United Nations, UNjust

un-jpeg

Now I understand what the UN (as in United Nations) really stands for…

It’s predominantly UNjust and corrupt!

The United Nations Secretary once again today called out Israel for it’s “occupation that grinds into its 50th year.

This builds on the other 2,342 times that the UN General Assembly has called out this “occupation” of land that Israel acquired when it’s neighbors (Egypt, Jordan, and Syria) went to war against it in 1967 (after the prior wars of annihilation against Israel in 1948 and 1956).  

And yet as of June 2015, the UN Human Rights Council has condemned Israel 61 times–more than all other nations on this planet combined!

It’s not only UNjust and hypocritical, but underlying it is the core of anti-Semitism for this body that is supposed to be based on equal rights, self-determination, and universal peace.

Ultimately, it’s not an occupation that the UN is trying to deal with, but a preoccupation to deflect how wholly ineffective it is in every genuine major conflict in the world.  

Here are just some examples of the gross inaction by the esteemed UN when it comes to these occupations/militarizations (again, just to name a few):

1) Russia in Georgia and Ukraine

2) China in the South China Sea

3) India in Kashmir

4) Turkey in Cyprus

Moreover, just to put all this in perspective, where is the UN (or the prior League of Nations or other world leadership) when it comes to the hosts of genocides and ethnic cleansing estimates at below: (and this list doesn’t even include the horrifying death tolls from the countless unjust wars, dictatorships, political unrest, purges, repressions and slavery):

Nazi Holocaust 11.0M

Ukraine 4.6M

Cambodia 2.1M

Bangladesh 1.7M

Armenia 1.1M

Rwanda 1.2M

Indian Partition .6M

Syria .5M

Greek .5M

Brazil .4M

Croatia .4M

Darfur .3M

Cambodia .2M

Pogroms .1M

It seems like the United Nations, if in the habit of shameful occupation name-calling and prejudiced resolutions, has missed the boat on millions being slaughtered and occupied around the world. 

Maybe it’s time for the UN to stop picking on the minority, Jewish people (.2% of the world’s population and with the Holy Land state the size of New Jersey), and start dealing with the real big problems in this world or maybe they just can’t handle that. 

(Source Photo: here with attribution to United Nations)

Please G-d In The Workplace

Lookign To Heaven.jpeg

So here is a true story that happened to me at work.


You know how you put on your “out of office message” in Microsoft Outlook when on leave…


Well, I was responsible and did just that. 


My message was typical informing people that I was out, when I plan to return, and who to contact about urgent matters in my (brief) absence. 


But something astonishing happened then…


I actually got a reply to my out of office message from an executive scolding me about it–imagine this being how government time is spent. 


Yes and dun da da dum…here was my big offense to this senior executive, in my out of office message, I simply used the words “Please G-d,” as in:


“I am out of the office and plan to return, please G-d, on [such and such day and date].”


The message I received back in my inbox:


“I’m not sure what the ‘please G+d’ reference means. It’s a bit confusing. You may want to delete it.”


OMG, I was being admonished in the federal government for using the words “Please G-d” in my out of office message–for simply respecting and recognizing Him/Her. 


– What is confusing about “Please G-d”?


– And how can anyone ask that I delete G-d from my message or in any way from my life???


The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) states under religious discrimination and harassment that:

 “Harassment, can include, for example offensive remarks about a person’s beliefs or religious practices.”

 

Further, “the law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employees religious beliefs and practices,” barring an undue burden. 


What burden to the government was there in me saying, “please G-d.”


And why did I get back a mocking message spelling it this way, “G+d,” which I read as being a cross in the middle, mocking me as someone of Jewish belief.


Understand that I write the word G-d with a hyphen, because I was taught out of respect not to spell out ( or even say) G-d’s name in vain, which is the 3rd commandment in the biblical Ten Commandments.


The executive’s comments to me were not only extremely rude, offensive, and discriminatory, but also illegal.


It is outrageous that this type of behavior should be allowed to go on in 21st century America, let alone in the federal government itself that writes and enforces the law of the land–the land of the free and the home of the brave–read it, it’s in our national anthem and our constitution. 😉


(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Smart Cats Aren’t Afraid to Innovate

Smart_cats

It’s really hypocritical that on one hand we put innovation on a pedestal, but on the other hand, we tend to nix new ideas.

The Atlantic (July/August 2012) has an article called “Let’s Cool It With the Big Ideas.”

The author, P.J. O’Rourke, rails against innovation, saying: “I don’t have a big idea, and I don’t want one. I don’t like big ideas.”

Let’s just say this article by O’Rourke proves his point and not only about big ideas.

Unfortunately, like O’Rourke, many in our society seem to have a love/hate relationship with innovation.

We love new ideas when they work to our benefit–like having a smartphone perhaps–but we fear the worst about failing and people seem to loathe change of any kind until it’s a “proven entity.”

Hence as O’Rourke points out the derogatory feelings and sayings about new, big ideas:

– What is the big idea?
– You and your bright ideas.
– Whose idea was this?
– Me and my big ideas.
– Don’t get smart with me.

The last one is really the clincher with it all–without new ideas and the bravery to explore them, our “smarts” really do go out the window.

This is reminiscent of when the great Library of Alexandria burnt to the ground almost 2,000 years ago, destroying many of the “new ideas” of the philosophers, scientists, mathematicians, poets, and playwrights of the time, leaving us for centuries stuck in the Dark Ages!

Sure, new ideas are threatening to old ways of thinking and doing things, but we are an evolving species–stagnation is death.

According to Harvard Business Review (October 2010) in “How to Save Good Ideas“–a more enlightened article here, explains how to counter fearful and destructive people “who try to kill ideas” using “fear-mongering, delay, confusion, and ridicule.”

Some of the suggestions to counter the naysayers:

– When they attack you for “dictating” a new idea–you can explain that there is a vetting process, but like with a train conductor, we need to provide direction for our people.

– When they say, no one else is doing this–for any new idea, someone has to be the first to try it, and we have the capacity to innovate and succeed.

– When they criticize your timing–acknowledge that you can’t do everything and the poor projects should be weeded out, but promising new ventures should proceed.

From a leadership perspective, we cannot shove new ideas down people’s throats, but rather we need to explore ideas openly and honestly. Leaders should explain the imperative for change, explore organizational and market readiness, look at costs and benefits, mitigate risks, and help people in adopting and adapting to change–and this last one can be the most difficult.

For those that are comfortable with the status quo or afraid of what change may mean to their jobs, status, and security–there are times, when reassuring and working together can move people and the organization forward, but there are also times, when perhaps the person-organizational fit may no longer be right, and it is time to part ways.

The way we do things today–no matter how comfortable–is not the way we will always do them.  Times change, challenges build up, opportunities emerge, and as survivors, we either adapt or fade into the annals of history.

“There is more than one way to skin a cat,” but if we are cool to new ideas, the cat will most definitely get away from us–and it may be for good.

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Ivo Kendra)