Tag Archives: leadership

The Great Lies: curtal sonnet

When all at once the world decides to fail,
on such and such a day, when pundits claim
to clearly see our leaders in the ooze
of mad careening chaos, and then rail,

without a single scrap or crumb of shame,
that all exclusive blame for the great ruse
lies with our high command, not you and I,
what prize can that debate’s proud winner claim?

When of our fictions we are disabused,
what does it matter which of the great lies
we choose?

14 FEB 2017

Share This:

Thoughts on the Power of Authority

Today, an online friend sent me the following message, I assume intended to inspire:

“THE POWER OF AUTHORITY: When we speak, we must speak with authority; when we walk, we must walk with authority; when we showcase our talents, we must showcase with authority; when we lead, we must lead with authority; in every aspect of our being, we must exercise authority. Our authority must be inspiring, respectful, and earned. We must contemplate profound ideas and share the profundity with others. We must exercise self-control and -respect. We must take charge of our present and future situations. We have a world to impact.”

For a number of reasons, this seemed to rub me the wrong way. Here’s how I responded to the message:

I respectfully must disagree. Responsibility comes before authority. We must do all these things with responsibility to prove that we are capable of shouldering the authority. One of those responsibilities is to defer to those with greater authority so that they can fulfill their responsibilities.

To be in authority without first having taken responsibility is to be a dictator.

But authority means more than simply to be “in control”. It also infers that we are “in the know” — that we are an authority means that we have devoted significant study to a thing and know it, understand it.

To claim to be an authority without first having studied the subject, is to be pompous (and ultimately a fool).

Even after years of study (and having been considered somewhat of an authority on the subject by myself as well as others), I would exercise more than self-control and self-respect, particularly when deciding which ideas were profound and whether or not any resulting “profundity” needed sharing. First, I think I would exercise self-examination, self-doubt and not a little caution. At the very least, all that I am sure of is that I am an authority on myself. Not on speaking, walking, showcasing, leading. Certainly not on being inspiring. I know about respectful. But who is to judge what measure is used to describe “earning” or “earned”?

There is only a need to take charge if the problem at hand requires the expertise, experience and skill that you possess. For example, if my present situation required the fixing of a faucet, I would call a plumber. But if that plumber needed a poem written, or music at their wedding, I might assume leadership. That’s the beauty of power-with, or egalitarian social structure. Like a circle, there is no head. The point on the line where direction is focused is based on the needs of the circle, not any individual — and the individuals who are most qualified and capable to address the issue at hand are those behind which I, who may be the “leader” at other times”, willingly follow.

We have a world to impact? Who are we to think it is OURS to change?

Share This:

What price a pawn

What price paid by a pawn who makes,
if merely by sheer luck or chance,
its way through fields strewn by mistakes
in focused, single step advance
to the far end of what it knows,
where all the trappings of a pawn
must be forgotten, and the clothes
befit a king must be put on?

28 JUL 2005

Share This:

Emergency Petition to Save the Courts

MoveOn.org has got a petition drive going that’s worth looking in to. I did, and here’s the message I sent to my Congresspeople:

Checks and balances means when one branch of the government is conservative, another is by necessity liberal. When Republicans control the executive and legislative branches of government, by necessity they MUST NOT be allowed free reign to appoint the members of the judicial branch. They should KNOW this, if they are in fact believers in democracy. If they are NOT supporters of democracy, they have no business running this country.

It does not matter whether you agree with the conservative or liberal, Republican or Democratic platforms. That is NOT the issue. It is not about who WINS. It is about maintaining DEMOCRACY, about sustaining bipartisanship, about encouraging dissent, about preserving the checks and balances which are so imperative to safeguarding the Constitution. The Constitution is at stake here, NOT some party line. And without the Constitution to back it up, without people who are willing to go to the mat, to fight to ensure that it is NOT freely interpreted except in the interest of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for ALL Americans, there is not much of a democracy to speak of. And worse off, there are a lot of people drawing paychecks for protecting that democracy that aren’t doing their jobs.

The Senate must oppose the “nuclear option” to eliminate the filibuster, and preserve the checks and balances that have kept our courts fair and independent for centuries.

Share This:

Standards for Government Officials

What do you think of this?

First: Liberality, generosity, charity. The representative should not have craving and attachment to wealth and property, but should give it away for the welfare of the people.

Second: A high moral character. The representative should never destroy life, cheat, steal and exploit others, commit adultery, utter falsehood, or take intoxicating drinks.

Third: Sacrificing everything for the good of the people, they must be prepared to give up all personal comfort, name and fame, and even life, in the interest of the people.

Fourth: Honesty and integrity. They must be free from fear or favour in the discharge of their duties, must be sincere in their intentions, and must not deceive the public.

Fifth: Kindness and gentleness. They must possess a genial temperament.

Sixth: Austerity in habits. They must lead a simple life, and should not indulge in a life of luxury. They must have self-control.

Seventh: Freedom from hatred, ill-will, enmity. They should bear no grudge against anybody.

Eighth: Non-violence, which means not only that they should harm nobody, but also that they should try to promote peace by avoiding and preventing war, and everything which involves violence and destruction of life.

Ninth: Patience, forbearance, tolerance, understanding. They must be able to bear hardships, difficulties and insults without losing their temper.

Tenth: Non-opposition, non-obstruction, that is to say that they should not oppose the will of the people, should not obstruct any measures that are conducive to the welfare of the people. In other words they should rule in harmony with their people.

— Guatama Buddha, Jataka text, the Dhammapadatthakatha

Ah, are there ANY of our elected officials (or those we propose for such a task) who can measure up to THIS standard?

Share This:

Question On Prophets

How does one, not having enlightenment (or grace or whatever you like to call it) recognize that someone else is enlightened? How does someone without the benefit of having seen Nirvana (or the face of God or the underlying principle of the universe whatever you like to call it) know that someone else HAS seen it? How does someone who has never seen Niagara Falls understand the description given by someone who has seen it, has felt the spray of the mist, heard the roar of the tumulting waters?

Is it any wonder that a prophet is never accepted in their home town?

Share This:

What is a Leader of the Free World?

Watching the joyous celebrations by the people of Iraq, and the continuing news broadcasts hinting that demonstrators on both sides of the war and anti-war campaign might now be more or less inclined to comment, I began thinking about something.
It is obvious to me that the people of Iraq are happy to be free of Saddam Hussein. I think there is little doubt that his regime was not a pleasant one in which to live. This leads me to believe that at this precise instant, at this limited window of opportunity, the armed forces of the United States have done a good thing.

But that does not mean we did it for the right reasons. The right reason would have been for no reason at all. Except that it needed to be done. No suggestions of post-war rebuilding, no potential enhancement of the pro-Israel element in the region, no possibility that the oil-rich elements in the United States were interested in Iraqi oil. If the REAL reason is the Iraqi people, then the operation was for the right reason.

And it seems obvious that the leader of the free world would have done what we have done so far for that reason alone. Not because Saddam Hussein’s activities supported destructive actions against the US. Not because Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological threats and might use them against us, or provide them to others who might use them against us. Not because our national security demanded that American lives must be protected. The leader of the free world would have done it because Iraqi lives needed to be protected. That those weapons were used against ANYONE would be a good enough reason.

Now, obviously there are a lot of places in the world where those who have money are considered to be more important than the poor. Where those who do not practice the “official” religion of a place are prosecuted, persecuted. Where power-brokering behind closed doors determines the course of politics. Where special interests exist. Where any interest is considered more special than others. Where elections are NOT open, fair and non-disputed. Where representatives do not represent all their constituents, but only a select few who can do them favors. Where a political campaign is ABOUT character, rather than CONDUCTED with character. Where bribes are taken. Where there is an old-boy network, a glass ceiling, a double standard, a hidden agenda.

Where the nation’s industry building weapons of mass destruction, armaments, and military strength has a bigger budget than the nation’s education system. Where friends get preferential treatment. Where national boundaries define us and them. Where race, religion, class, creed, sex, orientation, or any difference is seen as an obstacle, an aberration, an abomination. Where freedom of speech does not really mean freedom of speech. Where the accused ARE assumed guilty until proven innocent …

But the leader of the free world is NOT one of those places.

Because the leader of the free world is leading. Teaching compassion, understanding, kindness. Breaking down barriers instead of erecting them. Doing the ethical thing – which is “Thou Before I”. And helping, by whatever means necessary, to promulgate the belief that EVERY person is a human being, an equal, worthy, respectable, interesting, confusing, beautiful, struggling, learning, growing, adapting and EVOLVING being. Because if you teach that, there isn’t any dictatorship that can stand. There is no despot that can wreak havoc upon an unsuspecting populace. There are none with secret grudges that must find their expression only in violence because no one deems them worthy of communication or is willing to accept whatever truth is in their argument.
At some point, if the human race is to survive (at a minimum) or to evolve, all its members must contribute to, and benefit from, that egalitarian ideal. But evolution is not a sudden step. It is not a regime change. It is a slow, painstaking, and ultimately painful process, that must be encouraged because it is the ONLY thing to do, not because it might appear to be the “right” thing to do from within our currently non-fully-evolved frame of reference. At that point, in a completely egalitarian society, individuals will lead when their expertise is required, and follow when it is necessary to defer to the expertise of others. When people recognize their interdependence and honor and value the fact that truth is a pathless land – a land that we each inhabit, each of us standing with a useful pair of feet on a unique, individual piece of truth – but only a piece. Until that occurs, there must be a leader, a master, a guru, so to speak. A leader that does not point the way, but IS the way.

And that leader’s only responsibility is to lead by example. If their example is not good enough, they are not the leader – no matter how much they would like others to think so. The leader of the free world MUST practice what it preaches, or it has no business preaching. And it certainly has NO right to say that its interests are the best interests. But then again, a true leader would never say that to begin with.

So who is the leader of the free world?

Who qualifies on these terms?

Share This: