a dirty, ugly word. The more divisive and complicated our political system gets, the more disenfranchised and disengaged large segments of our population feel. How do we get to a point collectively where the system we have in place excites and invites? According to Brand, “Imagining the overthrow of the current political system is the only way I can be enthused about politics.”
Is that what it’s going to take?
Are we ready for that kind of a revolution?
I think it’s just the beginning. What do you think?
(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.)
If we each took some time to dig through the archives of our family’s vacation photos, I would imagine many of us would be able to find pictures of us with our children at the local zoo or perhaps spending the day at an aquarium or enjoying an afternoon at the circus. Kids and adults alike love to see animals and many are quite fond of watching them perform the unexpected trick or two, and big corporations know this and are more than willing to make those opportunities available to us for a steep price.
But somewhere underneath the giggle-producing spectacle and the collective “oohs” and “aahs” and beyond the neatly pressed pages which hold our treasured family photos lies an uncomfortably nagging question:
Is this the intended purpose for the animals that we share our planet with?
In a recent controversial documentary titled “Blackfish,” director Gabriela Cowperthwaite, a mother who once took her own children to Sea World on a regular basis to see the shows, raises some thought-provoking questions about the safety and humaneness of keeping killer whales in captivity over the past 39 years at the wildly popular theme park.
The events surrounding the death of Sea World trainer Dawn Brancheau in 2010, when a 12,000-pound orca whale pulled her underwater during a live performance, became the catalyst to Gabriela Cowperthwaite’s film “Blackfish.”
“I remember asking someone why an orca — a highly intelligent animal — would attack its trainer or essentially ‘bite the hand that feeds it.’ We sometimes hear of dogs mauling other people, but in these cases we don’t seem to hear about them attacking their masters. So why would America’s lovable Shamu turn against us? How could our entire collective childhood memories of this delightful water park be so morbidly wrong?”
In an interview with CNN, Cowperthwaite said, “My hope is that we take the “Blackfish” momentum and use it to help evolve us out of animals for entertainment. These silly marine park tricks are of no social, educational or conservational value. We advocate, instead, for captive killer whales to be retired into sea sanctuaries where they can live out the rest of their lives in a dignified, sustainable manner.”
Sea World has been critical of the film and released the following statement:
“Blackfish is billed as a documentary, but instead of a fair and balanced treatment of a complex subject, the film is inaccurate and misleading and, regrettably, exploits a tragedy that remains a source of deep pain for Dawn Brancheau’s family, friends and colleagues. To promote its bias that killer whales should not be maintained in a zoological setting, the film paints a distorted picture that withholds from viewers key facts about SeaWorld — among them, that SeaWorld is one of the world’s most respected zoological institutions, that SeaWorld rescues, rehabilitates and returns to the wild hundreds of wild animals every year, and that SeaWorld commits millions of dollars annually to conservation and scientific research. Perhaps most important, the film fails to mention SeaWorld’s commitment to the safety of its team members and guests and to the care and welfare of its animals, as demonstrated by the company’s continual refinement and improvement to its killer whale facilities, equipment and procedures both before and after the death of Dawn Brancheau.”
This story places before us an opportunity to talk about our relationships with these magnificent creatures and consider how we desire and choose to define that relationship. As I look around and watch humanity cage, maim, sell, slaughter, hunt, train, manipulate, mutilate, exploit, oppress, wear, and eat some of the most extraordinary life forms around us, I can’t help but wonder: Do we have this all “wrong”? Are we grossly misunderstanding the purpose of our furry, scaly, finned friends? And why have we give such names as “killer whale” to these beautifully majestic mammals who are simply doing what comes naturally to them?
Of course, there exists the possibility that the animals and mammals are here as supporting cast members, souls whose agenda is to simply play the role of “sacrificial lambs,” if you will, in the scenes of humanity’s play, existing for the common and highest good of all. But do animals even have souls? In one conversation I had recently, I was offered the matter-of-fact point of view that animals could not possibly have souls, pointing out that man was created superior to animals and that animals just simply cannot be equal with him, a belief system that some theologies hold to be true.
I suppose it is this level of thinking which creates a desire to capture and possess some of the most exotic and exquisite animals on earth and why we are also more than willing pay money, large sums of money, to people who are capitalizing off of their involuntary loss of freedom.
And while the possibility exists for anything to be true, I continue to return to that same uncomfortably nagging question:
Is this the intended purpose for the animals that we share our planet with?
And now I invite you to share your thoughts, your ideas, and your feelings about what may be one of our most misconstrued, yet most significant, relationships.
(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.)
Marianne Williamson, best-selling author of some of the world’s most beloved spiritual books, such as “A Return to Love” and “Healing the Soul of America,” announced Sunday that she is running as an independent for the U.S. House of Representatives in California’s 33rd District.
The theme of her campaign you might be wondering?
“Create Anew.”
Marianne Williamson is no stranger to politics and spiritual activism. She is the emeritus chair for The Peace Alliance, an organization dedicated to promoting a culture of peace; facilitator of Sister Giant seminars, designed to promote “a higher level of contribution among those of us who want to increase our efficacy as activist and/or candidate, in order to uplift the tenor of American politics and in so doing help heal the world”; and a teacher of A Course in Miracles, a course of study that assists people in relinquishing a thought system based on fear and embracing one based on love. (www.allvoices.com)
There are many out there who believe that spirituality and politics don’t mix, that they do not “play nice together.” Will Marianne Williamson be the person who demonstrates not only the possibility for spirituality and politics to work together, but the one who actually produces the outcomes yearned for — but not yet seen — by the American people, offering to Humanity, as Ms. Williamson said, “a new consciousness regarding our political discourse”?
I feel inspired upon reading this exciting news, and I am wondering what the world thinks about this. How will her prominence in the new-thought community benefit her campaign? How might it hinder her? Is America ready for someone who isn’t functioning from or catering to the ultra-religious voting sector? How does the fact that she is running as an independent come into play here, if at all?
According to Williamson, “I believe that a wave of independent candidates, all committed to a huge course-correction, is necessary to turn our ship around. I feel my campaign, and most importantly my win, can help inspire such a movement.”
On Ms. Williamson’s website, the question is posed to her: “Why should I think you’d be a better congressman than Rep. Waxman?” the current representative whose 38 years in Congress has earned him a reputation of being one of its most influential liberal members, to which she replies, “The voters get to decide if they think I’d be better; what I can tell you is that I would be different. And I do not think of Congressman Waxman as my opponent. We’re simply candidates for the same position.”
Is she the person who can breathe new life into our political system? Does she have the ability to actually implement and demonstrate some of the New Spirituality concepts that many of us have talked about right here on this site?
Marianne Williamson posted this message on her Facebook page: “Politics shouldn’t be the least heart-filled thing we do; it should be the most heart-filled thing we do. It should be a collective expression of our most enlightened selves.”
Now, that is someone I’m interested in seeing more from.
How about you?
(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.)
February 7 is the opening day of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia. Traditionally, nations have put aside their differences, toned down their mutual antagonistic rhetoric and come together to celebrate the accomplishment of some of the world’s best athletes. For their part, the athletes have trained, some for years and years, to win a spot on the coveted Olympic team and take their shot at getting a gold medal.
The Olympics, however, are no stranger to controversy and political agendas.
– Athletes have been stripped of their medals when it is discovered, even if years later, that they violated Olympic rules. American runner Marion Jones was stripped of all of the medals she won in the 2000 Summer Olympics after she admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs.
– Athletes have found ingenious ways to cheat. In 1972, a member of the Soviet modern pentathlete competition used an epee with a modified handle that would register a hit, even a false one, when a button in the pommel was pushed.
– Nations have boycotted the Olympics in protest of the host country’s policies or actions (In 1976, 22 African nations boycotted the games after New Zealand’s soccer tour of South Africa. In 1980, the US led a boycott of the Moscow games to protest the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and in 1984, Russia “retaliated” by leading a boycott of the Los Angeles games, although the official reason given was lack of security for their athletes.)
– A nation’s athletes have been banned for policies of their government. In 1964, South Africa was suspended from competing due to their nation’s policy of apartheid. The suspension wasn’t lifted until 1992.
– Individual athletes have used the Olympics as a platform to bring awareness to social issues such as the racial discrimination. Two American runners, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, gave the “Black power” salute during the 1968 medal award ceremony.
– Terrorists have struck at the Olympics, most recently in 1972 when 11 athletes, coaches and judges from Israel were murdered by Palestinian terrorists.
– Judges have been known to play favorites. In the 1988 games held in Seoul, South Korean boxer Park Si-Hun was declared the winner despite being pummeled by his American opponent, who landed 86 punches to Park’s 32.
– Judges have also been known to “trade votes.” The French judge in the 2002 figure skating competition supposedly admitted to voting for the Russian pair to win so that the Russian judge would vote for the French pair in ice dancing.
– Athlete’s personal views, opinions and comments, when expressed on social media, have been known to get them into trouble. In 2012, Greek suspended their female triple jumper after she made what many consider a racial post on Twitter and Switzerland expelled one of their soccer players for a racist and threatening post on Twitter.
Now a new controversy has arisen. Earlier this year, the Russian government enacted a very strict, discriminatory and dangerous law against any sort of “propaganda” that condones or encourages minors to view nontraditional sexual relations as equal to traditional sexual relations. The law is vaguely worded and does not define either “propaganda” or “nontraditional sexual relations,” so there is very real potential that both athletes, their family members, support staff and coaches, commentators and camera crews as well as foreign attendees to the Sochi Olympics may find themselves locked up in a Russian prison for violation of the law and face fines, imprisonment and/or deportation.
It is clear that the law is having a very negative and dangerous, even deadly, effect on gay Russian citizens. Transgendered and gay Russians have been severely beaten, tortured and raped and many of the attacks have been filmed, some even finding their way onto YouTube. (Why anyone would want to watch such a video is beyond me. I do not need to witness the terrorizing of another human being to know that it occurs.) At least one gay man has died from the injuries he sustained during one of these attacks.
Human rights groups the world over are outraged at this development so near to the start of the 2014 Winter Olympics. Many are calling for a boycott of the Sochi games. Others are calling for the banning of Russian athletes from the games, much as South Africa was banned from participation for endorsing apartheid.
The problem is that if Russian athletes are banned because of the Russian government’s attitude towards gays, American and Ugandan athletes (among others) would also have to be banned since both those governments also have discriminatory laws against gays on their books. (Given the recent changes in laws in the US, it may come down to banning athletes from specific states that still have DOMA laws on the books.)
For its part, the IOC said it has received assurances from Russia that foreign athletes, coaches, commentators, crews and tourists will not be targeted and will be safe. The IOC has no plans to change the games’ location or ban Russian athletes.
How should we as individuals concerned with the spiritual evolution of humanity respond to this situation? When I mentioned the call to boycott to a co-worker, s/he replied that the Olympics should not be politicized. That the focus should be on the athletic competition. I countered that to do nothing would be tacitly endorsing the discrimination. In response, I was asked, “If someone punches you in the face and you turn the other cheek, are you tacitly endorsing violence?” Isn’t turning the other cheek what you do if you profess to support nonviolence?
Initially, I didn’t know how to respond because I do believe in non-violence. I also agree that the Olympics should not be used as a political platform and that athletes shouldn’t have to pay for the actions of their governments. I also believe in turning the other cheek, which I take to mean not retaliating in kind. If someone acts out of fear or loathing or even hatred towards me, I do not respond with anger or return the hatred or fear. (That doesn’t mean I allow myself to be “used” as a doormat either!) So I pondered the “pros” and “cons” of the major proposed responses: boycott the games, ban Russian athletes or allow the games to go on as scheduled.
The Russian government stands to make millions of dollars from hosting the Olympics. A boycott of the Olympics would most certainly be felt in all sectors of Russian society. The money has already been spent to build the venues and the accommodations for the athletes and coaches. This is money that, one way or another, came straight from Russian citizens. But can the Russian citizens be held accountable for the policies of their government when there is no way to accurately gauge if the citizens support the policy? (The actions of a violent-prone minority most certainly do not represent the opinions of the entire citizenry any more than the actions of a few Islamic terrorists on 9/11 represent all Muslims.) On the other hand, doing nothing could be viewed as tacitly supporting the oppressive laws.
And then there’s the athletes. For some, this may be their only chance at competing in the Olympics. Is it fair to ask them to give up a life-long dream when it’s not yet clear how this law is going to impact gays in the long run? (Remember, sometimes all it takes is a spark to ignite a raging inferno and this may be the spark that ignites the Russian citizenry to stand up for human rights!) Furthermore, similar national laws have, in the past, been voided because of the very vagueness that makes them so dangerous and threatening. By banning certain athletes, are we not also politicizing the Olympics? Retaliating in kind? NOT turning the other cheek?
I was getting nowhere. Thinking myself in circles (as I often do!) So I took a couple deep breaths, looked inside and decided to take a look at this through the lens of Love.
Right and wrong/good and bad are all relative to the contextual field in which they’re found and according to the beliefs and perceptions of each individual. No one acts inappropriately given their view of the world. No one is a victim. There are no villains. Everyone is a co-creator of their reality: distorted, observed or actual.
It cannot be denied that the Russian anti-gay laws have brought the issue of equality for gays to the forefront in a way that has allowed people all over the world to witness the injurious effects of discrimination and the damage caused by the belief in superiority and separateness. The horrific videos have made the abstract idea of “torture” something very real and, to many, unacceptable. The faces of the young teens being harassed by Russian skin heads personalize this hatred and fear and many adults looking at this are thinking “That could be my child!” They begin to see themselves in others.
This provides an opening for a new conversation on what it means to be a human being and why we believe what we believe about being separate from each other and from Life/Love/God. The Olympic platform provides a stage in front of a world-wide audience in which that new conversation can be carried on. A way in which the message of Love/Life/Freedom/Goddess can be seen and heard by billions! Let us honor the sacrifice of our Russian brothers and sisters by having that conversation, even if it’s just with the guy sitting next to us at the bar while we watch the giant slalom or the woman next to us on the bus whose reading about the figure skating results or just with our own children. Let us help them remember the 25th core message given to us by God/dess: We are all One! Ours is not a better way. Ours is merely a different way.
(Shelly Strauss is a civil rights activist and speaker. In addition to becoming an ordained minister, she has written 20-plus novels and is the “resident visionary” at One Spirit Project. Shelly is also a spiritual helper on the ChangingChange website, offering support and guidance to people faced with unexpected and unwelcome change .)
This past weekend, 17 states across America experienced technical difficulties with Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards, an electronic system that allows state welfare departments to issue benefits via a magnetically encoded payment card to its recipients. The temporary disruption in the electronic debit system caused distraught shoppers to abandon their shopping cards filled with food and other personal necessities in the checkout lanes and leave stores empty-handed because they could not access their benefits.
This same disruption in service also mistakenly removed the set spending limit on EBT cards for some people in a couple Louisiana Walmart stores, creating a situation where law enforcement officers were called into the stores to help maintain order as shoppers took advantage of the windfall and swept through the aisles, buying as much as they could carry, knowingly exceeding the budget that had been established for their personal accounts.
My point for bringing this to the table for discussion is not merely to talk about the fact that it happened, or how it happened, but rather to engage in a conversation about the ensuing public reaction to it.
On a local talk radio show, I heard an angry caller exclaim that “those people” should just get jobs, as he has so commendably done, and that they shouldn’t be receiving free handouts anyway. He said they deserved this “swift kick in the pants,” referring to those distressed shoppers who left stores without food for their families.
And in my reading of the news stories that have surfaced around this incident, many of the opinions being conveyed in the commentaries seem to mirror his sentiments, which created some nagging questions for me.
How many people feel this way, that we should not have a public assistance program?
If it is a matter of amending or supplementing the one we have, how would that look?
Do we have a responsibility – or at least, at a minimum, a desire – to aid the people in our communities, in our countries, and in our world whose lives are less than easy?
If we don’t consider it our responsibility, what is the alternative?
Do we really want to live in a world where it is “each man for himself”? Really? Is that even possible? What is the purpose of our relationships with each other anyway?
Could the solution be as clear-cut as some people vehemently assert, that those in need should just simply “get a job”?
And what about the people who took advantage of the broken system this past weekend and took more than they were allotted? Is it possible for any of us to experience a level of compassion that would help us to understand what would cause someone to make that particular choice? Can we think of a time or times in our own lives where we tricked the system or took more than our fair share? What is the sponsoring thought or belief that causes us to resort to those types of decisions? Is there a soul purpose or agenda or desire that might be at play here?
For me, one of the single-most difficult concepts to accept is the fact that there are people in our world who do not have food to eat, that there are people who starve because they do not have even the smallest amount of nourishment to sustain their bodies. It is unimaginable with the resources that are available to us. So when I hear someone declare that they deserve this “swift kick in the pants” in describing someone’s inability to buy food, I start having a lot of questions around where we are as a society, how we got here, and how life looks for us all as we move forward together, like it or not, on this planet earth.
Your thoughts? Your ideas? Your wisdom?
(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.)
As I was driving to work the other day, I heard the local radio personality announce, “And stay tuned for the three things you need to know from the radio station that keeps you up to date with what is important in the world.”
Oh, my goodness, I was going to arrive at my destination well before they told me the three things I need to know. Should I stay in my car and risk being late for my appointment while I wait for these vital pieces of information? What will happen to me if I don’t hear these three crucial nuggets of wisdom? Because if I need to know them, won’t the absence of knowing them surely have dire circumstances for me?
Could it be that I need to know that the American government is continuing to play intramural hardball with each other at the expense of the very people who voted them into office, the very people who they claim to have their best interests in mind?
Could it be that I need to know that former Olympian Bruce Jenner and his wife, Kris Jenner, are now officially separated after 22 years of marriage?
Could it be that I need to know that there are people who reacted sharply with racist comments and harsh accusations in response to Nina Davuluri becoming the most recent Miss America because of her Indian origin?
Could it be that I need to know that a young pregnant woman in Mexico City gave birth on the front lawn of a medical clinic after being denied care from the medical personnel inside the facility who told her she was not ready to deliver?
Or maybe I need to know that the foods I am eating are entirely wrong or what movies I must be watching. Perhaps I need to know which preschools my children should be going to in order to ensure they will be successful adults or how to Feng Shui the furniture in my living room. Maybe someone will tell me what car I’m supposed to be driving, what brand of jeans someone “my age” should wear, what length my hair is supposed to be. And surely I need to know which politician is involved in the latest sex scandal. And, of course, here is the big one that someone must tell me now: which version of God I am supposed to be embracing?
Where does the long list of “things I need to know” end?
And how is it that everyone else knows what I need to know, and I don’t?
Of course, I’m being slightly facetious here to make a point. But how many times and in what kinds of ways are we being told we need something in our lives in order to be, do, or have something else? In order to be happy? In order to be abundant? In order to be in a relationship? And do we ever stop to consider where we are getting that information?
Buried deep beneath our belief that somehow we are incomplete, insufficient, less-than, it seems we have forgotten the nature of who we really are. We have caused ourselves to miss entirely the opportunity to experience ourselves as the source of our own joy and happiness by looking to and accepting external sources of information for our answers and our truth, even when that information is not in alignment with our own wisdom. Can you imagine a more perfectly vulnerable position for someone to be in if and when somebody else wants their truth to also be yours?
For me, it has been my experience that the understanding of what I need to know is most often realized in the space of nothingness, in the stillness of nature, and in the absence of words. And while the outside world provides us an extraordinary opportunity to apply our consciousness through the process of choosing and creating and recreating, I believe there are not 3 things we need to know, nor are there 100 things or one million things. There is only one thing we need to know; and that is this: we already know.
“Life (as you call it) is an opportunity for you to know experientially what you already know conceptually.
You need learn nothing to do this. You need merely remember what you already know, and act on it.”~ Conversations With God: An Uncommon Dialogue, Vol. 1
(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.)
I’m going to date myself here, but I grew up watching Laugh In and the Carol Burnett Show. I still laugh hysterically if I see a clip of Arte Johnson in his yellow raincoat riding a tricycle and simply tipping over or Ruth Buzzi as Gladys Ormphby. I can’t help but smile if I hear “Sock it to me!” or “Here comes the judge!” or “My name is Edith Ann and I’m six years old.” I get a bit teary eyed hearing “I’m so glad we had this time together” and I can’t think of Tim Conway without thinking of Harvey Korman. I remember sitting around the big colored TV in the living room with my entire family and not a minute went by without us at least chuckling.
The humor in those shows seemed innocent to me. Yes, some of it was stereotyped (like Goldie Hawn as the “dumb blond”) but as I remember it, it poked fun at humanity in general: at our foibles and quirks, at our idiosyncrasies and eccentricities. Individuals were not targeted for ridicule due to race, religion, orientation, nationality, political views or situations in which they may have found themselves embroiled. The shows (at least the comedy sketches on the Carol Burnett Show) were, for the most part, entirely staged just to make you laugh.
Several years after Laugh In and the Carol Burnett Show had been on the air, All in the Family first aired. This was, I believe, one of the first shows that intentionally used humor to illustrate the dangers and illuminate the hypocrisy of bigotry and intolerance. It was one of the first shows to use humor to increase the consciousness of the nation. M*A*S*H followed a year later and also used humor not only to raise our consciousness but also to make us aware of the horrors of war and show us how to use humor to cope with life’s daily ups and downs.
But M*A*S*H, along with two other shows that began that same year, Sanford and Son and Maude, also began to use humor to make fun of, embarrass, denigrate or mock individual characters in the show’s cast. Hawkeye’s relentless persecution of Frank Burns, Fred Sanford’s obvious dislike of his sister-in-law, Esther, and Maude’s disdain for anyone who was not a democratic women’s libber helped make laughing at someone one didn’t like or agree with acceptable. (I realize these shows were not the first: Don Rickles began his career in the 1950s and almost his entire act is centered around making fun of people. Not people in general but very specific people.)
Many years later, shows like Roseanne, while addressing social issues in much the same way as All in the Family, brought biting sarcasm and wilting diatribes against individuals, both real and fictional, into homes all around the world by the new technologies of cable and satellite TV broadcasts. Now, jokes or graphics making fun of celebrities, political parties, certain faiths, ethnicities, orientations, genders, weights— the list is literally endless— make their way around the world overnight via viral videos or graphics posted on the internet.
I don’t remember when I first began to question humanity’s use of humor. I do remember writing an article in the early 90s entitled “Prescription for Poison” in which I addressed the issue of humor and children. To a child who hears an “off-color” joke and sees Mom or Dad laugh at that joke, a seed is planted. After all, Mom and Dad don’t like lies, which make them angry, so if what they’re hearing is making them laugh, it must be the truth. And so stereotypes and prejudices and ignorance and hatred and intolerance are all planted in the minds of children without much thought by the adults around them.
I eventually decided that the only jokes I would tell would be those that involved any group to which I could claim membership. My reasoning was that I knew the pains and struggles of being a member of that group (overweight, gay, female, single mom, black sheep of the family, brainy, etc.) and I had no qualms poking fun of myself in good humor. I no longer find jokes about other groups funny if told by someone who does not belong to that group. (The only exception I make to this rule is that I will tell one very specific “dumb blonde” joke, but then the “dumb blonde” is not really a real group, although it is a stereotype.)
I hear people making fun of others while I’m standing in line at the grocery story or in the lounge at work or sitting in a waiting room at the doctor’s office or any place where strangers gather momentarily. And I hear people laugh not for the joy of laughing but at the expense of others. I have come to believe that many (most?) people nowadays use humor as a way in which to demonstrate to themselves that they are indeed not only different from but better than those they make fun of or laugh at.
Laughter really is one of the best medicines out there, but when laughing at others as opposed to laughing at oneself, I believe that laughter becomes more like a medication overdose, toxic to the human psyche. The level of toxicity in our humor is steadily increasing and has even reached lethal doses in some instances. Remember the international incident, involving violent protests in cities all around the world, after a Danish newspaper published cartoons of the prophet Muhammad?
Being able to laugh at ourselves, at the situations we humans create for ourselves, at how things that seem so “right” at the time can go so “wrong”— that kind of laughter can be a very healing experience. In “When Everything Changes, Change Everything”, Neale Donald Walsch writes, “The opportunity that we have every day is to look straight at what’s going on right now and smile and have a good laugh on ourselves and say, ‘It’s all good.’” (p. 226)
But note something. He says to “have a good laugh on ourselves.” Not on others. Laughing at our own “mistakes” and our own “failings” can be very healing. It demonstrates that we recognize that, A, we survived our “mistake,” B, that our “failing” taught us something valuable and increased our understanding of Who We Really Are and, C, that we can still be happy even when things appear to be “going wrong.” In other words, being able to laugh at ourselves demonstrates that we have reached a state of acceptance and that we’re still okay with ourselves despite making a “mistake” or “failing” at our latest endeavor. This is when humor becomes holy. When it is healing and healthy and brings happiness to everyone who hears it.
And now I have a confession to make. I laughed when I wrote the title of this article because I can’t help but hear it in Burt Ward’s voice, although he adds the word “Batman” at the end.
(Shelly Strauss is a civil rights activist and speaker. In addition to becoming an ordained minister, she has written 20-plus novels and is the “resident visionary” at One Spirit Project. Shelly is also a spiritual helper on the ChangingChange website, offering support and guidance to people faced with unexpected and unwelcome change .)
According to UNICEF, only 58% of secondary-aged children world-wide regularly attend school. In highly industrialized areas, like North America and Europe, that percentage rises to 92%. But in areas like Africa, those numbers fall to less than 30%. Two thirds of the world’s illiterate are woman. In some countries, it is even illegal for young girls to receive an education.
The lack of education has a cascading effect on the level of poverty. Consider these facts:
– Women in impoverished nations who have a secondary education have an average of 3 children. Those with less education have an average of 7.
– In developing countries, an additional year of education has the potential to increase yearly earnings by 10%.
– Women with a primary education level are 13% more likely to understand that condom use can help prevent the spread of HIV.
The level of poverty has a domino effect on the health and well being of the world’s population.
– More than 6 million children a year die from completely preventable causes like diarrhea and malaria. Most of these children are in impoverished nations with limited access to health care and clean drinking water.
– Another 6 million children under the age of five die every year from malnutrition.
– Almost 39% of the world’s population survives on less than $2 a day. More than 1 billion of those survive on less than $1 a day. To put that in perspective, someone in the US who is paying $589/month for a car loan for their gas-guzzling Hummer is paying every month almost twice what some people earn in an entire year.
In this day and age, numbers like this are almost unfathomable. Perhaps a better word would be unconscionable. Yet this is the very real situation for more than a third of the world’s population. And the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots” is getting larger, even in industrialized and prosperous nations like the US. A 2013 report by the ALF-CIO places the average salary of a CEO in a US company at 364 times that of the average worker. Even in Poland, a CEO makes 28 times what the average worker earns in one year.
How we got to this point would—and does—fill volumes. Countless theses have been written on the causes of poverty and an untold number of studies have been done on how to eradicate it. Unfortunately, none of those efforts will succeed no matter how many times we try, no matter what variations we enact into policy, no matter how strict we make our laws, no matter how many social organizations we form to combat poverty because none of them address the root cause of the problem: the steadfast belief in the absolute truth of the Five Fallacies about Life.
1. Humans are separate from each other.
2. There is not enough of what human beings need to be happy.
3. To get enough of the stuff there is not enough of, human beings must compete with each other.
4. Some human beings are better than other human beings.
5. It is appropriate for human beings to resolve severe differences created by all the other fallacies by killing each other.
Fortunately, the masters down through the ages have given us a very simple way to overcome our beliefs, since we seem so unwilling to change them. It is most commonly called “The Golden Rule” and it was first found in the Vedic tradition of India almost 5000 years ago. Virtually every faith and religion, every philosophical and spiritual practice that man has created has some version of this truly insightful statement. Simply put, “Treat others the way you want to be treated.”
The reason that following this simple rule would change life as we know it overnight is due to the fact that, at the very root of the matter, every one of us wants to be treated exactly the same way! Every one of us wants to live our life as we see fit, according to the beliefs that we hold dear, without undue interference from others.
If every one of us followed the Golden Rule, there would be no need for laws, no need for governments, no need for armies, no need for nations. There would be no poverty, no killing, no abuse, no wars, no rape, no discrimination, no wanton destruction of the environment.
I would not kill you because I would not want to be killed.
I would not pollute your water supply because I would not want my water supply polluted.
I would not let you go hungry because I would not want to go hungry.
I would not interfere with your choice of who to marry because I would not want someone to interfere with my choice.
I would make sure you had access to all the knowledge you needed to live your life as you saw fit because I want access to all the knowledge I need to live my life as I see fit.
“But that will never happen!” I can hear the naysayers cry already. “You’ll never get everyone to follow the Golden Rule!”
You don’t have to.
The Golden Rule is a unilateral, unconditional command. It does not say “Treat others the way you want to be treated only if they treat you that way first” or “only if they treat you that way in return” or “only if they’re the same color/religion/orientation/socioeconomic level/etc. as you”. It says simply “Treat other people the way you want to be treated.” Period. End of discussion.
You are to follow the Golden Rule in spite of how other people treat you. You are not to sit around and wait for someone else to follow the Golden Rule before you begin to follow it.
When you do this, small miracles happen. People start to like the way you are treating them and they begin to take notice and they begin to imitate how you treat others and they begin to treat others the way you treated them. With Love. Unconditional Love.
When unconditional Love is given out, it multiplies. It is contagious. It spreads. Because it is healing to be Loved unconditionally. Just as when one cell of your body begins to heal, the cells around it begin to heal, so too will the human race heal when Loved unconditionally.
Are you willing to be the first cell in your world to heal?
(Shelly Strauss is a civil rights activist and speaker. In addition to becoming an ordained minister, she has written 20+ novels and is the “resident visionary” at One Spirit Project. Shelly is also a spiritual helper on the ChangingChange website, offering support and guidance to people faced with unexpected and unwelcome change .)
If there was one word in our language that I wish we could eliminate, or at least redefine, it would be the word “perfect.” Actually, not the word itself, but rather the idea that we are somehow inherently less than or in need of being improved upon, and that the only way to experience a life of happiness, joy, and freedom is to be, do, or have something different than we are already being, doing, or having.
The irony is that in our quest for perfection, as we have largely come to understand it, we are blocking our own ability to see ourselves as who and what we truly are, which is – ironically — perfect. The expectation bar has been set mighty high by many of us. And buried deep beneath its many complicated layers of judgment and insufficiency lies the opportunity for each and every one of us to experience our natural state of wholeness and completeness.
For many, life has become a distorted sort of treasure hunt, a mission, a goal-oriented conditional experience:
If only I had more money, then I would be able to buy the big house on the hill and have designer clothes and even that bright red sports car…because that would bring me happiness.
If only I had thinner thighs or larger breasts, then I would attract a partner who would desire me and finally have the relationship of my dreams…because that would bring me love.
If only my house was always clean and organized, then I could finally relax and read those books which are collecting dust on my bookshelf or have the time to take that yoga class…because that would bring me peace.
If only I had a better job, then I would make more money so I would be able to buy the big house on the hill and have the designer clothes and even that bright red sports car…
If I had all these things, finally my life would be perfect.
And the cycle is perpetuated – want, strive, push, want, strive, push, want, strive, push – which still does not produce the outcome we think we are supposed to have, which causes us to push harder and strive more, leaving us utterly exhausted and mentally drained and completely detached from any notion or concept about who we really are.
Does a state of “perfection” exist?
What would it actually look like if it did?
Why do we yearn to be more? To be better? And why are we willing to trade in our happiness in exchange for a concept that demonstrates itself over and over and over again to be unrealized?
Is “perfection” something that we are capable of experiencing beyond perhaps the exact moment we are born into this world? There are some who would say even a newborn baby is not perfect, that they, too, come into this world flawed, in need of fixing or improving upon, to the degree that they are actually in need of forgiveness. Is that conceivable or even possible?
I sense that there is some level of perfection woven into the universal tapestry within which we find ourselves a part of, some purposeful fluidity that encompasses each and every one of us, even though the collective cognitive grasp of what that might be seems to lies just beyond the boundaries of our understanding. But I also believe that we are provided momentary glimpses into this realm of deeper understanding, demonstrated by numerous occurrences in my own life where an experience of overwhelming sensation of goodness and joy fills me and reminds me that there is a harmonious energy at play here in the seemingly random happenings in my life.
So today I will celebrate my imperfections, I will laugh at the choices that feel like mistakes, and I will be grateful for all the “wrong” turns I make and awkward or embarrassing things I might say. I will stop wishing I was that and feel appreciative because I am this. I will open my heart to extend the same appreciation and kindness to all those who share this life journey with me, knowing that these are the moments that I believe are best described as, well, perfect.
“If a snowflake is utterly perfect in its design, do you not think the same could be said about something as magnificent as your life?”
~ “Conversations with God”
(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.)
