Aliens and Corporate Governance

Too often lately, as I read the paper, watch and listen to the news, and talk to certain people, I feel like an alien, like I’m from a different world, a different planet altogether.  Perhaps you’ve had that feeling, too?  It’s very strange.  People speak English, dress normally, even talk about things and ideas I think I recognize, but in reality they’re speaking gibberish and what they’re talking about is so twisted as to be unrecognizable.  Perhaps you’ve experienced this, too?

For example, we have some men talking about their sisters, wives, daughters and other female friends, relatives and acquaintances who they supposedly love and care about, as if these women were stupid, incompetent sluts incapable of making decisions about their own bodies. It’s strange, since these men claim to be Republicans but in reality, they are Taliban Ayatollahs.  They claim to be for freedom, justice and equality for all, yet they would deny certain people the protection of our laws, justice and equality.

Another example, and there are too, many to include here, is Corporate Governance.  Corporations are allegedly governed by their share-holders at annual meetings.  This semblance of democracy is one of the justifications for allowing corporations all the power and leeway they have.  Here is the strangeness and unreality: we say it’s one share, one vote, but in actuality, it’s blocks of shares equal control; one share is meaningless.  Like so many aspects of our so-called democracy, corporate governance is rigged in favor of the large shareholders. Who are these ‘large shareholders’? 

Whoever they are, the large shareholders at Exxon Mobil just voted to boost their Chairman and CEO’s compensation package by 17% from its current $25.2 million a year—a year, one person $25.2 million a year, up by 17%!  (Of course the Chairman will be giving most of his increase to good causes like the Sierra Club, Common Cause and Planned Parenthood.  Not!)  Who are the people who voted for this?  What planet are they from?  Or, are they from this planet and I, the alien?

A paradox of this situation is that the pension funds of teachers, firefighters, police, unions and corporate retirees are usually the biggest share holders.  Do these folks really think one person should have $25.2 million +17% (I’m too lazy to do the math)? What planet are they from?  Or, are they from this planet and I, the alien?

I get that this is complex, but really, it isn’t that difficult to see that this is not right; is it?  The shareholders need to get real.  It has to start somewhere. I’m going to check into who’s administering my pension fund and let them know what I think.  Perhaps you will, too.  It will feel as if we’re aliens at first, but maybe, eventually, we’ll make them the aliens.

A Car Elevator in His Home

A car elevator in one of his six homes.  A multi-millionaire. A man who will not condemn crazy talk about secession and moon colonies from his fellow party leaders. A man who thinks that managing a financial arbitrage business – a business that manufactures and produces nothing, qualifies him to manage the US government.  Is this the kind of man that represents the average voter?  Is this man qualified to be President of the USA? 

If he were not white and the President not black, wouldn’t those things – especially the car elevator in his house, instantly eliminate him from consideration by most voters, especially the white males who favor him over the President 62%-38%?  Is there anything but racism, fear and prejudice at work in those numbers? 

And why is that fact, the nearly naked racism, not being spoken of in the media?  Why does the media pretend that racism is not present?  Why does the media bother to talk about other “issues” while ignoring the real issue? How is it that the facts about the President’s policy successes are rarely spoken of by the media or the “man in the street”?  Why do the polls show a “tight race”?  Are people really that crazy, out of touch and prejudiced?  Apparently, if the polls are to be believed. 

If they weren’t that crazy, out of touch and prejudiced, wouldn’t they be turned off by a man with a car elevator in one of his six homes, a multi-millionaire, a man who will not condemn crazy talk about secession and moon colonies from his fellow party leaders; a man who thinks that managing a financial arbitrage business – a business that manufactures and produces nothing, qualifies him to manage the US government?  Wouldn’t all of that turn-off the “average” voter, make them wonder how such a man could represent them, their lives, families and ideals?  Has the political game so changed?  Apparently it has.

Sports Fans and Referees

Perhaps you’ve noticed as I have that a lot of people deep into sports, knowing all about the players, statistics, history and standings, are less into issues and problems in society such as corruption, abuse, environmental degradation, addiction and poverty.  They tend to poo poo those social things as pesky perpetual annoyances that will always be there and that no one can do anything about anyway.  As if all the energy and passion they pour into sports can affect the outcome of the game.

Of course it’s possible to be a sports fan and still contribute to dealing with the issues and problems in society.  It doesn’t have to be either sports or society; it can be both sports and society.  It’s just that it tends not to be both sports and society. It tends to be either sports or society for a large majority of white males and for white women too, as equality spreads, to them [They are now equal opportunity drunks as well].

What if all that energy and passion people pour into sports was devoted to building community, helping one another and addressing the issues and problems in society?  Would we find ways to convert the issues and problems in society to opportunities for growth, cooperation and community?  I think we would.  What if only a quarter, 25%,  all that energy and passion people pour into sports was devoted to building community, helping one another and addressing the issues and problems in society?  We’d still find new ways to convert the issues and problems in society to opportunities for growth, cooperation and community, wouldn’t we?  Again, it’s not about either sports or community, but both sports and community.

Also, many sports fans tend to be laissez fare or against government.  They’re with Reagan that government is the problem, that government at all levels is too, big, and we’d be better off without government.  OK, consider this, sports fans, what would your favorite game be like without a referee…?  Or with a corrupt ref, or with a ref who favored one side, or a ref who was a ref but didn’t believe refers were really necessary?  What would happen to the game then?

If nothing else, government has the role of ref in society.  But since Reagan and as we move toward the TParty view, we have refs—people running government, who don’t believe in refs and don’t think refs are really necessary.  So, what’s happening to the game without refs?  Look around you: craziness, absurdity, irrationality. The game is falling apart.  The extreme fans are on the field, breaking all the rules.  No refs, no game.

Statist Language

Another choice most of us are aware of when we stop to think about it (but rarely do we stop and think) is our choice of words.  The language we use, the choice of words, sets up our expectations and other people’s reactions to us.  Duh! You say.  I know that.  Yes.  But we don’t, won’t or can’t be constantly aware of our language.  However, we can be more aware though, if we want to and work at it a little.  The pay-offs make the extra effort worthwhile.

Take what Brian Martin calls “Statist Language” in his eponymous article in the October, 2009,  ETC: A Review of General Semantics.  “It is a long-standing convention that the name of a country refers to its government or some action by sections of that government.  For example, ‘Iraq invades Kuwait’ means that Iraqi military forces—under the control of the government of Iraq, in particular Saddam Hussein—invaded the territory known as Kuwait.

“The trouble with this formulation is that ‘Iraq’ suggests that the entire country is a unified whole—in particular, that the government and the people are united.  Such statement can be seriously misleading.  The linguistic shorthand of ‘Iraq invaded Kuwait’ hides political differences within Iraq, especially omitting the existence of opposition to the government.”  Apply this to the US.  “Americans to stay in Afghanistan for Ten More Years.”  Really?  That’s not what I want, nor what you want.  So the use of the statist language “Americans” is seriously misleading.

“The use of country names for government actions can be called ‘statist language’: it linguistically attributes the actions of the state—the government and, especially, the leading figures in the government—to the people, to an entire society.  It makes it awkward to talk about internal tensions or dissent.”  “Awkward” Martin says.  That’s polite.  It makes it almost impossible not only to talk about internal tensions and dissent, but to even think about them. 

The effect of “statist” language/thinking applies to everything, not just states.  Use the term: “Republican” or “Democrat” or “Unions” or “Gays”.  What happens?  All Republicans, Democrats, Unions and Gays are lumped together; no shades of grey nor ranges of opinion, nor space for people to be different.  Everyone lumped together and not a very effective nor efficient way to think and talk about human beings.

The way to deal with this ineffective and inefficient phenomena of “statist language” and “lumping” is to be aware we’re doing it, chose not to do it, and use alternatives.  Once again, this takes self awareness and a desire to change but the pay-off in terms of less blaming, polarization and stress, and more community, consensus and actual problem solving, makes the effort worthwhile.  Instead of saying “Republicans,” and lumping all so-called Republicans into the same heap, try saying things like: “TParty Republicans,” or “the RNC,” or “wealthy Republicans,” or “older, Jewish Republicans.” 

Adjectives help avoid the lumping, clarify our thinking and make communication and action more effective and efficient, reducing polarization, blaming and stress.  Try it.  Not only will you feel better about the Republicans, but you’ll be doing God’s work.  After all, that’s why God invented adjectives, to help us think more clearly and work together better.  God loves adjectives.  She’s not happy with “statist language” and “lumping.”

Beyond the Melting Pot

But, just because American society is beyond the melting pot, and people want to express their unique backgrounds and aspirations [which is a good thing, fine and healthy], doesn’t mean we have to have political polarization, exclusion, lack of consensus and compromise, demonization of those who disagree or are different, and rampant incivility. 

It is quite possible for us to get along, agree on the important things like mutual respect, inclusion, civility, consensus, compromise and dialogue and be very, even extremely different from one another.  In fact, all of America’s most cherished ideals are about that very thing—epluribus unum—out of many, one. 

We have a choice about which goal and which set of behaviors we support: inclusion or exclusion, mutual respect or demonizing, civility or incivility, dialogue or stone-walling. First and foremost, it is an individual choice.

The changes in communication technology Marlow described and noted in yesterday’s post, are not discrete, that is, the circular oral norms, have not been completely erased by the linear, writing norms, nor have either of them been erased by the electronic norms.  All three co-exist and we use all three in different situations.  Here too, we have a choice about using the technology that is most supportive of our goals: inclusion or exclusion, mutual respect or demonizing, civility or incivility, dialogue or stone-walling. This choice too, is first and foremost, an individual choice.

Choice: we can be passive victims of technological evolution and nasty political mishigas - which pretty much originates with one side, or we can be proactive decision makers and choose, no matter what the seeming conditions, behaviors that support a world that works for everyone and everything.

Society is a collection of individuals and groups.  It can change from the top-down, or the bottom-up.  In democracies, even a so-called democracy like ours, society usually begins to change from the bottom-up, then the ‘up’ catches wise and rides the horse in the direction it’s going.

My choice and your choice matter.

Gridlock in DC and Evolving Patterns of Communications

I came across an interesting explanation of the USA’s present polarization and inability to communicate in the October, 2009 edition of ETC: A Review of General Semantics.

Eugene Marlow in an article, “Beyond Electronics: A Speculation on a New Media Age,” says: “…every phase of our communications evolution has resulted in a particular shape that defines the characteristics of that society.  For example, early man, relying primarily on body language and orality to communicate, evolved a round-shaped, circular society [because that made communication easier and more effective].  Those in the circle were part of the tribe; those outside, were not. Much of their architecture was round [consider Stonehenge and the yurt].  Much in their environment was round: the sun, the moon, the eyes, the mouth, a woman’s breasts, a pregnant woman’s belly.  It is nature overall—there are not straight lines in nature.

“Early writing societies evolved a hierarchical, pyramidal shape, with those at the top in charge and everyone else beholden to the elite who could read and write.  Writing dissolved the relative equanimity of tribal life and the rule of nature by creating the possibility of dictatorships and the rule of man.  Writing created the dominance of the straight line found in many aspects of human life [but not in Nature].

“The [present] electronic age and the acceleration of information dissemination to close to the speed of light usher in a re-shaping of the hierarchical structure.  The edges of societies’ structure are more malleable, and the direction of information flows in many directions, not merely from top to bottom.  The desire for ‘cultural specialness’ and the desire to express in as many ways as possible that specialness—essentially the antithesis of the ‘melting pot’ concept of the early twentieth century—has become even more present in the second half of the twentieth” and in our own time.

To me, Marlow’s ideas suggest that we are participating in the dissolution of old shapes and patterns of social organization and their recombination in new ways such as what Marlow calls “360 – 24/7” that return us to some of the ‘worse,’ exclusionary aspects of tribal culture—360 degrees, 24 hours, 7 days a week.  The fringes, what Marlow called the “malleable edges” of society are more active, more visible and their “desire for ‘cultural specialness’ and the desire to express in as many ways as possible that specialness—essentially the antithesis of the ‘melting pot’ concept of the early twentieth century [which gave cohesion, discipline and cooperation to American society]—has become even more present.”  Thus the USA’s present polarization and inability to communicate.

What is the Body? 14

The following series of posts, begun on May first, are taken from Ken Wapnick’s, Journey Through the Workbook of a Course in Miracles, Vol. Seven, pages 69-72.  They represent a radical alternative to our ‘normal’, everyday view of the human body and our traditional views of spirituality.  This view is both horrifying and exhilarating.  See what you think.   It’s best not to swallow these ideas whole, nor reject them out of hand.  What’s best is to chew them over, mull them and reflect upon the rare occasions when the ideas seem to explain your experience.  The Course itself is believed to be channeled by Jesus as a correction to what’s been done with his ideas.

“’Your safety lies in truth, and not in lies.’  This is the principle of the Atonement. We, however, told the Holy Spirit that we do not believe Him, for our safety lies not There but in our separated self—the ego and its cherished body. ‘Love is your safety.  Fear does not exist. Identify with love, and you are safe.  Identify with love and you are home. Identify with love, and find your Self.’

“On a practical basis this means identifying with love by reflecting it throughout the day: recognizing that you and I do not have separate and conflicting purposes.  Thus does forgiveness establish the awareness of our shared goal: finding the ‘ark of safety’ in which is found the fulfillment of God’s promise to His Son.  We close with the following passage on this newly chosen purpose for the body:

“’Your home is built upon your brother’s health, upon his happiness, his sinlessness, and everything his Father promised him.  No secret promise you have made instead has shaken the Foundation of his home.  The winds will blow upon it and the rain will beat against it, but with no effect. The world will wash away and yet this house will stand forever, for its strength lies not within itself alone.

“’ It is the ark of safety, resting on God’s promise that His Son is safe forever in Himself.  What gap can interpose itself between the safety of this shelter and its Source?  From here the body can be seen as what it is, and neither less nor more in worth than the extent to which it can be used to liberate God’s Son unto his home.  And with this holy purpose is it made a home of holiness a little while, because it shares your Father’s Will with you.’”