Think about a building. If you don’t build the first floor so that it’s sufficiently stable, you can’t build the second floor and expect it not to crash. There is an order to the development that is based on a limit of the physical world. That limit is called gravity. It forces us to build from the bottom up, making sure that the bottom levels are sufficiently strong to support the levels that are above them. In fact, holding by this physical law is what has made the Egyptian pyramids so durable over time.

Just as there is a certain order of steps that need to be followed in order to construct a stable structure, there is also an order to the development of all life. And in the coming years, one part of that order, one stage in life’s natural development, will be one of the key sources of our intensifying economic conflicts. It is the stage when we transition from the resources that nourish us to the experiences that teach us.

My favorite example is that of a flower. When the seed of a flower is nourished with resources, it grows roots that interact with the outside world (and later become the foundation for being able to rise above ground into the light of day). Without sufficient nourishment to grow its roots, the seed’s world will be limited to a small area, which might be so limiting that the seed can’t even extend its roots enough to survive and express itself to the world above ground.

And this is the same basic process that we go through as humans. We learn through our experiences – through interacting and responding to our world. So how then are we able to connect with our world? We do so through communication. We communicate with our outside world by way of transportation and communication technologies. These two methods of connecting allow us to exchange information, both verbally and nonverbally. Then, we communicate with our inner world by way of thinking, which connects together different ideas and also connects our outward experience to our inner experience. Realize that thinking stimulates transportation and communication within you (the transportation of cells and materials through the blood vessels and the communication that takes place through your nervous system).

So through the activities of transportation, communication, and thinking, you are able to connect with more of life, which means you can experience more of life, which means you can learn about more of life, which means you can then understand more about life. All of this activity increases your learning and expands your thinking, and it all depends on having the resources to fuel it.

If we don’t have the resources (of land, food, water, raw materials, and energy), then we won’t be able to build, rebuild, and fuel our physical bodies, cars, planes, computers, phones, etc. And these are the foundation for our transportation, communication, and thinking. Keep in mind our “building” example: the first floor must be stable before the second floor is built; the first two floors must be stable before the third floor is built, and so on. Resources come before information exchange, just as feeding the seed comes before the seed growing roots – in fact, in our “building” example, resources represent the floor that is right below our methods of exchanging information. They support information exchange. And if we are not stable in our resources, our ability to exchange information will not be stable either.

This is simply natural law. Resources fuel life, which, when fueled, can then connect with the world and learn more about that world so that it can then use its resources even more efficiently and so that it can also expand into the next stages of life – like firming up those roots (which in more social terms means building a home, or even a sense of home). That is why we call our home and community, our “roots.”

So how do these ideas relate to our times? Well, resources and information have different qualities to them. Right now, resources have more limits to them than ideas do. If I gave you a piece of food, you could only share it with a certain number of people. On the other hand, if I gave you an idea, you could share it with the entire world (and do so with a much lower cost of time, money, and effort). This is why there has been such a strong trend toward free information. But the problem is in how to support those that are giving this free information.

This problem is one of the many that is at the heart of our growing economic crisis, and it has the very significant potential to drastically affect the way we do things at both small and large levels. First, let’s start with someone who is working on a smaller scale – me. Right now, I am giving you information at a small cost to myself. If you value my information, you will want to continue to receive it, especially as it progresses. But if I were at the place where I couldn’t afford the basic resources of life to nourish me, then my ability to exchange information in this manner would have to halt. Now, be sure that I bring this up, not as a personal issue, but because, by receiving this blog, you are experiencing the very thing that we are talking about.

On a larger level, just think about three of the top global companies from an exposure and perceived worth viewpoint: Google, Facebook, and Myspace. All three of these companies can provide free ways of exchanging information because they get most of their money (i.e., resources) through advertising revenue. But if business starts to contract and the advertising well starts to run dry, the free model won’t work as well, especially for companies that are in debt. Then, there are also the millions, if not billions, of content providers who would also begin to disappear from the scene because they needed to “make ends meet.” So what is it that we can learn from observing the life that exists all around us?

Free information cannot survive unless it is supported by free energy (and here, I will simply state that free energy is definitely possible). So three things will have to occur if we want to continue to progress as we have in the realm of information and even in building the next “floor” on top of that realm, which is the realm of community building (or developing stable roots):

First, we must diligently pursue realistic sources of free energy (or at least close to free energy). Second, we must continue supporting the community of information providers with life’s basic resource needs because, while people can definitely make money through information, when there is a contraction of business, information providers are in a much less stable position than resource providers. Because we don’t all “own” land that grows food, gives us energy for transportation and communication, has gives us shelter for a foundation and protection, we depend on others who do own those things. The people who depend on others for the basic needs of living are at the whims of the owners of those basic needs. So there must be some sort of agreement between those who own the basic resources and those who provide information, which leads to third thing that will have to occur for us to continue our progress:

We must resolve the larger, overall conflict between information providers and resource providers by realizing that, although resources come first in the stages of development, the two must work together. Information might depend on resources to survive and thrive, but when we fuel that information with resources, it can then help us make the most of our resources. And that is certainly food for thought…

To learn more about our economic and global trends,

and how they relate to both your life and your society,

you can purchase Thriving at the Brink of Disaster at:

www.inspiringrevolutions.com/thriving.php

To learn more about the leadership we need in

our new world and how it relates to this election,

you can purchase The Makings of a President at:

www.inspiringrevolutions.com/presidentbook.php

To begin applying the ideas in this article to your own life, answer the questions below:

- What are the resources that you currently have as an individual (i.e., basic human abilities, your unique talents, money, possessions, etc.)?

- What are the resources that you need to survive as an individual? And what are the resources that you need to thrive and progress as an individual?

- How are transportation, communication, and information all a part in what you need to survive, thrive, and progress?

- How do they help you to experience more of the world? Do you use that experience to learn more about the world? Do you then apply that learning to your life?

- Do you use that learning to “earn” more resources? Do you reward the people who helped you learn so that they can survive, thrive, and progress too?

- If not, do you believe it is ethical to expect to earn from what you give while not rewarding those who give to you? Could you keep giving if you were never rewarded for the value you give?

- If you are an information provider, do you have a way of earning based on the value you give? Does your way limit how many people can actually benefit from your information?

- In your opinion, what are some win-win solutions to the information-resource economic conflict that could very well intensify if our economic conditions continue to wither? Are you willing to give up the wonders of the information revolution, or are you committed to seeking a solution?

… than what actions we can take to change our current economic circumstances.

As humans, we love to name and define the various and infinite parts of our world. And yet sometimes, we become so overly attached to the labels that we create through the process that we make them the supreme barometer of what we determine as our “reality.” The current discussion of whether we are in a recession gives us a valuable opportunity to understand the benefits and drawbacks of this tendency.

Our natural inclination to define things is clearly important because it helps us communicate much more efficiently with each other. If we didn’t have a word for a “book,” we might have to say “that rectangular object with separate thin slices of a tree that have black marking on it, which represent labels for parts of our world and which taken together express and explain a story or ideas.” Even then, we might not fully get across what a book really is and we will have also used a lot of words that would need further defining. So instead, we make it easier on ourselves and create labels, each of which defines a part of our world that possesses certain characteristics.

Also, when we define what something is, we can more easily study it. If we didn’t have a definition for what a book is and what it is not, we wouldn’t be able to separate books out from other parts of our world in order to study them. For instance, without having a definite difference between a book and a magazine, how would we be able to study the difference between them, the differences between how readers use them, etc. So definitions not only help us communicate about our world, they also help us to understand our world intellectually.

But the tendency to define things can also be severely limiting, especially for more complex ideas, and in this article, I will highlight two main limitations. First, when we define something too rigidly, we tend to neglect paying attention to important parts of our world that do not currently fit our definition. In this way, the definition limits our scope of awareness, and we can then miss out on something we need to look at. Second, when we hold too strongly to a definition, we tend to get caught up in the definition and divert our energy from taking real action unless, or until, it meets our criteria. And when you are basing your actions on a definition, you can’t know whether to act until it has already happened! You are therefore setting yourself up for failure because you can’t do what makes humans so empowered and free – the ability to reflect on a current situation, apply what we have learned and what we are learning, and take action in advance to create a change that remedies our past mistakes.

Let’s start by using an example that is a bit more personal: the label of “clinical depression.” In order to be “diagnosed” with clinical depression, someone must experience five out of nine specific symptoms and do so for a majority of the time over the course of at least two weeks. Briefly, the symptoms are: depressed mood; loss of interest/pleasure in activities; significant weight/appetite changes; significant sleep issues; agitated or slowed behavior; fatigue; thoughts of hopelessness; reduced ability to think, concentrate, or make decisions; and suicidal thoughts. There are other stipulations as well, but rather than making it too complex, we will focus on this part of the diagnosis.

Now the specific definition of clinical depression certainly makes it somewhat easier to scientifically study it. If we did not “draw the line” somewhere, then we would find it significantly more difficult to discover the core factors that play into depression because, if anyone with a mildly sad mood for a short period of time could be defined as “depressed,” then there would be a lot of difficulty in finding clear differences between people who are “depressed” and those who are not.

Also, when I use the terms “clinical depression,” because we have defined it, we have a clearer idea of what we are talking about – we have a common understanding. But when we need to move beyond the vague concept of “clinical depression” and need to speak about and deal with specific people, then the label becomes very restricting and potentially harmful.

Do we only need to take action if we are clinically depressed? Are our depressive issues somehow not as important if they don’t measure up? What if we have four of the nine symptoms instead of five? What if we are not sure about two of the symptoms because we don’t know if they are significant enough to fit the mold? What if certain issues have been with us all of our lives, and so we are not sure if it relates to the specific depressive episode?

I guess one of the bigger questions would have to be whether our life experiences only amount to a list of symptoms, or whether they are important enough to reflect on and then act upon regardless of how we define them? Another important question would have to be: If someone’s symptoms do not fit the definition, if they are only seen as “minor,” how can we be sure that they are not the beginning signs of something that is building and that will become “major” if we don’t take actions to resolve them now?

This is the dance between our intellect and our intuition, and we are playing out this dance in relation to our current economic conditions. Our intellect enjoys and also has the natural ability of breaking down, defining, studying, and analyzing life’s different “parts” and does so over time. Our intuition experiences life as a whole and responds to the moment of now. Both are important, and extremes are what tend to get us into trouble…

Regarding our economy, realize that “recession” is also just a word, a label, a symbol that represents a certain kind of economic experience. Economists have different measurements for this label, and those measurements are important for the scientific studies of the intellect, but when it comes to dealing with this moment in time, whether or not we are in a recession is more probably the least important of our concerns. The facts show that we are clearly experiencing a certain “trend” in a certain “direction” and this trend has become a “problem” for many people. Perhaps the time has now come to balance our intellectual extremism and move beyond our discussion of whether it is a “recession,” instead enacting more substantive resolutions that treat our weaknesses at their source.

The word “recession” relates to the verb “recede,” which symbolizes the action of “pulling back.” Have various key parts of our economy “receded?” If you went around and asked specific people about what they are currently experiencing, do you think that there economic conditions have “pulled back?” This is the power of our intuition. It does not get too caught up in the numbers and definitions of our intellect. It gets a feeling for the current situation and understands the trends based on our sensory experience. Intellect then balance intuition by keeping a perspective of what happens over time and relating these times to other times. But these times are also different than other times, which is why our intellect is ultimately limited.

The purpose of this article is not to make specific suggestions for what we can or should do. And I will certainly acknowledge that some urgent actions have been taken. But I will also point out that, when looking at the actions that are not being taken, it seems that, from political leaders to business owners to financial market investors, many people are refraining from taking corrective actions until they hear that final, definitive pronouncement that we are indeed in a recession – an experience that will be no shocking news to many people in this country. They understand that reality without having to do any analysis because they are currently experiencing it!

So I will repeat what was stated earlier: If you wait to take corrective actions until an experience has met the criteria for your definition, then you won’t be acting in advance and, by the time you know that you should have acted, you will already be in the mess that you were measuring. These times are a call to get out of being so much in our heads and get more into hearts. They are a call to come down from the scientific theory of numbers and relate more to the sensations of our present experience. And this call is not just something that relates to our economy and this recession. It relates to other labels as well…

How do you know you are “in love?” What does it mean to be “wealthy?” When do we claim ourselves to be “ill?” What does it take to be “joyful?” How do we fulfill “the meaning of our lives?” Do we come to experience these labels only through tabulations, numbers, and meeting certain criteria? Do we only know that we are on our way, moving up or down the path of progress, through what the statistics tell us? Or can we feel something now, know where we are currently going, and understand the need to change now?

There are clear patterns that we are remaking. There have been clear signs that we have been neglecting. And there are clear factors that still exist in the silence beneath the highly unimportant discussions of whether or not we are in a recession. Listen to the voices piercing through that silence. It comes from both within and without.

To learn more about intellect, intuition, and humanity,

and how they relate to the trends of our changing world,

you can purchase Thriving at the Brink of Disaster at:

www.inspiringrevolutions.com/thriving.php

To learn more about leadership and this election,

you can purchase The Makings of a President at:

www.inspiringrevolutions.com/presidentbook.php

To begin applying the ideas in this article to your own life, answer the questions below:

- Think of the three of the more prominent areas of your life: relationships, health, and wealth. In those areas, when in your past have you avoided dealing with an issue that worsened because it wasn’t “bad enough” to call it (or define it as) a “problem” yet?

- What actions could you have taken in advance to prevent the problem from worsening?

- How did your inner definition of what constituted a “problem” that was worth acting on prevent you from seeing solutions that you could easily institute into your life (and probably more easily institute if you done so earlier)?

- What had caused you to avoid your current experience, and how can you change that now?

- What issues are you experiencing, but avoiding, now?

- What would have you define it as “bad enough” to be a “problem” that is worth taking action on?

- What solutions are you not seeing or instituting because the current situation doesn’t meet your criteria for changing your avoidance into proactive change?

- Where in your life is your attachment to labels having you miss the actual experience of life? To get you started, just think of labels like being: “in love,” “attractive,” “wealthy,” “successful,” “depressed,” “joyful,” “sick,” or “healthy.”

Would you rather be someone who forms beliefs and takes actions based on self-interest alone, or do you want to be someone who seeks the “truth” and has the courage to do what is “right” because you believe that whatever is “right” is actually in your self-interest? The current political issue of whether to seat the Michigan and Florida Democratic delegates (and, if so, then how to do so) is an opportunity to decide what kind of person you want to be. Either you will take sides based on whether it will support the candidate you want, or you will take sides after thoroughly thinking about, weighing both sides, and then determining what is “right,” regardless of which candidate it will help.

All of our conflicts, all of the issues we face as individuals and societies, are not simply times to “figure out” practical solutions. Conflicts in events are based on conflicts in principles. So they are times when we must, first and foremost, reflect on and find a way to balance the basic principles that make up our overall life philosophy. That is the how we achieve justice – by discovering and implementing a balance of principles (a process that is really a part of our overall quest for “truth”). Once we find the most “just” balance of principles, then we can develop effective solutions. And the Michigan-Florida primary conflict is a clear and important example.

At the core of this political conflict are the principles of “Freedom” and “Structure” (or stated differently, the principles of the “Individual” and “Collective”). On one hand, the “structure” called the Democratic Party had already determined a set of “collective” rules that governed when different state parties could hold their primaries and caucuses. On the other hand, the state parties of Michigan and Florida decided to act outside of the rules and used their “individual freedom” to hold their votes earlier than what was allowed.

Now freedom and structure are certainly both valid principles. So choosing one over the other probably isn’t the best route. Instead, we must learn to use them together and in balance because if we take any one of the principles to an extreme, our actions will ultimately end in an ineffective, counterproductive, and destructive result.

Just think of a situation where all state parties had the unregulated freedom to choose dates without a collectively agreed upon set of rules. In their self-interested desire to have the “most coveted” position, they might endlessly set their dates earlier and earlier until voting started to take place at a completely inefficient and ineffective time frame. Then, they might realize their position at the beginning was so far from the election that, while they might have had the “first say,” they were completely forgotten by the time the election rolled around.

So, ultimately, the state parties’ self-interested, narrow-minded approach could actually very well lead them from what they really want, which might be exposure, influence, or any other benefit that a state might experience from a primary. In fact, knowing what we know now, Michigan and Florida might have been better off if they had just trusted and accepted party rules. Many of the states that have been later in the primaries have been getting major exposure and have become hugely important because of how close the race is. So Michigan and Florida probably would have received way more benefit from having their elections later. But their single-minded, self-interested mentality led them seek their freedom of choice without regard to a broader perspective and staying within the rules accepted by the majority of the collective Democratic party.

The importance of coming together, collectively agreeing on the rules, and then following through on those rules is extremely important. That is “structure.” And yet, when structure becomes too rigid for too long, it might become outdated and it might also give certain parts of the structure an extensively prolonged position of advantage that might be harmful for the collective and the individuals involved. Michigan’s decision to have their vote earlier might have come from the fact that they increase more intense challenges than most other states. Florida’s claim that small states, like New Hampshire and Iowa, should not have such a major influence may or may not be justified. It is certainly valuable to question how things have been done and to seek to change where necessary. That is the power of “freedom.”

So we have established that freedom and structure are both important principles that we must learn to use in an effective balance. With this understanding, how do we decide what to do about the current situation? Well, I will leave you to form your own judgment because I believe that each of us needs to come to our own answers first. But I will pose some important questions that might help. To start, you must decide whether you will seek the balance of truth described above (both in your own perspective and your own actions). Will you support the side that favors the candidate you desire, or will you seek the truth despite who it might help? Will you support the side that favors the principles you desire, or will you seek a healthy balance between both?

If you are truly open to discovering and acting on “the truth,” then here are some questions that might be relevant: Did Michigan and Florida approach the Democratic Committee with their concerns and legitimately seek to have them heard by the whole party, or did they simply act in defiance of the rules and the stated consequences? If they sought to be heard, did they do so with enough time to sufficiently discuss the issues involved? If so, what actions, if any, did the Democratic Committee take to consider their concerns? What rationale did the Committee give for denying their request? Did Michigan and Florida adequately respect and support the structure and group-nature of the party? Did the party adequately respect and support the freedom and individuality of these states? Based on the answers above, who should bear the burden (or how should they share the burden) of the cost of a remedy?

Understanding that, because of this inner-party conflict and its lack of resolution before the votes, the voters of Michigan and Florida did not get to hear the full case from both candidates (and, in Michigan, did not even get to vote for both candidates), what is the most “just” remedy to make sure that voters are all heard and candidates both have an opportunity to sufficiently represent themselves? Would the maximum probable win by either candidate make a difference in the final election tally? If not, should that affect the kind of solution that should be chosen? How so?

If one of the core parts of this issue is the conflict between the individual freedom (of the state party) and the collective structure (of the national party), then what is the best balance between those two principles, and how can that balance be used to create a fair solution?

There are conflicts building in different parts of the world. We are part of some, if not many, of those conflicts. If we are going to play any kind of role in resolving them, we should certainly make sure that we can do so at home first. Either we are either going to fight over our interests, or we are going to let go of them and seek the truth… together.

To learn more about leadership and this election,

you can purchase The Makings of a President at:

www.inspiringrevolutions.com/presidentbook.php

To learn more about the trends of our changing world,

you can purchase Thriving at the Brink of Disaster at:

www.inspiringrevolutions.com/thriving.php

To begin applying the ideas in this article to your own life, answer the questions below:

- What are some major conflicts you’ve experienced in your past? Seeing beyond the biased interests in those conflicts, what were the principles that your different positions represented?

- Did you find an effective, long-term resolution? If not, what prevented you from doing so? Was there fear, greed, righteousness, narrow-mindedness, self-interest, etc.?

- If you did find an effective, long-term resolution, did it strike a fair balance between your principles and did it right the “wrongs” that were done to each party involved? If not, what prevented it from doing so and what would have been a fair balance and an equal distribution of responsibility for the past?

- What are some major conflicts you’re experiencing now? Seeing beyond the biased interests in these conflicts, what are the principles that your different positions represent?

- Are you working on developing an effective, long-term resolution? If not, what prevents you from doing so? Is there fear, greed, righteousness, narrow-mindedness, self-interest, etc.?

- What would be a fair balance between your principles and how could you right the “wrongs” that were done to each party involved so that there is an equal distribution of responsibility for the past?

- In fairly and critically analyzing these situations, can you see how our interests can distort the truth of the matter? How can you apply this idea to how you approach the various areas of your life and how you research and vote in political elections?

As we listen to other people speak, many of us assume that we understand the true and full meaning of their words. But maybe, we are just as, if not more, likely to be living based on the assumptions of our own mind rather than the true intent of the person’s words. And this idea isn’t only important in your personal relationships. It is central to our relationship with government, and it will play a major role in defining this presidential election.

On February 25, William Kristol illuminated this key factor in his New York Times article entitled “It’s All About Him.” This article wasn’t necessarily important because of what it said. Even more important is understanding how he came to believe what he said. And in that distinction, we are touching on what is certain to be a crucial part of the presidential campaign – how we choose to be influenced by “the play of words” that are spoken by, written by, and in the minds of politicians, the media, and other citizens. But before we get to Kristol’s article, let’s understand more about the meaning of a word.

For years, I have been training students in advanced communication skills, and in those trainings I often cover a core principle of communication: the idea that the meaning of any given word or phrase will be different for each person who comes across it. The pictures, thoughts, sounds, and feelings that enter your mind in response to what another person says are often very different from what is going through their minds when they say it. And so you really can’t understand the full and complete meaning behind someone else’s words. More often than not, what you think they mean is not what they actually mean.

Of course, the more information that we can get from the source – the speaker, writer, or thinker – the more we can understand what is behind their words. What kind of information do we want? Least helpful, but still important, are verbal explanations. This requires us to have trust in what they say, trust that they are giving us the truth of their intentions, beliefs, and promises rather than what we want to hear.

The more general the explanation, the less valuable it will be because we must then fill in the missing pieces of meaning within our own minds. The more specific the explanation, the more valuable it will be because we can then be more clear about what is actually meant when we hear the general words that we all like to hear – like choice, freedom, prosperity, peace, etc.

More valuable than specific explanations are actions. Actions show a higher level of commitment to the words that are spoken because it takes more effort and it moves closer to an actual result. And yet, even more valuable than an action is a series of actions. Someone can do something once to appease us. But when they do something consistently over time, we can be even more certain about their commitment to their words. And then, we can also know “the truth,” or meaning, of their words.

The problem that we are currently experiencing within our culture is that we often get less information instead of more information. And even when we do get enough information, we only get little pieces at one time, which means that we have to piece it altogether for ourselves in order to really find the truth behind a candidate’s words.

For instance, the media likes to take a speech and only give us a snapshot of what is actually said… and we simply take it without doing our due diligence, without doing any research. It seems that we like to believe whatever we want to believe, and so we take what we hear and construct meaning out of it in order to fit our own model.

We seem to think that’s freedom. But that’s not freedom. The truth will set you free. And your truth is not always the truth. If you’ve already made your choice, then you don’t really have a choice. Freedom comes through openness, not through rigidity. Freedom comes from change that creates a new future, not from reproducing what you already believe and what you have already done in the past. If you want true freedom, you must earn it. And in an election, part of that freedom comes from opening your mind to get the truth from the source. When the source doesn’t give you the truth, you demand it. And if the source still won’t give you the truth, then you find someone else to lead you who will. That is the power of a democratic citizen, and you are not a democratic citizen just by living in a nation that claims it’s a democratic nation. Actions speak louder than words, and consistent actions speak louder than single, one-time actions. And so we must act.

Now, in his article, Kristol makes the claim that Obama believes that he will be the one to fix our “broken souls” instead of us to choosing and working to fix it for ourselves. But I must admit that I do not know how Kristol can know Obama’s beliefs so well (seemingly better than Obama himself) especially when Obama’s words and actions seem to be otherwise. So what is the bigger conflict between the words of Kristol and Obama (as well as those of Obama’s wife, Michelle, who was heavily quoted in the article)?

Realize first that whatever I might say in the paragraphs ahead are only possibilities of meaning. Just as Kristol cannot know the true and full meaning of Obama’s words, neither can I. I also cannot know the fullness of what is behind Kristol’s words, especially since I know less of his words and actions than I do Obama’s. But I will venture to give different possibilities to think about than what Kristol presented in his article because I believe that it was a very narrow and poorly supported view… perhaps even a play of words that was more inaccurate than accurate. So take Kristol’s words seriously. Take mine seriously. Take Obama’s and Michelle’s seriously. And then make up your own mind based on your own research, your own analysis, and your own intuition.

Kristol claims that Obama’s explanation of his choice not to wear an American pin was a sign that he “couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation.” But what is really the problem with that kind of explanation, and what if that is the “true” explanation? Don’t we want to hear a “grandiose explanation” if it’s the truth? And don’t we want leaders who think out the principles and motives behind their actions before they actually take those actions?

Kristol then went onto claim that Obama’s words showed that he believed he was “too good” or “too patriotic” to wear the pin. But what does “too good” or “too patriotic” actually mean? Kristol, who is a writer, should know that linguistically the word “good” is an evaluation that does not show any of the substance or meaning in the actual words spoken and that the word “too” is a comparison word that does not show what you are comparing something to. Did Obama ever say those specifics words? No. Then how does Kristol know that he believes them and feels that way?

Now, in Kristol’s support, Obama did say that he believed the pin became a substitute for “true” patriotism and then went on to define “true patriotism” as speaking out on issues. Here we can question into Obama’s words. He probably should have said “for some people” because there are certainly those who wear the pin and experience true patriotism. Furthermore, he might have given a limited definition of true patriotism, which, for instance, might also include acting out on issues. But that is where we must question Obama to go deeper into what he believes. Instead, Kristol claims what Obama believes without going to the source.

Perhaps, in not wearing the pin, Obama wanted to show that outward symbols do not define patriotism, nor do they encompass all of patriotism, but that they can still certainly express a form or part of patriotism. In not wearing the pin, he was not necessarily criticizing all people who wore them. And he also certainly did not say he was better than anyone for not wearing it. Through his words and actions, it seems just as, if not more, plausible that he was showing that our character is not only defined by a symbol, that it does not have to be defined by a symbol, that there are actions that can take our patriotism even farther, and that we must question what are patriotism even is.

In a world of labels, what do our labels mean? Wearing a pin has different meanings for different people. The words “Democrat” and “Republican” mean something different depending on who you ask. Words and gestures are symbols that help us express something, and perhaps Obama wanted to go deeper into what those symbols might mean to us. It does not mean that he thinks he is better or that he is better. What does the word “better” mean anyways?

Furthermore, his words and actions might also mean that he is actually an effective leader. Do you want a leader who urges you to focus only, or even primarily, on symbols (or labels)? Or do you want a leader who can appreciate those symbols, even if not choosing to use them, while at the same time urging you to go deeper into their meaning and to then take action on that meaning? Is this explanation not equally as plausible as Kristol’s? Perhaps it is even closer to the truth. Perhaps Obama made the mistake of not expressing his appreciation of symbols, but nevertheless still does appreciate them, especially when, as Obama states, it was during the build up to the Iraq war, a time when the idea of patriotism was being defined and limited by many different people.

Maybe the popularity that Obama has is a testament to the idea of questioning what exists beneath the surface of things. It does not mean that we can’t or won’t value the surface of things. It means that we can focus on more than just the surface of things. It means that we must question what the surface represents and decide on what we want it to represent. And that might just be the idea that Obama was standing for. A leader must stand for something. Otherwise, we would have no idea what kind of leader they will be… and it doesn’t make them elitist for doing so. Standing for something does not mean that you stand against anything. You can stand for all sides of an issue while choosing to emphasize the side that hasn’t received enough attention. Obama’s actions do not mean that he has, what Kristol called, “moral vanity.” In fact, his stand might make him an inspiring leader… which then leads us to another important part of the article.

Kristol also claims that Obama believes that he himself is the one that will change the nation and fix everyone’s lives (thus, the title of the article is “It’s All About Me.”) He uses speeches by Michelle in which she says that Barack understands that we must “fix our souls… before we can work on [our] problems” and that he will “demand” that we “push” ourselves, “move out of [our] comfort zones,” and “engage.” Nowhere in her speech does she say or imply that Barack believes we “don’t have to work to improve our souls” and that “[o]ur broken souls can be fixed – by our voting for” him. In fact, Michelle’s words say just the opposite – that we are the ones who have to make our lives better and that Barack will demand that.

Barack himself says just the opposite as Kristol asserts, and many of his votes and his past work show that he believes in the power and choice of the people. How Kristol makes the jump that he does is very unclear, which must make readers wonder whether he is writing from his own bias and attempting to use “the play of words” to mix up what other people say and mean.

There is a huge difference between a leader who inspires and a leader who saves, between a leader who fosters independence and one who breeds dependence. I understand the concern that Kristol might be expressing in regard to people wanting to be saved and hoping for some outside to cure to their ills. In fact, I wrote an article entitled “Searching for Bobby Kennedy” that expressed this same idea. But just because you have certain concerns doesn’t mean it is “right” to impose those concerns upon someone else’s words to change the intended meaning.

Journalists of integrity search for truth. They do not create the truth to match their own ideas, values, or interests. If Kristol has concerns that come from what Barack or Michelle (or any candidate, spouse, or supporter) says, then he should go deeper into what they meant by going to the source and getting further explanation and proof through their actions. That is fair and accurate journalism. And I believe that most readers want the truth instead of a play of words… which leads me to my final comment on the article.

Kristol asserts that there is “empirical evidence” showing that conditions for Americans have improved over the years. But that kind of general statement does not give any idea about what “improvement” actually means. And anyone who has done work in research knows that the numbers can be calculated to prove any point. While his comment might be true, it is incomplete and nonspecific. So, in order to balance his claim, here are some questions you might want to reflect on:

If conditions have improved over the years, does that necessarily mean they’re not diminishing now? Is it possible that the current trend for many people is a downward spiral that is undoing the progress of the past? How were these conditions even measured? And were they based on the nation’s output and wealth or individual citizens’ output and wealth? Were they experienced by all Americans at all times in all ways, or only for some Americans some of the time in some ways?

And even if citizens’ material conditions have improved consistently and across the board, perhaps the conditions that voters seek are not material. Maybe what they want isn’t so calculated and quantifiable as the “empirical evidence” might suggest. Maybe voters are looking for progress on emotional, mental, and spiritual levels. Maybe they do feel an emptiness in their souls. And maybe they are wanting to dig beneath life’s surface symbols to find more meaning, inspiration, and connection. Maybe Kristol should look at Obama’s increasing popularity and see the truth in people’s desires rather than just in his own biased opinions.

I do not care whether Obama is our next President or not. I do not even know whether he is most “right” and most capable for the position. And I do not know whether I will vote for him next November. I do not even think it is what matters. I believe that the principles, needs, desires, choices, and actions of the people are most important. And I believe that they deserve the truth from those who write as if they know the truth.

The full truth can only be discovered with the qualities of openness, impartiality, acceptance, and questioning – of one’s self and others. I appreciate Kristol’s willingness to be critical. I simply wish that it were done with the integrity of seeking something closer to the whole truth. As you take in the vast amounts of information that you will certainly come across in this campaign make sure to seek the truth, too.

The story of the Tower of Babel is a clear representation of the tendency of words to separate us rather than unite us. There can be mischief and deception in words because they can act as masks of what we are thinking, feeling, and intending inside. If our words are only based on our self-interest and the propagation of our own personal motives and principles (also called propaganda), then those words will separate us. But if our motives include everyone, then we will make sure to clarify the confusion of the Tower of Babel so that we are all on the same page. In separation, we fall. In union, we rise. We have the choice to use our words toward either outcome. That is one of the morals of the Tower of Babel.

The truth will set us all free. And to get to the truth, we must question what we know, what we hear, what we see, and, overall, everything that we experience in regard to this election. Ultimately, I do not know whether Kristol is expressing the truth. I do not know whether Obama is expressing the truth. And as I said, I have no vested interest either way because I do not know who will be the best President, and I have not yet made my own choice of who I will vote for. That choice will only be final when it is time… in November. Until then, I will continue to seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

And the truth right now is that there is more evidence to back up Obama’s belief in the people than evidence to back up Kristol’s belief in Obama’s self-focused “moral vanity.” So perhaps, in support of his claims, Kristol might be willing to give more evidence that his opinion, his incomplete assertion, is true. In the end, regardless of whether he chooses to add more integrity and substance to his work, you have the responsibility to seek if for yourself. You have a vested interest in it. We have a vested interest in it. And you are a democratic citizen… regardless of whether you live in a democratic nation. The people will always have greater power than their leaders because they have the power of choice, massive choice.

To learn more about leadership and this election,

you can purchase The Makings of a President, at:

www.inspiringrevolutions.com/presidentbook.php

To begin applying the ideas in this article to your own life, answer the questions below:

- When have others misunderstood the meaning, intention, and feelings behind your words? What could they have asked you in order to better understand “the truth” behind what you said?

- When in your past have you misunderstood the meaning, intention, and feelings behind others’ words? What could you have asked them in order to better understand “the truth” behind what they said?

- What are some current misunderstandings between you and others in your life? What questions could you ask (or could they ask you) to clear up the misunderstandings?

- What causes you to make assumptions about others’ words? What prevents you from digging deeper into their true meaning?

- Where do you use words to mask the truth?

- Where do you play with words so that people will believe what you want them to regardless of what the deeper truth is? Where do you try to sway them in a direction without trusting them to find their own direction?

- What biased beliefs or interests are you afraid might be sacrificed if you found out more information and therefore had to change your perspective and approach?

Knowledge means change, change means letting go, and letting go opens the door to progress.

- So what progress could you achieve by letting go of your assumptions about other people’s intentions and perspectives and opening your mind to their truth?

- What assumptions are you currently making about the presidential candidates?

- What questions would you ask them to clear up any misunderstandings? If you can’t ask them, how can you find out the information you need?

- One by one, imagine voting for each of the candidates. Notice any resistance you have to voting for each one. For each candidate, write a list of everything that is causing resistance to voting for them. As you look at each item on the list, where is your resistance based on your own biased assumptions and your acceptance of others’ assumptions (including the media), and how can you get more information to know the more of the “truth?”

When you ignite a car, there is a quick electric spark that starts the engine. But the activity that comes from the spark won’t last long if there is no fuel to burn. The spark doesn’t run the car. It only gets the car running. Similarly, anything that wants to live, grow, and thrive over time needs a consistent source of energy. It needs to move beyond immediate gratification into persevering progress. From this basic understanding of life, we can realistically evaluate the benefits and limits of the economic stimulus package.

The purpose of the rebate checks that the government will begin sending out next week is to stimulate the economy. But the economic stimulus package is like the ignition of a car or the match that lights a candle. It can spark the economy (and just in time for the grand exit of President Bush… hmmm… interesting timing I must say), but the economy will only continue to burn if it has all the resources it needs. And right now, more and more parts of our nation are increasingly closer to being all tapped out.

If we want to save our economy from descending into a severe recession (or worse), the kind of change that we need is much more fundamental than a stimulus package, which is like a quick jolt of sugar that gives you a temporary high, a fleeting pick-me-up that masks the approaching collapse into exhaustion. It certainly cannot change the overall economic trend that is currently contracting sharply into a dangerous downward spiral.

This is not to say that it won’t accomplish something positive. There are people struggling to meet their most basic needs of food, health, and home. And so, that money is definitely of urgent need for some. But the promise that it will “boost the economy” is a typical missing of the point by an administration that seems to have no sense of the individuals that make up this nation. A rise in GDP is not good for everyone unless it improves the lives of everyone. Anyone can boost the numbers to look good. But that’s just a façade – to pull out a little cliché: it’s what’s on the inside that counts.

So other than helping people in urgent need, what will this stimulus do? Well first we must know where the money is coming from. We are already running a deficit, so this will only increase our debt more. We can pay for it through taxes, which would have to come from the wealthy, otherwise it would be taking right back from the people it was given to, and it will more than likely put them right in the same place they were before. Or it can be added to the tab of our debt, which would increase the interest we pay on that debt and would increase the acceleration of our economic downfall.

The other possibility is that it would go toward creating products that we could then sell outside of our nation. That would help us pay back the amount of our rebate checks and perhaps a portion of our debt. But that scenario is highly unlikely to happen. Why? Because people need to pay off their own debts and buy basic needs right now.

The money is much more likely to go to banks to pay off home loans and to companies that supply basic needs, such as food, water, gas, electricity, rent, and other regular bills. And what will these companies do with this money? We would hope that they would hire more employees, pay their employees more, or make investments that might trigger other companies to hire employees or pay current employees more.

But with consumers increasingly cutting back their purchases, businesses will be more likely to pay off debt or pad their reserves for security during this economic contraction. And banks are likely to do the same. They have so much unrecovered debt on their books that they will probably keep the money to increase their reserves.

So based on the current economic situation, the most likely path of this stimulus money is that it will go first to the people who, more or less, urgently need it so that they can get by for a little longer. Then, it will go to companies that will either use it to remedy their own financial problems or keep it for their own future security. In the process, it will increase our nation’s debt, which adds to the source of our financial issues and accelerates the downward spiral it was hoping to correct.

Be clear that I am not necessarily advocating against the stimulus package (because I do believe in helping those in need). I am simply pointing out its limits. I am bringing attention to the fact this policy and others that are being used, such as the mortgage bailout, do not treat our economic problems at their source. The problem is in our psychology and philosophy. It is in our motivations and principles. These are the driving forces that move our individual and collective actions. And when we don’t tend to them, we are certain to repeat the same patterns over and over again until our lives dissolve into oblivion, at which point society’s structure collapses, and we start our “do over.”

This is the problem with consistent short-term thinking. It becomes a bunch of Band-Aid solutions that never get to the root of the real causes of the problem. So if we don’t do something serious in addition to the stimulus package, if we don’t provide a way for people to consistently earn a living that promotes growth (like the fuel that is needed to drive a car to places that are beyond its current situation), then we are only going to experience a little window dressing that simply delays the inevitable crash of our economy and makes the crash worse that it would have been before. It doesn’t have to be that way. Delaying the fall exacerbates the fall, and I believe that We the People are ready to rise up instead.

(This article is meant to be a realistic, critical analysis of policy rather than a solution-oriented source of viable alternatives. The reader can hopefully use the problems highlighted in the article to come up with their own solutions that would remedy our national problems. For more information on what is needed to turn our economy around, you will discover more in my book, Thriving at the Brink of Disaster, at: www.inspiringrevolutions.com/thriving.php)

To begin applying these ideas to your life, answer the questions below:

- When in your life have you faced an approaching crisis and focused only on the short-term solution to get you out of the rut?

- Did you ever treat the source of the problem? If not, did the problem arise again in some other way? If it did, what can you do now to discover the source of the problem and make the appropriate changes?

- Where in your life do you rely on short-terms actions and quick pick-me-ups instead of long-term strategy and lifelong principles?

- In what areas of your life do you take more than you give (physically, emotionally, or mentally)? What are the consequences of these “debts?”

- Do you let these debts increase until you hit a crisis, or do you learn from them earlier and change in more profound ways than a simple “stimulus” action?

- What are your primary motivations in situations where you incur debts and where you have to keep bailing yourself out? What are the principles behind these motivations?

- How can you change or add to these motivations and principles in order to balance your life out and become more stable in the long-term? What has been preventing you from making these kinds of changes and what can you do differently now?

When Bobby Kennedy ran to become the Democratic candidate for United States President, he inspired great hope in many Americans who were wishing for brighter days and a change of course in American politics. He connected with voters on a very personal level and, in doing so, represented the widespread call for peace, justice, and prosperity for all. Voters could feel his authenticity, and so they believed that something fundamental was about to change.

And then, as many have expressed since that fateful night in June, the people’s hope died in a shocking, heart-shattering instant. Another tragedy had befallen an American leader and the wind had finally been taken from the sails of new beginnings. But hope did not die because a person died. Hope died because the people let it die. And we must learn that lesson now if we are to achieve real change in our lives, our nation, and our world.

For those who have been watching this election’s campaign, you should be able to see very clearly that we are still searching for Bobby Kennedy. The ring of change and hope can be heard throughout the nation, perhaps best symbolized by the call of “Yes we can.”

I must say up front that I do not write this article as a supporter of Barrack Obama. While I have praise for Obama, I also have criticisms, and I have not yet decided who I will vote for next fall. But regardless of my future vote, I know that anyone who chooses to open their eyes and ears cannot help but realize the resemblance between Obama and Kennedy. Below is a quote from Wikipedia about the candidacy of destiny that Robert F. Kennedy once undertook:

“Kennedy stood on a ticket of racial and economic justice, non-aggression in foreign policy, decentralization of power and social improvement. A crucial element to his campaign was an engagement with the young, whom he identified as being the future of a reinvigorated American society based on partnership and equality.”

If we are not seeing the second coming of RFK, then I must be in a dream. The hope that we allowed to die has not risen again, and if we have learned our lesson, then we will find the path to a new world of our choosing. What is the lesson? One of the clearest must be that the dream of a different future, the vision of a new progressive society, does not and cannot exist in a leader alone. It must exist, first and foremost, in the hearts and minds of the people. And if we place it wholly on a leader, it is certain to die again – not necessarily through the death of the leader (for I would never choose to imagine that fate for any person), but through the death of the inspiration and passion that he represented, reflected, and provoked.

The great hope is not that we can have the leader of our choosing. The great hope is that we will demand the leader of our choosing and that we will make, for ourselves and through our own initiative, the society that we desire. If our hope is truly our own, then the death of a leader would never stop it from being expressed and created.

So as you listen to the words of the candidates and as you feel the electricity of this political moment, realize that the electricity is from within you. Realize that the world you see as possible through your leader is only possible through you and the people you choose to unite with. A leader can call it forth from everyone through the sound of one voice. But a leader cannot create it in your heart. A leader cannot envision it in your mind. And a leader cannot act upon it with your body. This election, your hope is your own. This election, the power can truly be yours. This election, we will realize that an election does not make a society. Its people do.

To learn more about leadership and the power of the people,

you can purchase the book, The Makings of a President, at:

www.inspiringrevolutions.com/presidentbook.php

To begin applying the ideas in this article to your own life, answer the questions below:

- When in your life have you had hope that was dependent on another person only to find it collapse when you did not make it your own and the other person had moved on?

- What prevented you from truly making your hope your own and taking action regardless of whether the other person was involved (or even ever known)?

- What stops you from believing in yourself and acting on the feelings you have inside despite whatever help you might get from the outside?

- What is your hope now? What actions are you taking toward it? What actions are you not taking toward it? Why?

- How can you become more of your own leader? What character traits do you need to develop? What feelings do you need to stir? What principles and beliefs do you need to embrace? And what choices can you now make and what actions will you now take to become the kind of personal leader that only you alone can be?

Look around at what is going on in our nation and the rest of the world, and you can easily see that we are moving into a period when We the People must seriously question our leaders’ actions. Accepting their proposed solutions has clearly not led us to our desired outcomes. So we must pick apart their solutions by understanding the principles behind them and knowing why and whether they will work.

One proposed solution to our current economic challenges is the mortgage bailout. But what is its purpose, and will it actually work to fulfill that purpose?

The mortgage bailout has both a social purpose and a more personal purpose. The social purpose is simple: to avert a total economic meltdown. There are many aspects to the harmful effect that rising mortgages defaults can have on our national and global economy, and we will cover some here.

First, there is a chain of loans that runs throughout our economy and if the mortgage defaults rise too high and too fast, the impact on our economy will be unlike anything we’ve experienced since the Great Depression. In an economy that is based on an increasing pile of debt, when someone can’t pay off his loans to a second person who then can’t pay off his loans to a third person who then can’t pay off his loans to a fourth person (and so on), people who expected money to be there have their security blankets taken from them and may even have to scramble just to get by. Some say that we can handle this consequence because we have spread the risk, but spreading the risk when the risk has continued to increase means that the whole system is at risk!

Without going much more deeply into economics (check out my book Thriving at the Brink of Disaster for more information about the psychology behind our economic mess and what you can do about it), let me briefly explain that our money system works like a pyramid scheme (thus we have a pyramid on our dollar bill). It is a game of hot potato where people pass along debt, and the last one holding that debt (meaning the last one who has taken on the responsibility of giving a loan) is often the one with the most to lose when the string of I.O.U.’s finally snaps. Why? They have no one to pass the buck to (nor should they even try to!) They cannot default because they did not take out debt. Instead, they were part of the agreement that put someone else into debt.

The problem for every one of us is that when all of this money is wiped out of the system, those people who were depending on the money to be there might end up in dire economic straits. And at the very least, they will no longer be consumers of nonessential products. That means a loss of business, which means a loss of jobs, which means even more people defaulting, and so on.

We are all part of this system, and when its well-being is so fragile and on the verge of collapse, you can be sure that we all have a vested interest in solutions that help those who are on the edge of a personal collapse.

That leads to the more personal reason for the mortgage bailout. The idea that someone with a desire that is so meaningful and universal as having a home – for themselves and possibly family – would all of the sudden be without that home because of the faltering of the larger system is something that we can all feel something about. Of course, there is the idea of personal responsibility. There is the idea that they could have seen it coming and planned accordingly (though the people with the best view of the economy – the government and corporate CEO’s – certainly didn’t broadcast the clear issues that they probably saw coming long ago). Yes, personal responsibility is important. But so is understanding and helping others in need. We all have had times when we missed the writing on the wall, when we were unaware of what was coming because we had no experience or knowledge of it, and when we had to depend on others for help so that we could learn and grow as a person while we got back on our feet.

And the personal reason for the mortgage bailout is also a spiritual reason for those who believe in God. Do you think that God created this Earth for people to be born without a place to live (or at least the land and resources to build a place to live). We did something important by coming together into societies. Instead of fighting over the resources that we needed to survive and thrive we made a commitment to learn to make use of them for the benefit of all as well as to put together all of our talents to be more effective at doing so. The question we are still trying to figure out is how exactly to work together most effectively.

So the social, personal, and spiritual reasons for the mortgage bailout seem very compelling. But having a reason doesn’t necessarily mean you have the right method for fulfilling that reason. The question is: Will it work? And the answer is… it depends on how we do it.

If the mortgage bailout is created from the same principles that got us into this mess, then it will simply exacerbate the problem by feeding into the cause of the problem. If we choose new principles as the basis for creating the bailout, then it has the potential of the solving the problem closer to its source (or at its source). This article is not meant to elaborate on a plan that I think will work because I believe that we must all think for ourselves first instead of simply grasping for others’ solutions. But I will propose some ideas that might be worthwhile to think about…

First, the mortgage bailout can certainly help people remain in their homes as long as the underlying economy that supports their ability to earn money and pay stays strong. But if the bailout increases our debt, then we are just adding to the problem and the economy will worsen. If debt is our problem (and it is), then we must have a way of decreasing our debt. The fact is that the bailout will have to be paid by someone. The question is by whom and through what means?

If you think about it simply and logically, in the end, the only person who can pay off a debt is a person who is not in debt. And certain countries and certain individuals are currently not in debt. In fact, many people who are not in debt are the ones who are owed money. Simple logic then tells us that, in order to pay off the debt, wealth must transfer from those who don’t have debt to those who do have debt. How can that happen?

Well, there is a bit more than what I will present here (and I will present it in future articles and in a future book), but let’s just mention some of the typical ways that have been used in the past to transfer wealth: 1) people with debt produce things for the people they owe in order to pay off the loans; 2) people who are wealthy are taxed to help pay off the debt of others; 3) people who are owed money simply cancel the debt and forgive the loans; and 4) people in debt sell what they own to those who they owe in order to pay off the loans.

One way or another, the debt will have to be paid off, wealth will have to transfer, and the economy will have to adjust to the new prices that will come as a result. It’s inevitable. The only question is how. Will we do it proactively, fairly, and effectively… or not? You can help. You can help our economy adjust by doing whatever you can to facilitate the three inevitable trends that are mentioned above. You can also make sure that policies like the mortgage bailout plan are done in such a way that they, too, facilitate the three trends mentioned above. Or you can choose not to help. In the end, we always reap what we sow – individually and collectively.

To understand our economic challenges and what we must do,

you can purchase the book Thriving at the Brink of Disaster at:

www.inspiringrevolutions.com/thriving.php

To begin applying these ideas to your life, answer the questions below:

- When in your life have you made an honest mistake and been left in a whole because of it? Who was there to help you, and how did it assist you in getting back on your feet and rebuilding a foundation of personal security to depend on?

- While you were being helped did you learn from your mistake? Did you turn ignorance into knowledge? Did you learn new skills to make yourself more able to handle life’s challenges?

- Have you ever helped someone else in need? Did you simply give them a handout, or did you also help guide them to the knowledge and skills that would help them use your handout to become independent of you?

- In your relationships, do you keep tabs of what you do for them or give to them? Do you like to know what someone “owes you?” If you do, then do you find a way that they can use their talents, their own unique gifts, to “pay you back?”

- If somebody’s lungs were “in debt” in their relationship with the heart, would the heart be smart to leave the lungs without the resources that they need? How could they handle the situation to make sure that the integrity of the whole body is not compromised?

- If you were the heart and you were well off while the lungs were struggling, would you see the value in helping them? Would you understand that the lungs were necessary for the whole body to survive?

- When in your life have you been a part of a group where every individual depended on the others to live out and thrive in some greater purpose?

- What principles did you learn from these experiences in terms of how to make sure that the needs of the group and the needs of the individuals are all taken into account?

- Where in your life are you practicing those principles? Where in your life are you NOT practicing those principles?

- What prevents you from doing so? What choices can you make and what actions will you take to do so now?

Written on August 30, 2006

Iranian President Ahmadinejad is an extremely sharp leader, and his challenge of President Bush to have a debate on global issues has been one of his most intelligent recent political moves. The offer was not just intelligent because he knew that Bush would not rise to the challenge. The offer was not just intelligent because it showed the world community that, while the U.S. seems to enjoy playing Battleship, Iran will choose to play chess. The offer was intelligent because we cannot win such a debate. Debates are never won by the party who carries a higher degree of hypocrisy.

Though I am not a supporter of the sometimes violent, inflammatory words of Ahmadinejad, and though I am not a proponent of nuclear arms proliferation, I do believe that Ahmadinejad has every right to question American intentions and actions. While we go around attempting to coerce other nations into halting their development of nuclear capabilities and refraining from nuclear weapons testing, we have not made such moves back home.

In September of 1996, the world’s nations had an opportunity to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. As the name clearly indicates, this treaty would place important bans on the testing of nuclear weapons. But in order to become active, the treaty had to be ratified by all 44 of the “Annex 2” nations. As of recently, 10 such nations have still not ratified it, and America is one of these nations. In fact, take a look at the prestigious group we have chosen to be a part of: Indonesia, Egypt, Colombia, Pakistan, India, Israel, China, North Korea and, what do you know, Iran. They are a fairly high-powered group of nations if you ask me… and the type of power that they have is not the type of power anyone should ever want to use.

In 2003, to further complicate this issue, we invaded Iraq in search of these kinds of weapons of mass destruction, and we found none. Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad continues to claim that Iran is developing nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes, and we have no evidence to prove otherwise. So while Ahmadinejad’s provocative rhetoric against Israel and the West might lead most people to be skeptical of his peaceful claims, we Americans are now coming close to reliving the same mistakes we made in our actions toward Iraq. We are attempting to combat a volatile leader with coercive strategies that are based on hypocritical standards.

And the final piece of this hypocrisy is perhaps the most important piece of all. We are the ones that dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So maybe it is about time that we stopped diverting our focus overseas and looked in a mirror at the changes that we ourselves have to make. Coercive and violent methods are short-term solutions to problems that have often been developing for a long time. And they will not work. Furthermore, America’s actions seem to continue to imply that we think we are the parents of the world’s nations, while instead we so desperately need to become their ally. These international problems will continue to be problems until we begin to use one of the most important and effective methods of leadership and diplomacy: leading by example.

To learn more about leadership and politics,

purchase the book The Makings of a President at:

www.inspiringrevolutions.com/presidentbook.php

To learn more about global and political trends,

purchase Thriving at the Brink of Disaster at:

www.inspiringrevolutions.com/thriving.php

To begin applying these ideas to your life, answer the questions below:

- Where in your life do you ask people to do what you aren’t willing to do? Where in your life do you ask people to stop doing what you aren’t willing to stop?

- What criticisms do you have of other people in your life or in the world? Where in your life do you do the same type of thing that you criticize others for doing?

- In what ways can you lead by example in the changes you wish others would make? What has prevented you from doing so already?

- What are your common distrusts of other people? What are you afraid of giving up? What are you afraid of other people having?

- In what ways do you hold onto power that you don’t want others to have? In what ways do you try to make others dependent on you so that you can try to coerce or manipulate them to do what you want?

- What causes you to believe that you are more able or responsible to handle power than others? Have you ever faltered in your use of power? Have you ever abused your power?

- Have your own fear-based actions ever held someone back from actually having the opportunity to become more responsible in their handling of a new “power?”

- Do you ever open yourself up and allow yourself to be vulnerable by trusting other people to have the ability and responsibility to handle “power” that could affect you?

- Have you ever been paranoid about someone simply because you had a distorted perception that was based on a lack of information or even misinformation? Was the closed nature of your relationship a part of what prevented you from having the right information and trusting their intentions?

- What actions can you now take to develop more open and trusting relationships with the people (or the kind of people) that you have the most difficulty trusting?

(Adapted from an article written on September 8, 2007 for a national leadership newsletter)

In our modern world of perpetual change, stagnant organizations quickly fall behind, while progressive ones thrive. And with the tremendous transformations that are taking place in our global society, we are now entering into an era of change that is certain to be even more intense than what we currently experience. As a leader, you must to learn to guide your organization from depending on the ways of the old world to succeeding with the ways of a new emerging world, and this requires you to deeply understand the purpose of these kinds of social transitions, how they function, and the role you must play as a leader. Without developing an overall understanding of the world and ourselves, we are continually caught up and driven by the seemingly fickle winds of the whims of circumstance, reacting with our old patterns when those patterns no longer apply to our world. There is both a collective and individual part of that world, and leaders must integrate both into their visions if they want their organizations to thrive.

My new book, Thriving at the Brink of Disaster, goes deep to the core of the purpose and process of this kind of change, uncovering how the “revolutions” that occur in our individual and collective lives relate to the passions that move us, the ties that bind us, and the unavoidable missions we must embrace just by being here. It is a book about the nature of our world, the character of our times, and the meaning of our lives. And to begin this introductory journey, we must ask the essential question: What is change?

A seed sprouts into a plant and then blossoms into a flower. This is the process of a potential becoming actual, of an idea becoming a result, of the possibility of freedom becoming a reality through the acts of responsibility that proper development requires. But it is not only the creation of the flower that brings meaning to life. We live beyond our time not just by what we make of ourselves but also by what we contribute to the world for years to come. Once the seed becomes a flower, a new seed is protected and nurtured until it, too, is ready to venture into the world, do its unique work, and make its own contribution. The original flower eventually fades and the new seed carries on the eternal process of evolution, building upon the innovations of seeds before.

This is the constant death and rebirth – the perpetual cycles of revolution – that we experience by living in this world. And yet our physical death is not our only death. Throughout our lives, we endure infinite deaths – of our beliefs, emotions, behaviors, and possessions. And the most momentous and critical of these transitions is the change from our dependency on old structures to the creation of new ideas that are critical to our development. Master these changes, and transitions will be times of excitement rather than anxiety, driven by the brave actions of courage instead of the crisis-attracting paralysis of fear.

Individuals and societies both go through these transitions, and Thriving at the Brink of Disaster is based on the premise that our global society is now embarking on one of the greatest revolutions of time. How can we know this to be true? Well, how do we know the sun will rise every 24 hours? We know because we have experienced the revolution of day-and-night many times before, and we have noticed the similarities in the amount of time that it takes. Similarly, we’ve also witnessed major social revolutions every 250 years (the last one included the American Revolution), and now we are in the same “season” of that 250-year collective cycle. So with this “revolutionary” period approaching, what will it mean for our individual lives, our nations, and our world, and how can we learn to embrace these changes instead of waiting for them to embrace us through crisis?

The key, as always, is to expand our understanding of life and apply that understanding through action. Knowledge gives us potential power by opening us up to more options, to new choices that give us the freedom to move beyond our current obstacles, which were created by the ignorance of our old choices and have also been preventing us from living by what we truly desire. What we do with that knowledge then makes our potential power into real power. Applying this idea to our times, by understanding what creates all revolutions, we can understand the purpose of any revolution and what to do about it.

Much like the seasons of the year, social revolutions are driven by nature’s cycles of change. And like the seasons of the year, we use the cycles of social revolution to take something that is in its potential (such as a seed) and bring it into its fullest actualization (such as a flower). The way it works in a society is that we build social structures (which are like flowers) from our ideas (which are like seeds). Then, over time, we eventually need to take down or modify those structures to create space for a new progressive idea – what we call an inspiration – to flourish. Innovation leads to growth, but the driving force behind that innovation is inspiration. You can’t drive a car if you haven’t ignited the engine, and an inspiration is like that spark that makes that ignition possible.

For example, the invention of the car wasn’t itself an inspiration. The inspiration was in the bigger idea, the bigger reason, that provoked the invention – like perhaps the idea that greater mobility and connectivity can open us to greater knowledge and freedom. In this way, the car was an innovation that helped bring the inspiration to life. And at some point in the development of any idea, it will have to shatter old structures that are holding them back – like the chick that eventually grows beyond the shell of its egg.

So to effectively lead through times of change, you must be able to uncover, unleash, and direct the creative inspirations that are seeking to be expressed from within your organization. And while you do this, you must balance and unite the inspirations of your employees, your company, and your society, while knowing when it is time to move from relying on the old structure for stability to letting go of that structure so that the new idea can be free to flourish.

Realize that you are the “head.” And our head’s role is to evaluate situations through reflection in order to build greater understanding and then lead our bodies on a new path through focused intention and a new set of decisions. To know what decisions to make, you must pay attention to your current phase of development – from a seed into a plant, a plant into a flower, a flower nurturing a new seed, or the new seed being born into action. All the while, you must find a balance between maintaining the old system’s security and wisdom and embracing the innovation and courage that the new possibilities demand.

Within the problem is the solution. Within the question is the answer. As change approaches, notice the new ideas surfacing within your organization. Listen to the words being spoken. Pay attention to what is being felt. You must acknowledge where your old ways are holding you back and see where those ways can support the new developments before the old collapse. As I write in Thriving at the Brink of Disaster, be willing to give up in order to get more.

There is a time in every organization’s life when it must be willing to move beyond its central purpose of “organizing” and decide instead to brave the “disorganization” of a new, but uncertain future. It is then that freedom is increased most because energy is released from its “stuck” place in a stable structure – just like what happens when ice turns into gas. That released energy can then be reorganized into something new and progressive that will bring meaning, joy, and freedom to all who decide to be involved.

My mission in writing Thriving at the Brink of Disaster was to help prepare people for a new world that is clearly coming. We are breaking through the shell of our collective egg, and I hope that you will help me in that mission. In some way, each of us is a leader. And as a leader, you must find that balance between the new ideas of the world at large and the new ideas of your individual life. My book can help guide you through that process, helping you understand the changes occurring in our nation, those occurring within your heart, and the new person and world that will be waiting on the other side. Your life will never be the same… and I hope you can welcome that.

To purchase Thriving at the Brink of Disaster, visit:

www.inspiringrevolutions.com/thriving.php

To purchase The Makings of a President, visit:

www.inspiringrevolutions.com/presidentbook.php

To begin applying the ideas in this article to your own life, answer the questions below:

- What major life transitions, or crises, have you endured in the past? What old ideas, beliefs, emotions, and behavior patterns did you have to give up because they were outdated and causing you problems?

- What new ideas, beliefs, emotions, and behavior patterns did you choose to embrace instead? How did they help you progress as a person, and how did they become a part of your total way of life? (This is an example of how you build a new structure from a new idea.)

- What new ways did you not embrace that might have helped you? What prevented you from doing so?

- What important transitions are you currently going through? What ideas, beliefs, emotions, and behavior patterns are being challenged, and what new ones could bring your life into a better balance?

- Are you experiencing any resistance to these new ways? If so, what is preventing you from embracing them? What do you think would happen if you did? How might your life benefit if you did embrace these new ways?

- What new creative inspirations are trying to surface into your life? Can you feel them? Do you see the value in them? What inner conflicts are preventing you from developing these inspirations, and how can you see beyond them so that you can courageously and effectively move forward?

- What new principles are trying to surface into your life? Can you feel them? Do you see the value in them? What inner conflicts are preventing you from standing by and living by these principles, and how can you see beyond them so that you can courageously and effectively move forward?

- Can you see the same process of change at work in your nation and world? What new inspirations are now emerging in our collective way of life? What changes do you need to make to be a part of the new wave of social change rather than being lost with the old?

- What previously neglected principles are becoming major parts of our new social “architecture?”

- With so many changes unfolding in our society, what kind of a leader can you be for our new emerging society? Do you bring beauty, creativity, inspiration, connection, discipline, joy, faith, meaning, or any of the other core ideals that make our world so special? How can you do so now?

Written on August 25, 2007

In our ardent quest to be a nation that supports both freedom and protection, issues over the shifting balance between civil liberties and government powers have continually been making media headlines. One story that could play a key role in swaying that balance is the controversy surrounding the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program and the involvement of private telecommunications companies in that program. But knowing the specific facts of the story itself will not be as important as understanding the psychological factors influencing how we handle the case and what it says about human nature and the cause for civil, political, and economic freedom.

One of the biggest obstacles to freedom is dependency. When we depend on a structure for a vital part of our livelihood, we fear the loss of that structure because it might leave us in a place of uncertainty, or even chaos. As a result, we tend to refrain from holding these structures accountable for their abuses against our freedom because doing so could mean losing the stability they bring. We see this very clearly with grown-up children who continue to depend on their parents and, in doing so, are often willing to accept their parents’ controlling, invasive, or restrictive ways.

But where does this cycle end? Does it even need to end? Should we simply trust those who provide the everyday services we depend on regardless of the loss of freedom we might endure? Is there a better balance between the trust of dependability and the justice of accountability than what we have today? In the volatile years ahead, our social landscape is certain to change drastically, and it will necessitate that we discover better answers to these questions. The process has already begun.

In the case of the NSA’s wiretapping, Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, recently confirmed that private companies did indeed aid the program and then went on to dissuade lawsuits against these companies, asserting that such lawsuits would then force them to file bankruptcy. He is correct in acknowledging that we depend on these companies and could not afford them to go down because of the harm it could do to our communication network. But how then do we hold corporations accountable for their actions? This question drives right to the heart of the dangers of our philosophy regarding corporations. What key current paradigms does this issue call into question?

In our current legal framework, corporations are treated as humans and are granted rights that provide them with certain protections, or freedoms, from government intervention. But you cannot throw a corporation in prison for breaking the law because the corporation isn’t really a human. It is simply a structure, or system, that enables humans to more efficiently and effectively carry out their creative endeavors. To call a corporation a human would be equivalent to calling a computer a human and giving it rights. The only difference is that a single computer doesn’t typically have enough importance in the everyday functioning of our society to warrant the protection needed to continue its operations. But certain corporations do, and it is this level of dependency that causes us to feel that we need to protect their well-being – sometimes regardless of what it means for our individual freedoms.

Yet a major problem exists in the fact that corporations, because they are not human, don’t have human morality. They do not question their actions because they don’t have the ability to think and reflect. The humans who work within these corporations do that for them. Now, instead of throwing a corporation in prison, we could fine them. But if we fine them too much, we could seriously hamper services central to our livelihood. If we fine them too little, the penalty might not exceed the gain they get from breaking the law, and so they will continue to see profit in illegal endeavors (based on the legally defined purpose of a corporation it is an entity that must first and foremost strive for profit). Ultimately, what change will it really effect to penalize corporations that are without the qualities of human morality and reflection and so will not learn from its mistakes and alter its behaviors?

What then can we do to make sure that we secure our freedoms from abuses? Who then should be held accountable for actions against our freedoms? Well, if morality is in the human domain, and not in the corporate domain, then the humans who partake in illegal actions, regardless of whether it is through a corporation, must be held accountable. So, while McConnell is correct that fining these corporations could potentially do harm to an essential social system (i.e. telecommunications), it doesn’t mean there aren’t actions we can take, and the most effective actions will be the ones that treat the problem at its source rather than enacting Band-aid solutions that condone the very problem and thus enable it to exist.

First, we must work to resolve the issue of dependency and its abuses. Here, fining these corporations could actually be beneficial– not in a direct attempt to alter their behavior but rather to fund projects that help citizens shed their unhealthy dependency. For instance, the monies could go toward public works projects in order to lay down whatever structures might be necessary for free – or at least less expensive – communication services. Technologies already exist (and are being implemented in other parts of the world) that could definitely lead us in this direction. And it would also send a message that, while corporations, like computers, can be a powerful means toward important social ends, they are not ends in themselves and their freedoms must be balanced by responsibility.

Second, individuals who made the decisions to aid in illegal government acts must be brought to justice. Currently, being part of a corporation gives individuals certain protections. But where these protections allow them to avoid moral accountability, we must change our old ways of displacing responsibility and show corporate leaders that they will be held up to law just as much as any other citizen, regardless of the importance of their position. We must have the courage to demand that decision-making powers in corporations are not only earned by the technology you can create and the profit you can make but also by the ethical standards you hold yourself to.

Ultimately, the courage to enforce such standards must come from three places: the legislative branch, the judicial branch, and the people. Laws are created to effect social justice. We would not need laws if we didn’t live in communities. But the world is naturally interdependent, and so laws are necessary to abide by. In my book, Thriving at the Brink of Disaster, I explain that policies of justice must be based on both individual and collective rights, and our government is in charge of making sure that those rights are upheld. Congress must fulfill its role in representing the people by enacting laws that hold individuals working within corporations and governments accountable for decisions and actions that unnecessarily infringe on the general population’s rights. We also need a judicial system that will enforce these laws with vigor. And we need the people to stand for their rights.

Every major revolution of the world was in the name of greater individual freedom from the imposition of a larger authority. Every major revolution of the world came from a brave decision to reclaim, or to claim for the first time, the power of individual choice to create a new world instead of giving into the dependencies that had been built from the past. We will face these same decisions, and we can follow them through to the end by using the current system to change the system, or we can wait for the eruption that takes place when you hold back the innate human desire for freedom. In that case, the death of freedom will be a provocation for the cause of freedom.

To learn more about the path to greater freedom,

you can buy Thriving at the Brink of Disaster at:

www.inspiringrevolutions.com/thriving.php

To begin applying the ideas in this article to your own life, answer the questions below:

- In what ways are you dependent on other people or on the government?

- Do you let your dependencies infringe upon your freedom? Do they prevent you from seeking what you truly desire to do with your life?

- Do you let others abuse your dependence on them by allowing them to sway you against what you desire or against what you believe is “right?”

- How can you rise above the expectations and coercions that come from those you depend on?

- What can you do to create a greater sense of independence? What insecurities are preventing you from doing so? What can you do to overcome these insecurities?

- What new choices do you need to make in order to depend more on people who won’t use your dependence to influence your direction and principles in life?

- What would do with more freedom in your life? What would you learn? What would you create? How would you contribute?