Belonging to a think tank has its advantages, among which are stimulating conversation. This morning some of my "junta" and I were discussing teen dating habits (all present are parents). The topic wandered to the matter of "Pro-Choice" or "Pro-Life." Particularly apropos this election season.
Before I continue, allow me to say that, because I am a man, I shouldn't even have a say in this matter. Let's let women decide what is best for women. I would be happy to abide by their decision.
Seriously. Men should butt out.
Sadly, many men choose to butt in. So, I'll share my views.
The problem is that, as is often the case, the two sides rarely even address the other's concern. To some of us, the issue is a woman's basic human right to control her own body. Rarely does the question of right-or-wrong in ending an embryo or fetus's life come into the conversation. The other side talks about the embryo or fetus's right to be born, and ignores the woman in whose body it is growing.
The thing is, women will get abortions regardless of the law. If McCain is elected and the Supreme Court overturns Roe vs Wade, those who can afford it will fly to Canada or Europe to have their abortions done safely; or if the law allows and the family doctor is also a friend, as in my grandmother's case in the late 1930's, her doctor will claim that the woman is mentally unfit to keep the baby; he will then provide a legal abortion close to home. Those woman who do not have the connections or the money will opt for a back-alley coat-hanger abortion, or perhaps carry the child to term and leave it in a dumpster. This is the Law of Unintended Consequences; as with all laws of nature, there is no legislating it away.
Since Bill Clinton took office, the proponents of choice have at least said, as Obama so masterfully put it last night, that we should all be able to agree that we should have fewer unwanted pregnancies in the first place. This places him in the center. Now McCain has to choose to join him there, thus making this a non-issue in the election, or stay on the far right.
As with many Americans, I would like to see an end to abortion - through prior birth control - rather than through legislating away a woman's right to privacy and choice.
There is indeed a way for us all to win in this divisive issue. If only we had the wisdom to listen to what our opponents have to say about the matter.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Hiroshima, August 7, 1945
On this day in 1945, we dropped the first of two atom bombs on Japan. World War II ended days later.
My friend and co-founder of The Naples Institute, Jim Fisher, shared a piece about this event from his memoir-as-novel, In The Shadow of The Courthouse. He was a child at the time, and questioned the jubilation of the adults around him as they heard of this bombing of civilians.
My immediate reaction to any perceived criticism of the atom-bombing of Japan in 1945 is quite visceral. My blood began to boil as I started reading Jim's missive. There are some truths the defense of which I take as a defense of all I hold dear: the sanctity of our Constitution, the righteousness of the Union in the Civil War, the treason of the Confederacy, its leaders, and its entire population in the same, the need for Good nations to act swiftly and decisively to protect the weak from genocide, as in the Balkans in the 90's or Darfur today, and the bombing of Japan in 1945 among them. The fact that there are those among us who question my positions triggers the "fight" part of my fight-or-flight animal response in a way that rarely happens in other situations. After all, I am an adult, and in most other cases I can control my baser emotions, such as rage or jealousy.
I have taught English to hundreds of adult Japanese students, and the fact that they look upon themselves as innocent victims in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki appalls me. To this day, Japanese school children are not taught of the horrors of the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, the Korean "Comfort Women," or any of the many other atrocities perpetrated by their citizen-soldiers. They have no idea that their military equipped hundreds of thousands of women and children with hedge-clippers and garden rakes to combat the invading Americans; that all of them were expected to fight to the death for their emperor. Indeed, they are taught in school that the US was the aggressor in WWII because we cut them off from oil and rubber imports - why is never mentioned - and their nation would have crumbled had they not "defended" themselves. This travesty is akin to German Holocaust denial, but on an intentional cultural-wide scale.
The bombing of Japan is all the more important to me because of my own father's experience. He turned 18 in November 1944, and signed up for service that same day. He went through basic training to head off to Europe, but had an operation that kept him stateside. His buddies sent him letters from the front. When he had finally recovered, he was redirected to prepare for the invasion of Japan instead. He knew very well that he likely would have been among those estimated hundreds of thousands or one million American servicemen expected to die in the case of an invasion of the Japanese home islands. In all probability, I write this blog entry only because Truman ordered bombs dropped on Japan.
...But it has always bothered me that we chose cities rather than military targets. I haven't got an answer for why that was okay. And so, as I read Jim's piece, I ordered myself to simmer down and let his words sink in. They didn't change my mind about how we ended the war, but they did reinforce my belief that we erred morally in choosing civilian targets.
As always, your thoughts are warmly accepted: ted@naplessocialaction.org
My friend and co-founder of The Naples Institute, Jim Fisher, shared a piece about this event from his memoir-as-novel, In The Shadow of The Courthouse. He was a child at the time, and questioned the jubilation of the adults around him as they heard of this bombing of civilians.
My immediate reaction to any perceived criticism of the atom-bombing of Japan in 1945 is quite visceral. My blood began to boil as I started reading Jim's missive. There are some truths the defense of which I take as a defense of all I hold dear: the sanctity of our Constitution, the righteousness of the Union in the Civil War, the treason of the Confederacy, its leaders, and its entire population in the same, the need for Good nations to act swiftly and decisively to protect the weak from genocide, as in the Balkans in the 90's or Darfur today, and the bombing of Japan in 1945 among them. The fact that there are those among us who question my positions triggers the "fight" part of my fight-or-flight animal response in a way that rarely happens in other situations. After all, I am an adult, and in most other cases I can control my baser emotions, such as rage or jealousy.
I have taught English to hundreds of adult Japanese students, and the fact that they look upon themselves as innocent victims in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki appalls me. To this day, Japanese school children are not taught of the horrors of the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, the Korean "Comfort Women," or any of the many other atrocities perpetrated by their citizen-soldiers. They have no idea that their military equipped hundreds of thousands of women and children with hedge-clippers and garden rakes to combat the invading Americans; that all of them were expected to fight to the death for their emperor. Indeed, they are taught in school that the US was the aggressor in WWII because we cut them off from oil and rubber imports - why is never mentioned - and their nation would have crumbled had they not "defended" themselves. This travesty is akin to German Holocaust denial, but on an intentional cultural-wide scale.
The bombing of Japan is all the more important to me because of my own father's experience. He turned 18 in November 1944, and signed up for service that same day. He went through basic training to head off to Europe, but had an operation that kept him stateside. His buddies sent him letters from the front. When he had finally recovered, he was redirected to prepare for the invasion of Japan instead. He knew very well that he likely would have been among those estimated hundreds of thousands or one million American servicemen expected to die in the case of an invasion of the Japanese home islands. In all probability, I write this blog entry only because Truman ordered bombs dropped on Japan.
...But it has always bothered me that we chose cities rather than military targets. I haven't got an answer for why that was okay. And so, as I read Jim's piece, I ordered myself to simmer down and let his words sink in. They didn't change my mind about how we ended the war, but they did reinforce my belief that we erred morally in choosing civilian targets.
As always, your thoughts are warmly accepted: ted@naplessocialaction.org
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
"Co-opetition"
I have a new favorite term from my friend Lois Bolin, Ph.D., co-founder of Naples Backyard History (www.naplesbackyardhistory.org). Instead of "competition," organizations in the citizen sector are wise to practice "co-opetition." I love it!
I'll tell you, the caliber of people Jane and I have fallen in with since moving to Naples is mind-boggling. (And no, it isn't because a friend came up with a catchy term.)
Building on the concept of co-opetition...
Everything Jane, Michael, and I have done with Naples Social Action.org over the past 1.5 years has been to bring the citizen sector together. We've encountered a lot of push-back from folks stuck in the old-fashioned paradigm, but rather than butt our heads against the wall of these human obstacles, we try instead to just move our attention to those who have a more enlightened view.
I see this "Us versus Them" attitude as akin to jealousy and/or mistrust - and you know what they say about mistrust:
Those who do not trust others are probably not trustworthy themselves.
My view of cooperation is that we in the citizen sector aren't fighting over donors and dollars. The actual fight is to get a potential donor to open his wallet in the first place. As the largest study of its kind from Indiana U. showed, people of high net worth who donate at all always do so to multiple causes - so the term "my donor" is nothing more than flagrant ignorance.
Lois and I both come from a business background, so this accountability concept (and its practice) is easy for us. Through The Naples Institute, we're creating an Ashoka Support Network here in Naples. Ashoka (www.ashoka.org) is committed to tearing down the artificial, imaginary gap between "nonprofits" and "for-profits." We're actually all on a continuum, with straight-out charities on one end, profit-only corporations on the other, and plenty of organizations all in between. We all have to operate by the same rules of accountability and results, though, in order to run well. Sadly, many in the citizen sector have no understanding of this - or no education in it.
...For that matter, many in the "for-profit" realm don't get it, either. What is a consultant gonna do?
I'll tell you, the caliber of people Jane and I have fallen in with since moving to Naples is mind-boggling. (And no, it isn't because a friend came up with a catchy term.)
Building on the concept of co-opetition...
Everything Jane, Michael, and I have done with Naples Social Action.org over the past 1.5 years has been to bring the citizen sector together. We've encountered a lot of push-back from folks stuck in the old-fashioned paradigm, but rather than butt our heads against the wall of these human obstacles, we try instead to just move our attention to those who have a more enlightened view.
I see this "Us versus Them" attitude as akin to jealousy and/or mistrust - and you know what they say about mistrust:
Those who do not trust others are probably not trustworthy themselves.
My view of cooperation is that we in the citizen sector aren't fighting over donors and dollars. The actual fight is to get a potential donor to open his wallet in the first place. As the largest study of its kind from Indiana U. showed, people of high net worth who donate at all always do so to multiple causes - so the term "my donor" is nothing more than flagrant ignorance.
Lois and I both come from a business background, so this accountability concept (and its practice) is easy for us. Through The Naples Institute, we're creating an Ashoka Support Network here in Naples. Ashoka (www.ashoka.org) is committed to tearing down the artificial, imaginary gap between "nonprofits" and "for-profits." We're actually all on a continuum, with straight-out charities on one end, profit-only corporations on the other, and plenty of organizations all in between. We all have to operate by the same rules of accountability and results, though, in order to run well. Sadly, many in the citizen sector have no understanding of this - or no education in it.
...For that matter, many in the "for-profit" realm don't get it, either. What is a consultant gonna do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
