Which Box Best Suits You?

A Wooden Box
Credit for the image to youtube.com

“A box is just a box”

Perhaps because I’m getting older I see these kinds of pronouncements with a great deal of skepticism. ‘A box is just a box’ has a different meaning to me than most I guess and it’s not a place that I feel very comfortable in. I don’t like being told what I have to do and what I need or don’t need and I certainly don’t like being told what I should think.

Zbigniew Brzezinski is a Polish American, a political scientist, geostrategist and scholar who has served many Presidents including Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter right up to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. The point is he is a man who still thinks ‘outside the box’. He is a visionary who, had people of influence paid more attention to back then–had they been more receptive and willing to look at a ‘different’ picture, could have helped to design a much different world than we have now. At least from a political point of view. Better? Worse? Whose to say for sure but it would have been different from the world that we see falling apart around us and are seemingly at a loss to determine how to fix. Last week I wrote about the comparison to other major empires of history and how we are on the same course as they were. This week my message is one of more hopeful solutions and possible outcomes. What did Zbigniew Brzezinski do differently? He thought and worked ‘outside the box.’ This is where I hope we go for our answers instead of depending on the same old approaches that have not proved very fruitful.

In our world today we still try to solve our domestic and worldly problems by throwing money at them and by ‘studying’ them to death. After a while studying things becomes a convenient political way of not making a decision or taking a stand on or against anything. It’s almost like saying ‘we don’t have any other ideas’. Studies are often a time and resource thief more often used for political purposes than for the good of the people who fund them. We let time decide many of our challenges rather than our ingenuity and creativity. We have become reactionary rather than proactive. Global warming has to be a leading example of that.

Our system has become one that is more and more dependent on ‘in the box’ thinking with a whole lot of hope tossed in the mix while our political and business leaders continue to gather wealth and power.

If we consider our education system, for instance, we see that we operate our schools using a very old, weary, unproductive and unchallenging grading system that actually hinders a child’s progress. Thinking outside the box would mean allowing a student to advance at their own speed studying topics and interests that excited them. Instead we tell them what they should be interested in and can’t understand why some don’t succeed. We punish them for being brilliant at something by holding them back from what they are passionate about. Our system is geared to teach those in the middle of the pack and ignore the students who are brilliant or fall short of the IQ needed to handle the subject matter. We need to get away from the ‘talking head’ at the front of the room and begin to take advantage of the teaching benefits of hands-on technology. Learning needs to be fun and for too many it is not. For some in this fast paced technological age school is downright boring and poses no challenges.

We are told that we are more free now than at any other time in our history and yet we have produced more laws to shape behaviour than at any other time. There is an illusion of freedom but our courts are full of frivolous lawsuits and petty complaints that could be handled outside the court system by a three person panel designed to select only those suits or complaints that actually suggest a legitimate need to be heard. Too often the courts are used by those hoping for a huge settlement that would guarantee an early retirement. A triage system comes to mind thereby freeing up valuable court time on matters that really have merit. We have more laws which, by their very nature, curtail our freedoms in the name of political correctness. Certainly our safety and our rights need to be safe guarded but can we actually be told and punished because we don’t wear a helmet? Common sense would tell us that wearing a helmet is the right thing to do but we make it a law.

We are told what side of the street to park on; we are told to shovel our side walks; we are told and our kids are told when and where and how to play in the ‘public’ park and what we can’t do there anymore.

We are told we cannot pray at school and many other public venues and we cannot speak our minds if that ruffles some feathers a little bit. Yet other groups are allowed to do what we are not allowed to do all in the name of political correctness. We are punished for non-compliance even though we have not had a say in how some of these ‘laws’ are conceived.

We spend millions of dollars housing a seat of government to impress who? to do what? Outside the box thinking suggests that, with technology today our representatives should be in their constituency office taking care of business instead of the paying public having to deal with an assistant. I voted for someone specific so I want to see him/her face to face when I got something that needs to be dealt with. Our representatives can deal face to face with their counterparts in Ottawa or wherever they are seated by Skype or emails. It would save hundreds of millions of dollars because our members wouldn’t have two housing allowances to cover plus all of the other expenses that includes things like security and housing costs hydro, gas, maintenance and so on. Sitting members have assistants who do much of the work behind the scenes anyway and ‘Question Period’ in the House is not only a waste of time but a true embarrassment as well. They can vote by encrypted email. It is no more dangerous than the robocalls people received during the last federal election or the discrepancies at some of the polling stations. In fact it may be more beneficial (meaning honest) this way.

Our families are becoming dangerously close to being irrelevant. Children can sue their parents and be ‘divorced’ from them. What does that mean anyway? The legal system, especially, when it deals with the rights of family, parenting and custody issues needs a dramatic overhaul and a new vision of what it means to be a part of a family. The family structure is close to defaulting. We need to be thinking outside the box when considering absentee fathers, for instance, and instead of punishing them when they can’t afford to pay support by jailing them or restricting their contact with their kids we need to come up with some ways to help mom make ends meet and also encourage dad to remain in touch with and accessible to his children. Perhaps tax credits at the end of the year to put some money back into dad’s pocket so he can afford to see and provide for his kids.

Pharmaceutical companies are telling us what drugs we need to take for all the new ‘diseases’ we are contracting. Meanwhile the side affects of these medications are lengthy and often worse than the illness they are supposed to be treating. Outside the box thinking might be as simple as having a regulatory body that doesn’t actually gain financially with the release of every new medication. The DSM5R, unless there is a newer one, is the ‘newest’ revised edition of the ‘bible’ that the psychiatrists use to determine whether a mental health diagnosis is warranted or not. Over the last few years mental health illnesses seem to have grown at an enormous pace to the point that most of us have some kind of mental health disorder according to this book. And make no mistake-there is a medication to treat it somewhere. There cannot be a virtually incestuous relationship that exists between the pharmaceutical industry and the medical treatment monopoly. Yet they do function in this manner, hand in hand and almost independently. They govern and discipline their members ‘in-house’ for instance. Outside the box thinking would allow chiropractors and health food/supplement producers to become recognized, legitimized and regulated as part of the bigger medical treatment system that would provide more options and at a lesser cost for governments as well as the public who don’t have medical insurance plans or any other coverage.

There is the media which has almost carte-blanche these days to put anything on the screen in prime time that supposes to provide good wholesome entertainment for our youth and younger ones. It really is about slaughter and mayhem dressed up in someones rights to produce it. At least have the good taste to put it on during the hours that our little people aren’t as exposed to it. The more ‘T and A’–blood and guts that can be jammed into an hour the better I guess.

We as citizens-as voters-as caring parents need to start thinking outside the box when we are deciding what kind of civil society we want to participate in. We can either continue to be ‘boxed in’ and told how to live our lives or we can decide to think outside the box and seek new approaches to old problems that haven’t been solved as yet.

WHAT KIND OF BOX SUITS YOU BEST? . . . LET ME KNOW.

Anyways, that’s how I see it–James

Please send me your comments pro/con. You can contact me at jim.lifechoice@gmail.com

OR through my web page at: jamescloughley.com

If you are interested in knowing more about fatherless sons and what you can do to re-build those damaged relationships you can find out more on my web site as well. My book is called: ‘A Man’s Work Is Never Done: A Novel About Mentoring Our Sons’

Who Did You Say The Bad Guys Were Again?

Jet Fighter Breaking Sound Barrier

“War doesn’t determine who is right, it determines who is left”–author unknown to me

I’m as Canadian as the next guy and there is no way that I want anyone-ANYONE-to threaten the stability, safety, cultural heritage or the freedoms of my country,children,friends or my neighbours. I don’t question the decision to stand up and say enough is enough. If folks can’t sort this crap amongst themselves then the rest of the world, who seems to want a more peaceful co-existence, will do it for them. But is dropping bombs the only way to validate this statement? To listen to our PM stand up in the House and try to sell us a rancid bill so goods about how we must join the fray and do our part makes me retch. If he were the first one to jump into the cock pit of the first Canadian war plane to travel to enemy territory and hit the trigger that unleashes the first bombs/missiles of the next part of the same war I might feel differently. Perhaps if the decision makers had to send in their kids first there might be a different ‘will’ to waging war. Isn’t this the same war we declared having won-the same war that just keeps coming back to haunt us-the same war that costs us billions of dollars that we are told don’t exist or we don’t have and yet there always seems to be enough to wage war? We have demonstrated that we, the allied forces, can’t win using the strategy we have adopted but we keep trying anyway. Isn’t that the definition of insanity–to keep doing the same things over and over again expecting a different result each time? Here we have a government who can’t fall over itself fast enough to please our U.S. neighbours. I wonder if they have even thought about ‘collateral’ damage and what that means. How much or how many are acceptable?

So who is/are the enemy? Can anyone explain this to me so I can grasp what is happening? In some cases we are supporting those who are our enemies but who are also the enemies of our enemies. But then we are supporting our allies who are enemies of those we are supporting who are our enemies. Are you more clear now? And now we have agreed to fly over there and start dropping bombs–on who? Will that be our enemies or our allies who are supporting our enemies? In the end we are going to kill innocent people who just want to live in harmony and enjoy a full belly each day. But then we’ll hear that war does produce ‘collateral’damage and casualties. It can’t be helped. It’s part of the sacrifice that must be made. Really? It’s a much easier decision to make when you don’t have to worry about whose going first.

We have some of the best thinkers, planners and visionaries in the free world at our disposal and yet we can’t come up with a plan that brings us some peace and stability outside of blowing other people to smitherines. How well has that worked so far? We are fighting people on their own turf–a no-no apparently but we march ahead anyway. Fear of dying usually brings acquiescence but in this case it doesn’t seem to count for much in the Middle East.

So why don’t we ‘starve’ them out. Them/they being the ‘enemy’. Where does their money come from? Well-much of it comes from us. They use our petro dollars to finance attacks against us and we continue to do business with them. What would happen to the warring tribes and factions if the money dried up? What would happen if they woke up one day and there were trillions upon trillions of barrels of oil sitting on the docks or in pipelines going nowhere? Likely our enemies would up their purchase of oil but if THEIR supply of petro dollars was dramatically reduced how would they finance those who want us dead? What if we stopped doing business with our enemies or those who support our enemies? Where would the money come from then? I understand that big business in the free world would never abide this. Patriotism is a fickle commodity that comes with a price it seems. Multinationals are not prepared to make this sacrifice. They are familiar with making money from war not having money go the other way.

Have a look at the following photo and read the messages on the placards and then ask yourself-Are these our allies or our enemies? We need to come up with a long term solution instead of trying to bomb them into the next century. We can, however, agree on this: this group needs to be stopped before we no longer have the domestic strength to defend ourselves.

Like any good revolution or uprising it takes passion and fervor to be successful but it also takes truckloads of money and without money I doubt the fervor and passion would continue to manifest itself as it does currently. A bigger concern to me is what are we teaching our children–the next generation of thinkers and citizens–about how to co-exist with those who have other ideas regarding how the world should be run. The current message is ‘might is right–the bigger the problem the bigger the bomb’. We need to be teaching them about developing long term global solutions. We have a better chance to affect change if this becomes a war of money. At least we would be going to our strength. At best the current plan is a short term solution and a good number of innocent human beings are about to be slaughtered only because they have the misfortune of living in a different part of the world.

That’s how I see it anyways, Jim

Imagine you are the leader of the allied forces. What would you do to win this war? Please send your ideas to jim.lifechoice@gmail.com

Please pass this article on to your friends and if you like the page then please’like the page’.

Download

Author Jim Cloughley's 
Brand New Blueprint For Learning

15987

WPGrow