Early September, Part I - Fear the most

Earlier, I took a few moments to think about the topic of fear. You can find that discussion, here: http://ntambe.blogspot.com/2009/05/exploring-fear.html.

Here's an excerpt:
"...Loneliness is [what I fear], and death by extension. A world alone is one that I would never want to live in. I'm damn sure that fear isn't natural, I know exactly where it comes from.

But, even if I understand fear more clearly now, this wishy-washy idea of "alignment" isn't any easier. But luckily, we're human. I'm convinced that the human spirit is strong enough to do almost anything. In fact, when the human spirit triumphs, it makes me feel fearless. Even if only for a quickly passing moment."

I went to Chicago on Friday. I decided to stay the evening and fly back to Detroit on Saturday morning. Obviously, I needed a place to stay. I had three options: 1) Drop some money for a hotel room, 2) Stay out all night, 3)Find a friend to stay with. A friend from work, offered me a couch for the night in an e-mail earlier that week.

I declined. I went ahead and booked a hotel, even though she had offered. I didn't know why at the time.

I though to myself that I politely declined because I didn't want to inconvenience her. After all, I'd pretty much be staying on her couch for 3-5 hours and leaving extremely early the next morning. I thought, I was being considerate...rather, I convinced myself of it.

What I thought about Friday evening--ironically, I was walking to see Jersey Boys at the theater, alone, at the time--what that I had declined because I was scared. Even though she had offered, I was afraid she would angered by the request, refuse or think poorly of me if I had asked. In other words, I was avoiding making a request of her (a sort of confrontation, I suppose) and rejection. Why? Because rejection is the step-sister of loneliness.

Why do I bring this up? I don't know, maybe it's just for my own reflection. But also, I think it's terrific that these fears show symptoms. It's just hard to see them. And then admit them. Then do something about them. Really tough stuff.

So I guess it was nice that everyone had left town to go to Ann Arbor, my phone died--so I couldn't contact my colleagues after the show to meet up, and nobody else I had tried to make plans with had called me back. Otherwise, I would've never thought about this. But, it was pretty scary being by myself...I had felt pretty lame. As it turns out, being alone was exactly what I needed to understand why I get so anxious about loneliness.

Is that irony, coincidence or perfectly sensible? Sensible, I think.

PS - Jersey Boys, a pretty good show. Quite a pleasant surprise.

Innovation, Pressure and Leadership

I've been listening to a lot of material about innovation lately. There's one consensus thought: innovation takes discipline. It takes the management of inspiration and persistence, so they say. And, I agree. To be creative--to have good ideas which are valuable in people's lives--is useless if it happens randomly or only in sporadic surges of ideating. Innovation is valuable, if a problem-solver can produce an innovative by recalling a process, instead of just being dependent on unpredictable spurts of creativity. That process takes persistence.

I've also been living in a world where pressure rules. There's never enough time to complete a task in a manner that's comfortable. Everyone works in a hurry because it consumes less resources and prevents opportunities from extinguishing. Also, groups of people seem like they are hardly motivated without pressure.

The problem is, rushing doesn't produce innovation. I suppose it might--because competition might require innovation--but pressure seems unlikely to guarantee truly brilliant innovation because there's no opportunity for experimenting, exploration or risk-taking while under tight deadlines or immense pressure. I suppose innovation MIGHT happen, but in the random, sporadic way. Not the cultivated, systematic way. That cultivated innovation--through discipline--is the kind of innovation I'm after.

So, there are contrary forces here: the need to innovate and the pressures of organization(constraints of time, resources or anti-inspiring missions). So, in a way...maybe it's not typical to lean towards innovation. It's not rational to fly in the face of pressures and constraints. Maybe that's why it takes "leaders" to transform. Maybe that's why it takes the "crazies" to innovate.

I do have quite an admiration for the leadership that entrepreneurs can provide, they relentlessly do what is most difficult. And, those whose creativity lies in creative processes instead of creative talent...those are the people that I'd bet my marbles on.

What was Gandhi's intent?

It's not just the social justice crowd that adheres to or at least proclaims that one must "be the change they wish to see in the world". Lots of people advance this idea. But, I wonder, what exactly did Gandhi mean when he said this?

Most of the idea is simple enough "[blank] the change you wish to see in the world", that's pretty straight forward. But what exactly did he mean when he said "be"? I wonder, what was the nature of this imperative. Was it a suggestion, a compulsion to action or simply a state of mind or spirit to be in? Let me explain.

I think there's two ways to interpret the verb in the quotation. The more common understanding, I suspect, is a call to arms by Gandhi. He meant for us to go out and do things in the world. To live the change we wish to see by performing deeds and actions. He meant for us to focus on our actions, strongly. This is a command of the deepest sort--to be--make agitation and action your existence. He meant for us to transform the world through service.

Or did he?

Did Gandhi put character in front of action in his advice? Perhaps Gandhi, when using the verb "be", deliberately did NOT provide a call to arms and instead urged people at an individual level to live more virtuously. In other words, maybe "be" meant to have more character. His advice could have been to live better more noble lives and change the world by living an example that others could follow.

Surely, many will understandably complain about my analysis because Gandhi obviously meant to do both or his idea could reasonably be extended to include both interpretations. But, his primary motivation is what concerns me because it seems to underpin his philosophy on change...what's in the drivers seat, changing institutions or changing people? Again, a complicated question because the two are symbiotic actors.

Which interpretation would Gandhi advocate for?

I bring this up because of some reading I've been doing--The US Army Leadership Field Manual. The Army believes the following: Be, Know, Do. This roughly means, have character, have competence, combine the two through action. For the Army, the two interpretations outlined above are different ideas (Be and Do). I wonder if Gandhi felt the same way.

Nevertheless, this quote has lost so much value when people recite it. I really believe that motivational speakers and the like say it without thinking really critically about what it means. As I hope to have demonstrated above, it can mean radically different things.

Eating our Vegetables

There was a question in President Obama's news conference Wednesday night, in fact a them, about what Americans are going to have to sacrifice. The President gave a nonsensical, straw-manned response. I'll liken it to the following (I'm summarizing and paraphrasing, of course):

Question: What will the public have to sacrifice, you've talked a lot about what they are going to get...but what are the things we'll have to give up?

Answer: We'll have to give up having healthcare services we don't need.
We'll have to give up the old way of doing things, we'll have to give up the status quo.
You can find a transcript, here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/22/transcript_of_obama_prime-time.html

I was flummoxed by the response. I know our President isn't a healthcare professional or a scientist, but would it have killed him to talk about some things that are obvious? For example, would it have been a stretch for him to say that Americans are going to have to eat healthier, exercise more and manage stress better? Isn't it obvious that we're going to have to see our doctors for routine checkup instead of letting health problems fester until they are emergencies?

I think he should've. Why? Because it's the truth. I thin under any new system, citizens must take care of themselves better. We'll have to change to living healthier lifestyles. Is that so controversial? For the President to neglect such narratives--discussions of sacrifice--is a deficiency in leadership. It is dishonest, deceptive and doesn't not provide appropriate expectations for a difficult road ahead.

President Obama should've told us to put down the doughnut. If he had, wouldn't you have agreed with him?

Like Catching Fireflies

There is god in art, I think. In images, in movement, in sound in color and words. Which is why we like it so much or so desperately want it. What's not to desire of something with beauty or grace? The rest can be taught, but beauty and grace can only be gifted and maybe discovered. Why else would the things that are essentially majestic usually be natural, spontaneous or dreamed in a rage of creativity?

It's as if the artist--of whichever medium--is catching fireflies. We catch them one by one and put them in shiny mason jars when the weather is just right. And like fireflies, it's wonderful and reasonable and uplifting to have those fireflies held in those jars, even though we know that's not where they belong. They belong in nature, where god created them. I think art is meant to be free.

If it isn't, it makes me feel much better about not being able to catch a poem and cage it in a notebook, in years. It's gotta be okay to borrow creativity for awhile, though.

And, I don't know how I feel about god (though I use the idea freely here) whether or not a god exists or has relevance in our day-to-day lives outside of faith--or if any of it even matters. But if that god was responsible for making things like art, friendship, freedom or souls and their mates...that god has to be a gracious one.
-----------------------------------------------
We'll make scribbles in the morning soil,
And a put a canvas on the afternoon squall.
In the evening shaking like the first tree we see,
Before recording the whistling of the stars,
Oh...what a masterpiece we'll make.

Governance 2.0? and reviewing Paul Light's a Government Ill Executed

Whether or not I've blogged about this before, I often think it: our reconstruction of institutions for governance are outpaced by our increasing and increased demands on institutions for governance. Our problems are becoming more difficult to solve just as our capacity for solving those problems lags behind. I'll take this as truth because I've read about it quite a bit in Paul Light's A Government Ill Executed, I've heard about it from people who know governance, I've witnessed it myself and it's evidenced in small things like crumbling bridges, baffling government websites and inept paper trails.

So, what do we need to do to get governance ready for new problems?

First, what are the tell-tale signs of new breeds of problems?

Interdisciplinary Complexity - We're not in Kansas anymore. Problems we have are large and difficult, often requiring multi and interdisciplinary problem solving approaches. For example, protecting our borders requires addressing illegal immigration, drug smuggling, food safety, the mapping of terrorist networks, financial intervention etc...only to name a few. This one example encapsulates many different disciplines and issues. Moreover, many of these components are intertwined in other government missions (food saftey is related to public health, etc.).

Data Centered - The problems now have to be addressed in the most cheap, effective, and non-intrusive way possible. On top of that there's a tremendous amount of data that's able to be collected. On top of that, performance is measured quantitatively (my guess that it's a borrowing from the financial system, for better or worse). All of this requires data at all steps in the problem-solving process.

Speed, but - Things move fast. If problems aren't addressed quickly, the nature of the problem will change. At the same time a lot of problems require long term strategy, planning or oversight. So, speed must be balance with long-term circumstances...which is really hard, in my opinion.

Subject to democracy - As constituents, we have access to a lot of information. Because of this there can be a tremendous amount of scrutiny from interest-groups, the educated public or the public at large. So, governmance structures not only need to be able to withstand scrutiny but also filter out irrelevant or politicized criticism and leverage increased exposure of government work to aid in problem solving. Institutions of governance need to be able to know when to say "we're wrong", "you're wrong" and "we could use your help". This issue is beyond public relations, it's more appropriate to consider this issue public integration because the public is inolved in governance from day 0.

Resource constrained - Anyone and everyone bashes institutions of governance. This rhetoric is characterized by the suggestion of big, bloated government or in the assertion of extended individual rights at the cost of the good of the republic. As a result governance organizations have to d more with less. Perhaps once their performance is elevated or better recognized resources will follow, but for now, they've gotta do more with less, god forbid Americans don't get another tax cut or get pork barrel spending in their state or district.

There are probably other qualities.

So, what to do? A first step (and I agree with Light here) reorganize the government to center around missions, not functions. What is within the purview of the government, what are the most important priorities? Government agencies have inertia and should be moving forward not based on what prior needs were but on what future needs are going to be.

Clean up the data and fix up the portals. There's a LOT of information, but it needs to be better organized so that governments and the public can use it better. Otherwise, why have it in the first place? With this goes, triage. Creating systems that allow valuable public interaction not only keep the public at bay regarding issues that don't concern them, but it also puts the public comfortably in the center of the debate in issues which their involvement matters greatly.

I have to think about this more.

Reviewing Paul Light's A Government Ill Executed:

An important book which sharply addresses one central question...what's the deal with the Federal Civil Service. It lacks an in-depth historical perspective as to why the Federal Civil Service came to be this way just as it only has a brief list of prescriptions. It's strength is explaining the situation on the ground, right now. And, by golly, the situation is dire.

A particular treat was analysis surrounding particular areas of reform and the difficulties those reforms might bring. Light had a particularly keen insight about streamlining the Federal Civil Service. It's not simply about cutting staff and resources. It's about trimming layers of management and moving resources way from the top of the hierarchy and towards the front-lines, where resources matter most. He also unveiled another issue, the size of the "shadow" contractor workforce, which most tend to underrate.

Light's prescriptions, though brief, are clear. The educated reader could easily piece together a slew of ideas by simply reading the analysis he provides. Whether Light does this to keep the page count low or to avoid partisan overtures is irrelevant, his text is well researched, candid and urgent. Light keeps it non-partisan but like most Americans his tone is pro-good governance.

His most important call to us is not issue specific. He bring momentum to the idea that piecemeal reform just won't do anymore and that we need a comprehensive, non-partisan, civil-service reform agenda. I sincerely hope that's a call that American's and America's elected officials will take action towards.

Stories in sacrifice

How can we possibly learn to do something that has the appearance of being against individual interest?

Well, here's a place to start. Why make a sacrifice? Of course, these are interrelated, but in my mind they are distinguishable cases.

-For someone else: an individual or group sacrifices for the benefit for another individual or group. (A parent commutes a longer distance so that their children can attend a better public school)

-For themselves: an individual sacrifices so they can ultimately benefit. (I sacrifice an extra helping of cake so that my health gains)

-For the future: An individual or group sacrifices so that there will be utility in the future. (A company invests in a pension fund)

Now, another assumption: this behavior is learned. Even if it's not, we make an effort to teach it, and those interventions seem like they might have a chance at forcing someone to sacrifice in an involuntary manner--which causes sacrifice to happen even if it's not dictated by the conscience of the sacrificer.

So, there are ways of sacrificing, and that behavior is [at least partially] learned or directed. There are other ways of influencing behavior, like coercion or incentives. And there are times when people sacrifice when they don't HAVE to...like giving change in your pocket to someone on the street. So why do people sacrifice when they don't have to?

Perhaps it's a question of assigning value. Maybe people see the option of sacrifice as providing more value to another person or in the long-run. This is plausible, because I'm skeptical of this suggestion because individuals as consumers have so much difficulty placing value on the choices they make or the resources they have. If value is at the core of this myster, we'd have to tepidly assume that people are extremely rational--to the point of controlling their primary urges--right?

Persuasion is another problematic explanation. Simply put, if people make sacrifices because of persuasion, they can also be persuaded out of making sacrifices or be persuaded into making bad sacrifices. Which, seems to stand up to reality I concede.

Some sacrifices seem to just happen, whcih means it's in the nature of some people in some circumstances to sacrifice or that sacrificing can be learned/cultivated.

I don't know exactly how that teaching/learning happens. I think it's by example. I just know it's important...many of our public policies will need sacrifice to be successful. When people don't sacrifice, it seems like non-optimal outcomes happens...if all that happens is take-take-take, there eventually won't be enough left to give, right?

Sheesh, what a random thought-experiment. So much for the vignettes.

The moment we stop changing

My father was trying to explain to me about a moment that happens in one's life, the moment you stop changing. It's the time you just get tired, he said, where gritting your teeth is just too laborious and apathy is not only the easy, but preferred course. It's a point, he made it seem, where an individual is so ingrained in his own identity that it's no longer malleable.

If he's correct, I hope that I have 100 years before that day. It wouldn't be fun, not growing and staying sharp. Besides that, at that moment the stunted individual becomes a danger to those around him.

If one can no longer change--that is to say become better or even just adapt--that individual starts narrowing the circumstances in which he can function in the world, as a happy healthy human being. If you lose the ability to change, you lose the capacity to make the most out of life, which seems like misery. It seems like the beginning of road which leads to hopelessness.

I want to work really hard to stay flexible and be able to change. I think that's what youth is. We all should keep adapting, growing...trying to because we are not perfect beings. We are not god.

What's love got to do with it?

The last time I saw the phrase in text, it was looking up lyrics to a popular Fat Joe single. And, maybe he was onto something and maybe he just liked the rhyme. Nevertheless, the line finishes: "it should be about us, it should be about trust, babe".

Logic would suggest that love either has something to do with it, or it has nothing to do with it. This is of course not necessarily what human would suggest...it's much more complicated then that.

Lately, I've been thinking that successful, fulfilling marriages and love are divorced concepts. (Note that I've been thinking about this sort of thing because of the stuff I've been reading and the engaged/newlywed couples I've been around, not to mention marriages I've been attending or hearing about). What does one really have to do with the other, besides the notion that in the contemporary western tradition loves sometimes leads to marriage.

In what I've been reading and observing however, it seems like love has little to with what helps couples go the distance. It seems more the case that couples who are committed, diligent, flexible and adaptive are the ones that make it. Love certainly seems to provide energy and motivation, but in the big scheme of things is love really more than a very small part of what constitutes lasting relationships? Love doesn't pay the bills, does it?

I guess it just seems like there are bigger things at play then love. At times, perceptions of love make about as much sense to me as perceptions of money. There's so much money in the world, it's probably one of the most common things around. But, yet it's written up at the final destination for satisfaction. Just like love. People obsess about love. It's not just that love has it's place in our lives...it consumes. People fall out of love and relationships end. People say loving each other wasn't enough, so relationships end. So, how much does it really matter?

But the obsession around love, makes me feel like it matters. There's so much buzz about love--that seems timeless, genuine and pure--it prevents me from being totally skeptical about love as an idea. The prospect of the feeling, of the supposed state of mind, keep me a romantic. And, I think it does that to many people, even though it doesn't make sense.

If love didn't matter, wouldn't we have given up on the love idea by now? Love and romance have been present in literature forever--though it's connotation and meaning have surely changed over time--so does that mean it's something that has real value?

I mean, I want it to matter. And, I don't think I'm alone in this, nor do I think this desire is solely cultural or generational. It's something we hope for, even if it's not a game-changer in lasting relationships. And perhaps that's why it's so important, not because it has "anything to do with" but because it sustains hope. And maybe hope isn't all we need either, but I think hope is one of those things I'm willing to accept, nearly blindly, as something that could have a lot to do with the good stuff.

"The Joy of Having Less"

I was have an e-mail chat with a few friends about this article, it's on a NYTimes.com blog. Two friends had this to say in response:

MS-
does a simpler life necessarily mean one alone or at a great distance from those one loves? is this a key ingredient or potentially complicating element?

i can find myself in a blissful thoreauvian state where i want to count beans and listen to nature. and then i can find myself feeling like an anne sexton poem where i want to fuse my bones to another person or series of person in order to feel alive.

JH-
I also have some criticism regarding the fact that not everyone's socioeconomic situations lend themselves to being able to up and move. And, I too am a person who needs to be surrounded by people that I know and love but at the same time I really enjoy solitude and independence. It's a balance. I do think that different types of people reading an essay like this can pull what they are inspired by into their own experience -- what better can an essay do than that?

Me-
I think you're knocking on the door of something interesting and controversial, here:

"I do think that different types of people reading an essay like this can pull what they are inspired by into their own experience -- what better can an essay do than that?"

Forgive me if I'm interpreting incorrectly, but I think you mean--perhaps implicitly--that people can kind of take things and their own experiences determines what makes them happy. That happiness is something determined by an individual or at an individual level. Different people like different things. Maybe you didn't mean this towards "what makes a happy life?" at all, or didn't mean it as strongly as I've put it...but I'll leave it that way to illustrate a contrasting viewpoint.

I think it's an open question: are people made happy by a similar menu of activities, occurrences, habits or behaviors or does the pursuit of happiness depend mostly on the individual? I'm not so sure that individual characteristics matter. Why? Because it seems like the "happy people" have many activities, occurrences, habits and behaviors in common...a few simple things seem to make them happy, like some of the following:

Have good friends
Have work that you enjoy or find meaningful
Show love and commitment to your family and have sex with your spouse, often.
Have proper rest and nutrition
Give back to your community
Learn
Exercise
Live a life without excess
Follow the golden rule

The list goes on, but not for very long. And I'd like to emphasize...these things are pretty darn simple, no? They're almost timeless, which in my mind makes them more applicable and believable.

But, I think there's an argument to be made for people discovering and finding what makes them happy. I'll let someone else make it if it pleases them. If not, we wasted too much time agonizing over majors and careers ;)="http:>

Quick thought about weddings

Quickly, my attitudes about weddings changed a bit this weekend. They are not, steely affairs where the Bride's posse relinquishes the ability to be caretakers of the daughter and the demarcation of the Groom's buddies losing a direct link to their friend. This sentiment seems silly, yes, but believe me...it's all the more real the closer you get to the officiated parties.

Rather, weddings are a treasure of a celebration. They commemorate a timeless, sacred human bond of one person to another. That's a big deal, whether it's between friends, partners, or family members, because those bonds--ones that really bind--don't come around all that often.

I was mistaken for interpreting weddings as a moment for the splitting and suturing of relationships into a new whole. They are rather the celebration of something anew, instead of rearranging lives they are instances where a new, two-seated life is created.

A straight-forward observation, yes. Was a little slow on the uptake.

Concluding Thoughts on Peru

I noticed immediately, the idiosyncracy that distinguishes the USA from Peru. It wasn't even difficult. All it took was a staple of our culture: semi-fast food.

I was at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, waiting for a signature. I'd come to expect that counter service at places like Cosi would be decent at best. Most of the folks that have taken my order there, at any location across the country, don't seem to take pride in what they're doing. The same goes at 4/5 similar establishments. The woman didn't look me in the eye and she stuck to the script.

This is worlds apart from Peru. The people in Peru don't stick to the script, they make mistakes. They look you in the eye, and they have sincerety in their voices when they speak with you. Of course, this might have been a product of necessity (since we were gringos and people could barely understand our spanish)...but I don't think it was. In Peru every meal was fresh and everyone seemed to take pride in their service. All places were slow serving and they had limited menus unless the establishments had obviously western influence. Often times the owner/proprietor would be sitting with guests and would come to check on us, greet us at the door and generally be visible.

The difference in food service between the countries indicates a lot. The difference indicates our priorities as cultures, I think.

Peruvians really seem to value relationships, quality and intimate person interaction. In the USA we seem to value choice, predictability and efficiency. Both campus are obviously legitimate, but different.

I think our cultures could stand to learn from eachother. Which is hard for us in America to do because of our status in the world. We lead many things in the world, so we don't always get to learn from the cultures we're influencing...but we must. We're certainly not perfect here, even though there's a tremendous amount of pragamatism and idealism in our culture.

But as much as we're not perfect, we are leaders who yield strong influence abroad. Our music, our language and our style is everywhere. Our instutiutions are ever-present: democracy, republican government, ESPN...whatever. The world is still watching us.

Because of that influence and leadership we still hold, at least in the cultural and political realm, even though we may hold less influence economically...we must use that influence and leadership for good. If we do something, the world will follow us. Because of that we have to live up to the idealized versions of our ideals. If we do not, the world will follow by not living up to high standards. If we do not, we won't be true to ourselves, either.

Though, I really feel we're having an identity crisis as a nation. We don't know what's important to us as a nation, which is scary. If we don't know who we are and what we want, how are we going to lead other, less prosperious or less established nations.

Here's what I think is most important. We need people to do an exercise like this...so we can figure out who we are. A lot of people (my parents included) have never really thought about these things. It's up to us now to figure it out.

Things that really matter - divided into 4 categories. I was kind of inspired by a comic strip in Neal Strauss's Emergency.

Sound Mind - This means education and lifelong learning. I think this also assumes that education and reflection can't happen when a war or violence is going on in once's vicinity. Finally, with a sound mind, engaging oneself in work that's challenging, meaningful and that profilerates the beauty in the world also applies.

Sound Body - This means treat your body well. Not throwing one's body into imminent unavoidable danger, exercising and having sex are all important here. It's making our physical surroundings habitable too...greenies, this matters to you.

Intact Spirit - Inner peace and making sense of God and his/her role in our spiritual and physical lives. Finally, trying to grasp our mortality. This obviously requires freedom of religion and an intense emphasis on fair, reasonable empathetic dialogue.

Meaningful Relationships - Having friends and family and spending time with them. Sharing life with other people. I think what also fits here is "befriending strangers" and helping people who need help.

To me, these things are what's most important...things that matter flow from these four things for the most part, I hope. I think Americans at-large probabaly share some of these ideas too. Regardless, I hope as a nation we can understand the things that are really important to us then govern ourselves in accordance with these aspirations, values and ideas.

-nt

Our Traces

@ The Ruins of Macchu Picchu in the Guardhouse, 814pm

The Ruins at Macchu Picchu are surprisingly simple. There´s farmland, an enormous main square, many temples, a guardhouse, an observatory, urban residential area and it´s hidden deep in the Andes Mountains to be insulated from intruders. That´s presumably all the stuff that REALLY mattered to them. There are no shops nor hospitals nor athletic stadiums. I consider it a window into the Incan mindset and value system.

It makes me wonder, what do our cities say about us? Our homes? Our website history? Even the stuff we generally carry on our persons.

These things tell a lot about who we are: what we spend our time on, the things we leave behind and the stories we tell. I hope they reveal good things.

Now to consider, what matters to me given my time, my possessions and/or legacy and stories?

---Just got back to Cusco. Our hostel is like a freshman dorm full of people who have cabin fever, and there´s a bar upstairs called the Crazy Llama. Uh oh.

Confianza

5.27.09, 517pm Car Station, Cusco, en route to Ollantaytambo

As soon as we got off the plane in cusco this morning, in pure misguided tourist fashion, we stopped at a tourist stand. We asked hima bout getting to Ollanta. He connived us out of $30, dropped us off in downtown cusco and told us to meet him in front of a particular museum at 5pm. We didn´t get his name or phone number. And we didn´t hold our moolah in escrow.

So we showed up at 5pm, and we waited. What else could we do?

We were growing cynical at around 510pm, he was late. None of us showed it, but I think all of us-Andrew, Adam and myself- were all a little nervous. At 515 a boy...I thought, but he was 21 and had my demeanor...started speaking Spanish in an out-of-breath flurry. His boss sent him to recieve us after giving him a description of our appearances. He told us to come with him to a car station. So we went. Again, what else could we do?

There was a lot of trust in play today. We expected others to be trustworthy and we were vulnerable. Others had to earn our trust. But we also had to GIVE our trust. The opportunities to make or break trust exist everyday and those opportunities are all somewhat sacred because who knows what can happen next, right? The moment matters.

Now were in the car, whizzing through the mountains with aggressive speed through turns. It feels like a rollercoaster back here for the three of us. I´m trying to trust, but our driver just steam-rolled a ferral dog. Heaven help us.

Quotes, post-Journey:

"That was straight up fight or flight, I had so much adrenaline pumping through me..." - Andrew

"Did we just hit a kid?" - Neil

"That was seriously the worst experience of my life, bar none. I would pay $100 to never have to do that again" - Adam

"On the positive, the scenery was beautiful...LAS VISTAS DE LAS MONTAÑAS!" - Andrew

Culture - Lessons from the Catholic Church, The Spanish Inquisition, Taxis and Backpacker Hostels

5.27.09, 30,000 ft above Central Peru, 830 am-

Upon leaving Lima Peru, I´ve come to think differently about culture. Not on the traces of culture like race, popular media or idiosyncracies, but on the essence of culture...perhaps? Furthermore, the prevailing school of thought in the circles I tend to socialize in is mistaken about culture, I think. In their desire to be "inclusive" and in their application of the concept.

A culture should not strive to be inclusive, to attempt as such is not only impossible but undesireable as well. The best, most productive and most brilliantly vibrant cultures are not defined by their inclusivity, but by their distinctivness. Take the example of the monks in the order of San Francisco. Touring the monastery, the values of the place are clear: God is Supreme, a life (and death) devoted to god is honorable, Peruvian influence and heritage is important and with limited exception we are one before god. These values are extracted from the artwork, memorials and crypted catacombs in the monastery. The distinctiviness of the culture is ever-present. Those who don´t "fit in" wouldn´t want to be a part of it. This sounds crude, I don´t mean it that way.

And it is better that way, though. Beacause of the distinctiveness of the culture, the devoted stay and accomplish the aims of the culture to the fullest extent. If the culture tried to bring in everyone through a doctrine of inclusivity-for-no-reason, there would be no culture and if there were, it certainly would not be as distinct and defined...it´d be bland cause it would have no core values.

However, this does not comment on the diversity within cultures, in fact the ideas are separate. Inclusivity only leads to diversity if the culture is trying to superfically circumvent narrowmindedness. Rather, I think a strong culture-note the use of culture instead of "cult"- WOULD be diverse, so long as the aims of the culture were virtuous and morally sound, which I´m assuming here. (A culture with mal-intent or impact is not a culture, but a cult, in my opinion) So to summarize, a culture must have clear boundaries that people can voluntarily stay inside or outside of. Cultures cannot be "inclusive" in the sense that everyone can be a part of them without ANY qualification. To do so would lead to a culture with no values or would be completely paralyzed to act in a virtous and moral way...in the long run, I think. In a sentence, cultures must have culture.

But while they remain committed to defining themselves distinctly, cultures most also engage with other cultures because of the size and interconnecteness of our civilization. To claim otherwise can be dismissed out of hand. if cultures neglect to engage with others, xenophobia occurs. Why does xenophobia matter? Because it leads to conflict. In some cases its really bad. Sometimes people die as a result. Sometimes, many thousands perish or live lives that are forcibly inhumane because of culture clash.

The Spanish Inquisition is an example of culture clash, rather than cultural discourse. Two cultures met and were different. The spanish decided to interrogate, torture and kill their so called heretis and did so with delusions of justification from a higher authority.

Indeed, when it comes to cultures, a choice emerges between division and discourse. History has repeated itself in this regard. The outcomes are poor when we choose division of distinct cultures instead of discourse. Division is a choice we must avoid, it is not a solution of culture clash, but exactly that, an avoidance of the problem. Peruvians and other colonialized countries can attest to this.

Surely this is hard. Once we choose to reject division we have another choice. Should we try to come to peacable co'existence with one another or should we do the bare minimum to get by. A wonderful taxi driver we had, Raul, laid it out clearly (in spanish) - when people cannot understand eachother, there are problems. That being said, we had a wonderful time exchanging our stories on a 25 minute trip. We took another trip that day which lasted 25 minutes and now, I couldnt tell you the name of the cabby. We still reached our destination, I suppose.

Nevertheless, there´s a joy in trying, even if its difficult or unsuccessful. Staying in a backpaper hostel has been one of the best, most hopeful experience of my life so far. We came together from all over the world and sometimes a lot was "lost in translation" , but we made friends, even if they werent lifelong. And it was exhilirating to engage in cultural discourse. But it isn´t easy.

I think we can have strong and drastically different cultures. But if we do, we cannot walk away from discourse and trying really hard to engage in that discourse. There´s certainly join in the journey to do so. And best of all, it´s something that´s possible. Call me an optimist, but I don´t think any culture clash can´t be resolved. We have it in us. We´re damned if we don´t get it out of us.

Just landed in Cusco, on to Ollantaytambo, time for an adventure.

First Impressions

Miraflores, Peru - Backpackers Family Hostel. May 25, 2009 @ 830am

Ricardo, our cab driver from Lima´s Intl Airport was holding a sign. He greeted us casually but warmly and led us outside to the taxi stand. It smelled, like something I had smelled before...New Delhi. But with a sweeter lingering and less abrasive feel.

We started to chat. He asked us if we spoke Spanish. We said no and he continued with a good command of the English language. We asked him questions and he was a trove of knowledge of Peru. The whole country. This was my first impression, Peruvians love Peru. Not in a backhanded or zealous way like an Indian, or blindly and critically like an American. Genuinely, greenly, almost in a quietly jovial way.

In America, we seem like we have three school sof thought when it comes to patriotism. First, the Ani DiFranco approach, summarized by the first lyric of her track Grand Canyon --I love my country, by which I mean I am indebted joyfully to all the people throughout it´s history who have fought the government to make right.

Second, the approach advocated by flag-pin lapelers. Where there is dogmatic and unqualified love and support for the US of A and willful doublespeak in its defense if necessary. I am troubled by both because they are sentiments that do not support an affirmation of America´s timless values and principles, which I believe are one of our nation´s two greatest assets.

The Peruvians howver, have both approaches simultaneously, manifested inthe aspiration for the public good and a pride for a national culture.

What´s more impressive is the depth of this love. Ricardo told us about his town AND Lima. He spoke so excitedly about it all and gave hints about sacrifices that residents of Peru and Lima have made to advance the nation. Any, they have experienced their country.

Still more impressive was that he did not discriminate against other parts of Peru. That is to say he didn´t engage in the regional snobishness that we Americans too often display.

There are many adventures ahead, but I like that I´ve learned something already.

Going to Peru

Headed to AA in about 12 hours.
Then to DC on Saturday.
Then to Lima in the evening on Sunday, May 25.
Then to Cusco/Macchu Picchu
May 27 - Fly to Cusco/Ollantataytambo
May 28 - Aguas Calientes
May 29 - Macchu Picchu - Back to Cusco
May 31 - Back to Lima
June 1 - Fly to USA late at night.
June 2 - Arrive in DC and drive back to AA.

Will try to e-mail/post updates. Hit me back!

Nobody must remain alone

I believe it's important for people to have time by themselves, but a person should never have to be alone.

I was sitting in a friend's kitchen the other day. We were chatting, as we always do, about lots of different things--U-M, the future, gender in leadership, food, etc. We also talked about our families, which was the hardest topic to discuss because both of us have a few difficult circumstances when it comes to our immediate familial relations. It was clear that family stuff had been bothering both of us quite a lot for an extended period of time.

But we sat, hand in hand, and it was better. We didn't talk a tremendous amount, more than anything we were just there. Not alone about it anymore. Indeed, we choose not to let eachother be alone over it anymore. And that didn't make the problems go away, not by a longshot, but it did make it seemingly more possible to move forward...to reconcile our fears and frustrations a little bit...which is exactly what we needed.

Being by yourself and struggling a little bit is important to "grow", I think. It builds character, resourcefulness and obviously independence. But being alone is totally unnecessary. At our most vulnerable state, nobody should have to fly solo. It's too cruel to damn someone to that fate. Circumventing alone-liness should at least be offered. Our civilization is too sophisticated to leave people out.

There are many that are alone and thus forgotten. Leaving those folks alone is something we cannot allow. We should be ashamed if we do. It's not humane and I don't think it's something human either. Strangers or not, awkwardness or not, frustration or not sticking together is something too important to gaffe.

I have to get to sleep pretty quickly, but this is just a quick thought. It's something I've believed for a long time but never really verbalized, only have tried to do. It's hard to do, alone-liness is hard to discover, expose, understand and then act upon.

Exploring Fear

What is it that makes us afraid? Where does fear come from? - Note to self, I do realize how incredibly abstract and pretentious this is going to be. But, it's been on my mind.

Not of the petty things, like being fearful of forgetting a tube of lip balm or being late for an important appointment. I mean the big stuff. The sort of fears that make your heart race in broad daylight amongst your closest friends. I mean the sort of fear that doesn't go away with a glass of whiskey, a good book, or both. I mean the stuff that ghastly fears that we can only ignore if we're lucky.

I don't understand where fear even comes from. Why is it natural to be fearful? If we weren't taught to understand fear as a paralyzing force, would we do it? Fear seems like more of the response we have to our surroundings, and not something inherent within us. If fear is a reaction, then is it really that "natural", as if the world activates fear hidden within us? Is what we're afraid of coded into our biology? If it is, much of what we're fearful of must be social/contextual...it seems common that people are fearful if they have a rough experience doing something or if someone else tells them it's scary. For example, I was afraid of heights for a long time, I suspect because my mother is afraid of heights and roped me along with her. After riding a roller coaster, I realized the fear was only in my head.

What I am realizing is that fear doesn't seem to be that different between people. At it's root, I think we're all afraid of the same things. Things outside us that hurt, or things within us that hurt. That we'll be alone or of the unknown. What fear seems to come down are things that put us farther way from what we want, love and need and closer to realities that are dangerous, uncertain or unexpected. Fear, I think, is that state of mind where we believe our desired reality and our actual reality can't align. It's seeing a world we would've never wanted to imagine coming true. Which is why it makes sense that someone who fears lonliness and someone who fears getting close to others can relate. For each of those people, that's a scary place to be.

But that leaves me optimistic that fear can be conquered. Because, if it's a matter of misalignment, we can work to make those worlds co-exist. We can fight like hell to make it so that what we dream and what we are have a shot at being the same. At the very least, we can build bridges between misaligned realities so we can cope.

Instead of naming our blessings, I think naming our fears is the best first step we can take to conquer our fears because it identifies the misalignment. By naming our fears we can see exactly how different our desired reality and our actual realities are and then start bringing them together.

Loneliness is mine, and death by extension. A world alone is one that I would never want to live in. I'm damn sure that fear isn't natural, I know exactly where it comes from.

But, even if I understand fear more clearly now, this wishy-washy idea of "alignment" isn't any easier. But luckily, we're human. I'm convinced that the human spirit is strong enough to do almost anything. In fact, when the human spirit triumphs, it makes me feel fearless. Even if only for a quickly passing moment.

Corporate Social Responsibility: maybe nice guys don't exactly finish last?

A few people have posted some really provocative comments. I think I'll hash out some of the ideas presented tomorrow or Saturday.

I had a thought while walking Apollo--my dog--this afternoon; I was ruminating on an blog post I read here: Straight Talk About Corporate Social Responsibility. The piece came from Robert Stavins, a faculty member at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and was published on the website of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at KSG.

The post offered four questions to ask when thinking about firms and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and some analysis about each of the questions: may they, can they, should they, and do they?

The post also asserted that in many (if not most) cases a CSR-friendly firm--the nice guy, so to speak--does not reap substantial benefit from that choice. Moreover, the firms that do benefit from the move are often existing market leaders. (Of course, the preceding summary is rough, read the post for the author's exact idea...don't worry it's short).

Which got me thinking about nice guys. Why does the adage go, "nice guys finish last"? Well, I don't think nice guys always finish last, it just depends on the length of the race. If companies are competing against eachother in the short-term the company built for short-term results will surely win. If companies are competing against eachother in the long-term, the company built to last will surely perform better. Just like two different world-class runners: one a sprinter, the other a marathoner, the length of their race will determine who wins. If they race in a 200m dash, the sprinter will surely win. If they race a longer distance, the marathoner will surely win. Anecdotally, the "nice guy" successfully courts girls interested in building a long-term relationship, but fouls up with women who are looking for the opposite.

Firms that engage in CSR are firms investing in their long-term health, on balance. I don't exactly know if this is true, but let's assume that the majority of said firms are choosing to engage in CSR for longer-term reasons, relative to firms not engaging in CSR as rigorously.

These CSR-friendly firms are the "nice guys" that succeed in long-term initiatives. It doesn't pay to be CSR-friendly unless it's a long-term business strategy...perhaps a move that changes the competitive landscape over time or will dramatically reduce variable costs in 35 years. Maybe the socially responsibile activities require investment in the short to medium term, but pay dividends in the long-term. Maybe CSR is something that changes the culture of the company, but never leaves a direct mark on stock price. In summary, firms conscious of CSR--and I mean ones that do serious stuff, not off-setting carbon footprint as a PR stunt--might not have any benefit doing so in the short-run. CSR-friendly firms are the marathoners, not the sprinters.

This presents a problem for advocates of CSR, whether the advocates are firms, policy-makers or issue publics, if success is measured in the short-term. Which it seems like it is. Quarterly earnings reports, stock-price, etc. are measures that incentivize behaviors which yield short-term gains, right?

CSR-friendly firms are like marathoners trying to beat a sprinter in a 200m dash. Imagine if there were respected measures of corporations' performance that emphasized long-term vitality. Would that change the actions of companies? Would the changes be drastic? Are there measures of long-term vitality used for evaluating companies now?

Nice guys will certainly finish last in races that don't play to their strengths. But if they change the parameters of the race, maybe they'll win. I think this applies to firms and to nice-guys, generally. Rather, I hope so.