The Obama Administration is implementing controls over unprecedented areas of society for the United States. As the government extends its reach, diverse voices have raised objections to the visible hand of the State – judicial arguments are working their way up to the Supreme Court to challenge the mandatory extension of healthcare to all US citizens; economic arguments proliferate against financial reforms on Wall Street to prevent conflicts like Goldman Sachs taking both sides on the sales of Paulson’s synthetic CDO’s.. Undoubtedly, with an open deep sea spigot spewing crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, once that problem is resolved, further restrictions will be placed on drilling.
But is it not hubris for the government to believe that it should control and regulate these things? The neo-classical economic argument is that governments should interfere only when there is a public good, i.e. it is not in an individual or organizational interest to solve a particular problem. Shouldn’t we just let the events play out and let either markets, companies or individuals resolve these matters? Let’s see what the Arts have to say about these questions.
Sherri Renee Scott’s new show Everyday Rapture introduces us to the wide-eyed story of a Broadway semi-star as she moves from small time Oklahoma to Manhattan. Strutting her vocals and legs, Scott endears us to a proverbial tale – a person struggling to break from the espoused ideals of her conservative upbringing and to reconcile them with the morals of an adopted, cosmopolitan home. AIDS, abortion and fame are a few of the cherished memories she weaves into what one assumes is a semi-biographical story.
At the beginning of the program, we find her balancing two contradictory ethics – “The world was created for me” versus “I am just a speck of dust”. The first ideal plays to the narcissism of New York – demanding self-determinism and unbridled passion to succeed. The second commands a recognition that we move forward only through the communal interplay and dependence on the greater populace. Alone we are blown aimlessly by the universal winds, together we form permanence. True happiness is not found in the glory of an ephemeral Broadway hit or of an afterlife filled with angels. Instead, we find it through daily interactions – the minute joys of being mindful to the raptures we discover everyday. Scott’s show transcends us to this epiphany with glamour, glee and gravitas. It’s a jeweled performance not to be missed.
The final season of Lost completed this past week. Over its six year run, the series tangoed with two primary arguments: 1) Should people be driven by faith or reason to understand the secrets of existence and 2) Are we bound by destiny or do we have the ability to choose the outcomes of our lives. Stranded on a desert island due to a plane crash, the characters warp and weft through the two themes determined to live together and eventually die alone. The mythology is grand with crooked mysteries resulting in humanistic revelations.
Through the episodes, we find ourselves also lost and eventually found in the intricate stories of science fiction, boundless evil and human kindness. At the end of the interlaced plots, the storytellers provide a clear answer to the two arguments – people must balance faith and reason in order to choose their destiny. Although selected by circumstance to arrive on the island, the characters purposefully struggle to be together and choose to overcome their fate by meeting in the next life to reach enlightenment. This is Nirvana – the realization that we thrive only because we are linked and ultimate happiness is not individual gain but collective mindfulness that we are connected.
The government’s role on regulating finance, health care and the environment is contentious because at face none of the underlying issues are legally wrong – banks repeatedly buy and sell the same assets; people can choose not to have insurance; companies need to recover resources to fulfill the population’s needs. Goldman Sachs and British Petroleum may not have done anything illegal, but their motives seem ethically wrong, because they somehow go against our sense of community and need for watching out for each other. The actions are too self-oriented without regard to the concerns of the society that supports these companies and individuals.
Our regulatory and legal landscapes have to catch up with our internal recognition that the world was not created for us alone—we are but specks dust. We can do this by moving beyond the focus on just our desires to connecting with individuals who also suffer or gain from our actions. Banks should not profit from selling an asset that they are also betting against. Energy companies should have an equal array of technology back-ups to halt oil removal as they do to extract it. An individual not carrying health insurance is similar to a driver not having car insurance – a liability to society. Unlike the characters in Lost, we will likely die alone, but we can choose how we live together.
May 31, 2010
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Some thoughts on… Letting Go
I attended a goodbye party of two close colleagues on Friday. They were individuals with whom I have partnered for the past 13 years and who have been coaches, mentors and friends. We all know that our friendship will continue, and so this is not a “goodbye” in any way. But there is a certain melancholy in knowing that we will not be interacting on a daily basis moving forward.
With any departure, whether it is instantaneous (the end of an argument), temporary (the parting of good friends) or permanent (the death of a loved one), there is a sense of loss, of passage, and of change. We know we must spend the appropriate time acknowledging the alterations and understanding the revised world. But equally imperative, we should know not dwell on the past wishing for a revised set of circumstances. In the end, we have to let go and free ourselves from these attachments.
Inherently this is a necessary and difficult action, but why is it so important to let go?
In the musical Yank!, two WWII GI’s meet, fall in love and lose each other through the progression of the war. The show captures the aching for companionship, the longing for fraternity and the desire for purpose of a new, squad of recruits thrown into a drawn-out battle in the South Pacific. The star-crossed heroes attempt to defy the hypocritical strictures of military life that forbids homosexuality and at the same time inherently requires a draft to fulfill its quota of bodies. But this is not a time period for acceptance, and by holding on to the relationship longer than feasible, they create a false reality of stasis and permanence.
In the end, we forget the same-gender relationship of the protagonists, and view the show as symbolic of any individuals unable to live together due to societal circumstances, e.g. race, ethnicity, religion. The production story line is tautly held and the minimalist sets support imagining the varied settings of the two acts. In addition, the generation-appropriate music and lock-step lyrics of the production make the show a welcome entry into the musical theater repertoire. The run at the York Theater has closed, but people should be able to catch the show in its on Broadway reincarnation in the Fall.
Sondheim on Sondheim is a celebration of a Stage giant’s music, genius and wit. Recognized as the reigning composer of musical theater, Sondheim himself provides narrative on his work through the decades. Revealed in this intimate structure is a man who is obsessed with the creation of precise, finely drawn art, and simultaneously one who recognizes the eventual need to free the work to the public for scorn or acclaim.
The narrative is interspersed by performances from a stellar cast headlined by Barbara Cook, Tom Wopat and Vanessa Williams. Cook and Williams shine in their articulation and punctuated delivery of the Sondheim material. Although the high-tech production is distracting and clouds over the music at points, overall the talent of the composer and performers gloriously shines through.
Finally, in Xi’an, China, we heard a story from our guide. She related how two monks – one older and one younger – were taking a pilgrimage to another temple. Walking through the countryside, they encountered a brook through which they needed to wade. At the river-side, there was a young girl also looking to cross. Taking her hand, the older monk walked her through the current to the other side, and then they both bid her goodbye.
Upon reaching the temple by nightfall, the younger monk said, “I must report you now to the others, for you know it is forbidden to touch a woman.” The older man, looked thoughtfully at his companion, put his hand on the youth’s shoulder and replied, “Do as you wish but reflect on your motivation, for I know that I have already let her go.”
By holding on too long to our most precious desires, creations or relationships, we deceive ourselves that we can control the changing environment and alter the world to the best outcome. A song writer unwilling to share their art until it is perfect is analogous to a debater holding to an untenable argument, lovers defying an oppressive reality, a monk dreaming of an alternate path or a child refusing to accept the death of a parent. In all these cases, personal growth is hindered because people refuse to move on.
The fallacy is that we grow by holding on to things more tightly. The important lesson of moving on, is not that we shouldn’t perfect art, fight for love or argue passionately, but is that we are better people by knowing when and how to progress to the next level of learning by letting go of what we cherish and seeing how the external world reacts to our actions. This can be frightening, because it may result in immediate loss
Even though my fellow Principals and friends have left from the practice, by letting go this is an opportunity for them and us to grow.
April 25, 2010
With any departure, whether it is instantaneous (the end of an argument), temporary (the parting of good friends) or permanent (the death of a loved one), there is a sense of loss, of passage, and of change. We know we must spend the appropriate time acknowledging the alterations and understanding the revised world. But equally imperative, we should know not dwell on the past wishing for a revised set of circumstances. In the end, we have to let go and free ourselves from these attachments.
Inherently this is a necessary and difficult action, but why is it so important to let go?
In the musical Yank!, two WWII GI’s meet, fall in love and lose each other through the progression of the war. The show captures the aching for companionship, the longing for fraternity and the desire for purpose of a new, squad of recruits thrown into a drawn-out battle in the South Pacific. The star-crossed heroes attempt to defy the hypocritical strictures of military life that forbids homosexuality and at the same time inherently requires a draft to fulfill its quota of bodies. But this is not a time period for acceptance, and by holding on to the relationship longer than feasible, they create a false reality of stasis and permanence.
In the end, we forget the same-gender relationship of the protagonists, and view the show as symbolic of any individuals unable to live together due to societal circumstances, e.g. race, ethnicity, religion. The production story line is tautly held and the minimalist sets support imagining the varied settings of the two acts. In addition, the generation-appropriate music and lock-step lyrics of the production make the show a welcome entry into the musical theater repertoire. The run at the York Theater has closed, but people should be able to catch the show in its on Broadway reincarnation in the Fall.
Sondheim on Sondheim is a celebration of a Stage giant’s music, genius and wit. Recognized as the reigning composer of musical theater, Sondheim himself provides narrative on his work through the decades. Revealed in this intimate structure is a man who is obsessed with the creation of precise, finely drawn art, and simultaneously one who recognizes the eventual need to free the work to the public for scorn or acclaim.
The narrative is interspersed by performances from a stellar cast headlined by Barbara Cook, Tom Wopat and Vanessa Williams. Cook and Williams shine in their articulation and punctuated delivery of the Sondheim material. Although the high-tech production is distracting and clouds over the music at points, overall the talent of the composer and performers gloriously shines through.
Finally, in Xi’an, China, we heard a story from our guide. She related how two monks – one older and one younger – were taking a pilgrimage to another temple. Walking through the countryside, they encountered a brook through which they needed to wade. At the river-side, there was a young girl also looking to cross. Taking her hand, the older monk walked her through the current to the other side, and then they both bid her goodbye.
Upon reaching the temple by nightfall, the younger monk said, “I must report you now to the others, for you know it is forbidden to touch a woman.” The older man, looked thoughtfully at his companion, put his hand on the youth’s shoulder and replied, “Do as you wish but reflect on your motivation, for I know that I have already let her go.”
By holding on too long to our most precious desires, creations or relationships, we deceive ourselves that we can control the changing environment and alter the world to the best outcome. A song writer unwilling to share their art until it is perfect is analogous to a debater holding to an untenable argument, lovers defying an oppressive reality, a monk dreaming of an alternate path or a child refusing to accept the death of a parent. In all these cases, personal growth is hindered because people refuse to move on.
The fallacy is that we grow by holding on to things more tightly. The important lesson of moving on, is not that we shouldn’t perfect art, fight for love or argue passionately, but is that we are better people by knowing when and how to progress to the next level of learning by letting go of what we cherish and seeing how the external world reacts to our actions. This can be frightening, because it may result in immediate loss
Even though my fellow Principals and friends have left from the practice, by letting go this is an opportunity for them and us to grow.
April 25, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Some thoughts on… Accomplishments
Obama is passing a historic health care bill to cover 30 million more citizens. This is the greatest achievement of his Office so far because it pulls off legislation that defied seventy years of attempt by over 10 Presidents. With our visit to China we completed a personal triumph having finally visited the New7Wonders Foundation's seven wonders of the world. (Pictures below)
Why should we consider both of these activities an accomplishment?
In its “Different Values” campaign, HSBC shows multiple pictures with a common word demonstrating how people may view a similar concept in varied ways. One of these ads is for the word ‘Accomplishment’ showing three pictures – a beauty queen accepting an award, a college graduate, and an astronaut landing on the moon. People may question whether these are actual triumphs, yet each one demonstrates two criteria to deem them as accomplishments – internal achievement and external validation.
A personal desire to succeed or achieve is integral to any victory. Individuals must want to realize a certain dream or moral imperative to bring about an accomplishment. Without this personal desire, nothing can be completed. The astronaut wants to stand on an alternate celestial body, the graduate wishes to gather academic prowess, and the beauty queen wishes to express her perspective. Yet, by itself the individual goal is arbitrary – why did we just visit the seven wonders rather than 8 or 15 or 50?
This is why external validation is also required. There must be some recognition by the general public that the action is sufficiently compelling. A person walking down the street requires personal determination but is likely not viewed by others as a true feat. Our visiting the seven wonders is not a significant act, but it is recognized by an independent body as a challenging deed.
On the other hand, Obama’s accomplishment – moving health care from a privilege to a basic human right – is truly momentous because it demonstrates personal imperative and simultaneously transcends external validation. Many people support the bill and many disagree, yet the legislation is one that cuts through political banter to carry out “the great unfinished business of our society” as described by the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Setting aside Tea-Party protests and last minute wrangling, Speaker Pelosi and the Congress have forged through a bill that defines the moral character of our country.
History writes itself in small details and grand gestures. Bravo to the Government for its grand gesture. Pictures of our small detail are below.
March 21, 2010
The Great Wall (2010)
Petra (2009)
Christ Concepcion (2007)
Taj Mahal (2002)
The Colliseum (2001)
Great Pyramids (1999)
Macchu Picchu (1997)
Chichen-Itza (1995)
Why should we consider both of these activities an accomplishment?
In its “Different Values” campaign, HSBC shows multiple pictures with a common word demonstrating how people may view a similar concept in varied ways. One of these ads is for the word ‘Accomplishment’ showing three pictures – a beauty queen accepting an award, a college graduate, and an astronaut landing on the moon. People may question whether these are actual triumphs, yet each one demonstrates two criteria to deem them as accomplishments – internal achievement and external validation.
A personal desire to succeed or achieve is integral to any victory. Individuals must want to realize a certain dream or moral imperative to bring about an accomplishment. Without this personal desire, nothing can be completed. The astronaut wants to stand on an alternate celestial body, the graduate wishes to gather academic prowess, and the beauty queen wishes to express her perspective. Yet, by itself the individual goal is arbitrary – why did we just visit the seven wonders rather than 8 or 15 or 50?
This is why external validation is also required. There must be some recognition by the general public that the action is sufficiently compelling. A person walking down the street requires personal determination but is likely not viewed by others as a true feat. Our visiting the seven wonders is not a significant act, but it is recognized by an independent body as a challenging deed.
On the other hand, Obama’s accomplishment – moving health care from a privilege to a basic human right – is truly momentous because it demonstrates personal imperative and simultaneously transcends external validation. Many people support the bill and many disagree, yet the legislation is one that cuts through political banter to carry out “the great unfinished business of our society” as described by the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Setting aside Tea-Party protests and last minute wrangling, Speaker Pelosi and the Congress have forged through a bill that defines the moral character of our country.
History writes itself in small details and grand gestures. Bravo to the Government for its grand gesture. Pictures of our small detail are below.
March 21, 2010
The Great Wall (2010)
Petra (2009)
Christ Concepcion (2007)
Taj Mahal (2002)
The Colliseum (2001)
Great Pyramids (1999)
Macchu Picchu (1997)
Chichen-Itza (1995)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)