Manila Bulletin
SWIMMING AGAINST THE CURRENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsible citizenship: With what?
Fri Jan 27,2006
Jesus P Estanislao
IF the end goal of responsible citizenship is to make every Filipino happy, then what means should we use to obtain it?
The means we have been focusing on have largely been economic. We have to raise our level of efficiency and productivity so we can compete everywhere. Being competitive would enable us to generate many jobs and much higher levels of income. Our GDP per person would keep rising, and in a sea of wealth and affluence, we would all be much happier.
To be sure, economic means are important. Without them we would not get anywhere. But they are not the ultimate weapons. Underlying them and giving them their clout and effectiveness are other means that are much deeper since they involve our spirit, our heart, and our mind, where ultimately the struggle for development is won or lost.
What are these deeper means involving the spirit, heart, and mind? Furrow, written by a sage and a saint, points to them and encourages us as responsible citizens to use them assiduously. It is best that we reflect on them in the current context of our country.
* Prayer connects each one of us directly with God, who is the source of all strength and inspiration in our personal struggle to develop our talents and realize our potentials.
* Work enables us to be productive. In the process, it also gives us many opportunities to improve ourselves and to reach out to others so in solidarity with them we can team up for the improvement of every facet of the environment in our country and in the world around us.
* Struggle is the constant instrument that we all need to apply even in the discharge of the small, routine, ordinary duties of each day. Since it is a constant, it eggs us on to keep going and to keep fighting. It asks us to train the spotlight of self-examination on ourselves many times during the day, and most certainly upon beginning and ending each day.
* Suffering necessarily comes with the territory. There is no escaping from it. But there is always a positive dimension to it: It shapes and strengthens us; it makes us tough and fit for even bigger struggles ahead as we move up the pathway towards higher levels of development.
* Penance recognizes that our feet are made of clay and that we commit mistakes and misdemeanors, both big and small. It enables us to squeeze great value out of sufferings and having to endure difficulties and setbacks: These can be offered up, in patience, and with a thirst for reconciliation with all those we have offended; above all with God against whom we have sinned.
All these means do shape our attitude. They give flesh to our values so these are converted, in practice, into virtues. It is virtues, multiplied across our land, practiced by millions of our fellow citizens, that in the end build our nation. They are the bricks with which we can put up a great edifice for our nation. They are the constituents of the greatness of our people.
We should give due importance to these means even as we try with all our might to use the economic means that can be forged through the values and virtues that come out of these much deeper means for nation-building.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Friday, January 27, 2006
Prosperity and Abundance
by Dr. Richard Bellamy
Abundance and prosperity, what is it? Many people have different definitions for abundance and prosperity. For one person it might be feeling the freedom to do what they love.
For someone else it might mean having material possessions such as a car, or a house in a certain area of town. For another it might mean having the realization that once food, water and air requirements are met they have all their needs met, so anything else is a bonus.
Our abundance and prosperity are largely a result of the thoughts and feelings we direct toward life. I invite you to understand that our thoughts are like currency we spend or save towards our destiny in life.
Consider for a minute, the word "thought." Being a noun, you can have thought. Now imagine your thought as currency. How do you "spend" your thoughts? Do you purchase with your thought presence that which you love, or do you squander the currency of your thought on what you don’t want?
In our bodies we have a neuro-sensory system (input or attention), and a neuro-motor (expression) system. Within the muscles of the motor system exist what are called "motor units" or "units of bodily expression." I invite you to understand that just as the neuro-motor system has "motor units", the neuro-sensory system has "attention units".
Ultimately, at some level, consciously or other-than-consciously, your "motor units" express or output the quality of your "attention units" in much the same way a binary computer expresses the quality of what is input. You have probably heard the saying, "Garbage in equals garbage out."
We have all heard the law of physics quoted "Nature abhors a vacuum" have we not? Nature fills vacuums if we fail to fill them. We either fill our "vacuum" of life by spending our currency on what we most value or we soon find that nature, AKA universal law, AKA universe has filled in the blanks in the absence of our attention.
You may already be having the thought, "How do I think about not thinking about something without finding myself thinking about it?" For example, if you were already trying not to think about a juicy, yellow and sour lemon in your mouth, right now you might already be experiencing your mouth watering from the imagined juicy yellow lemon.
Realize that you cannot not think about something, at least at some other- than-conscious level, by trying to avoid it, but you can spend your thought on something of a higher order. The more you invest your currency of thought toward what you love, the less currency you have left to spill over into that which you do not want.
How can you more wisely spend your currency of thought? One way is by changing your questions.
Here’s an example: I consulted with someone in New York . Ann was an owner of a property management company that managed properties in the area. She had me fly out to consult with her about her business and to lead a workshop with her employees.
During her initial consultation, I asked Ann what was her most dominant thought? She answered, "I keep asking what I did wrong to make my husband leave. I think about getting even with my ex-husband." I asked her if she felt that having, "What did I do wrong?" and "Getting even with my ex-husband" as her dominant questions was serving her well?
Was it costing her business to be ruminating on what she might or might not have done, and continue to have resentment for her former husband? She agreed that it would be wise to change her questions.
We spent some time doing the Quantum Collapse Process that helped her to find the balance in both "good" and "bad" characteristics and to transform her resentments about her former husband. A detailed description of the Collapse Process and forms are in my book "12 Secrets for Manifesting Your Vision, Inspiration and Purpose."
After some time Ann broke through her frustrations and resentments. She said she felt free for the first time in months, and her dominant question had changed. Her dominant question became, "How can I get my business back on track?" Ann was now able to ask higher quality questions. We then went to work on her business. She went on to have her business double in six months.
Einstein once stated, and I paraphrase, "If I had a problem to solve, and only had an hour to solve the problem and my life depended on solving the problem, I would spend the first fifty-five minutes determining the proper question to ask, because once I had the proper question I could solve the problem in less than five minutes."
Many people are looking for answers to problems they have not asked the proper questions about. Genius appears to be, at least in part, a result of the questions we ask ourselves. If you ask yourself and others trivial questions you will likely find yourself feeling that your life is a tragedy, much like a soap opera.
If you ask yourself great questions, then your life will most likely begin to become very fulfilling and inspiring, with less reaction to the ups and downs, in other words a great life, a classic.
In case you were already wondering what the other important characteristic of genius is, it is the ability to discover a hidden order within apparent disorder, and the ability to have a perception of balance within apparent unbalance, symmetry within apparent asymmetry, a revealed beauty behind the apparent ugliness of life.
One way we waste our mental resources is through what have been called "awfulizing," or exaggerating out of proportion away from the truth about an event, person, place or thing. In awfulizing we tend to make more of a bad thing of something, and less of a good thing of something than it is.
Conversely, "wonderfulizing," or making more of a good thing of something, and less of a bad thing of something than it is, is another way we overspend our attention units.
Another way we squander our attention units is by not directing attention toward what is true and significant in our lives. We squander our attention units by directing them at tangents or trivia. This way we focus the majority our thought currency toward minor considerations instead of major considerations in life.
Why do we squander our units of thought? I believe that at least in part, it is because we fear our own magnificence. More specifically, I believe we fear our ability-to-respond, we fear our responsibility to our unique magnificence, perhaps because we know that to surrender to it means letting go of some parts of ourselves that can no longer run the show.
Fear is usually accompanied by guilt. We sometimes fear the future and regret the past. Having a feeling of guilt about our past makes us feel unworthy of our hidden desires. As a result we are fearful of discovering them, or fearful of making them a reality, or both.
"Nelson Mandela said in his inaugural speech, "Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, ‘Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous?’ Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God.
You playing small does not serve the world. There’s nothing enlightening about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us.
It’s not just in some of us, it’s in everyone. And as we let our light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. And as we are liberated from our fear, our presence automatically liberates others." He was paraphrasing the Course in Miracles. Some say he was also paraphrasing Marianne Williamson.
Another reason we sometimes unwisely invest our attention units is because we believe that life should be all pleasure and very little or no pain. We believe that in order to be "happy," life must be mostly supportive and pleasurable with little or no challenging and painful events. As a result of this unbalanced expectation we find ourselves "happy" only about half of the time. Even during the time we are "happy," we often find ourselves not present with the feeling because we are already in the back of our mind trying to strategize a way to make ourselves "happy" all the time which de-focuses our attention from our major considerations in life.
I define true happiness as the ability to appreciate both the ups and downs, the pains and the pleasures, the support and challenges of life as we move toward something greater than ourselves, a great purpose that gives us significance and meaning.
One more reason we sometimes squander our attention units is because we simply are not aware of our awareness. When you stop and think about it, we probably have not had much help from schooling and society in learning how to be aware of ourselves spending and saving our units of thought. Usually we have not had anyone to help us to spend and save wisely financially either.
One way we wisely invest our thought is by periodically investing our thought in a purely pleasurable and care free way. This helps us to re-create our creativity and spontaneity of thought, feelings and actions. "Goofing off" or "daydreaming" can be a valuable resource.
Einstein would sometimes get some of his greatest insights while shaving. How many of us have had a sudden discovery or thought while in the shower? This seems to come about best after we have been involved in concentrated and purposeful thought for sometime before our "down time". Once we take the pressure off ourselves, new insights and ideas come bubbling up.
I invite you to realize that by changing the quality of your questions you can change your abundance and prosperity for the better as well. Begin to explore the questions that you can ask yourself and others as you discover the ones that will improve your quality of life. Some examples of questions that you can begin to ask yourself are:
1. What lights me up and inspires me? What am I good at?
2. What gives me and my life the most significance and meaning?
3. What cause that is greater than myself can I devote my life toward?
4. What are the wisest actions I can take toward fulfilling my purpose today?
5. How can I major in what I love, minor in what I need to, let others worry about what I should do, delegate what I have to, and dump what is not necessary?
6. How can I do what I love and love what I do and get paid well doing it?
7. How can I do it by the inch in an cinch, until the yard is not hard, and the mile is not a pile?
8. How can I direct my service more and more, to touch more people’s lives in less time each day?
9. How can I save wisely for my purposeful future today?
10. What is the greatest prayer I can offer my Creator today?
11. What is the greatest meditation I can receive from my Creator today?
Now, as you take a closer look at these questions and ponder them, and really begin to ask yourself them, you can find yourself beginning to experience new thoughts, and new feelings.
New thoughts and feelings that lead to new actions leading to new directions, and to more and more fulfillment deep within you, deep down inside your heart of hearts, at the very essence of your true being.
People, who are "following their bliss" as the great scholar Joseph Campbell called it, are living a life of significance and meaning and are devoted to a cause greater than themselves.
Joseph Campbell followed his bliss as he chronicled the mythologies of the world, leaving a great body of work that lives on. Mahatma Gandhi certainly had a great purpose that changed the course of nations. Mother Teresa certainly lived for a cause greater than herself. The Dahli Lama certainly has a purpose greater than himself. A mother sacrificing herself so that her children can have the hope of a better life is living for a cause greater than herself.
People who are devoting themselves to a purpose beyond themselves are blessed with an abundant heart that attracts resources to fulfill their mission. People who know from whence they have come and to whither they will go, and know that they know that they know what they are here to do, increase their probability curve of finding themselves prosperous.
I had the good fortune to have been invited to a dinner for six where I was introduced to an astronaut by the name of Franklin Chang-Diaz. He has been on many space shuttle missions and spent a lot of time in the space station.
In talking with him over dinner, it was readily apparent that he knew that his purpose was devoted to space exploration. He is one of the most brilliant minds, working toward the day when we will visit Mars.
During the dinner, one of the guests began to inquire about what he did and wanted to know about how he was compensated as an astronaut working for the government. He readily admitted without reservation that he could be making much more money in the private sector, but what I noticed was something else.
He had his own laboratory at NASA and could work until his hearts content on his pet projects to do with space exploration. In many ways he was wealthier than the wealthiest billionaire, for he had unfathomable resources at his command. As this became evident the questions ceased.
As an aside, I began to mention to Dr. Chang-Diaz that I had read an article about plasma propulsion for space travel in Scientific American a few months before. With a very unassuming manner he let me know that he had been the author of the article.
I could clearly see that he was certainly taking the wisest actions he could take toward fulfilling his purpose in life. He was obviously majoring in what he loved to do.
Many years ago, when I was a student, I used be a personal trainer. I would start people with exercise "by the inch in a cinch until the yard was not hard" on a frequent basis. After a while, I increased the intensity to where they found themselves doing it "by the yard until it wasn’t so hard" and still enjoying it.
In some time they progressed in their workouts to where they were doing it "by the mile with a smile." Then I began to train them to do more in less time as they became more efficient in their abilities.
When a patient comes to me to restore their health and rejuvenate their life, I begin to ask questions to help me understand all that has occurred in their lives in the past. Then I begin to examine them, looking for clues as to what has caused their problem.
I begin to ask them questions to help them begin to think about the difference between what they had thought of as health and what truly is health and then tell me what they would love in the way of vitality and rejuvenation. I then begin them with bodywork, then nutrition, then the mind and heart. We do it together "by the inch in a cinch until the yard is not too hard and the mile is not a pile." Just one step at a time gets us to where we want to go.
When I consult with an entrepreneur or athlete, we begin by discovering where we want to improve, then we begin with baby steps at first, leading to giant steps over time.
You can readily realize that when you were a baby you started out on your back. Then you started to flagellate your legs from side to side… then you were on your side… then your stomach...then your back…within a few weeks you started to lift your head "above water" so to speak.
Before long you were on your hands and knees pulling yourself…then you were cross crawling…then you were climbing on things…and finally you were walking. And it is the same way in anything we desire to do. People who attract abundance and prosperity keep moving forward touching people’s lives.
People who are prosperous and experience abundance manage to save some of the energy they have in the way of money. Saving plans begin by "the inch in cinch" as well. It is like building muscle. First you begin to exert yourself a little, then it becomes second nature. Over time with consistent savings compound interest makes your financial well being grow. "To those who have, more is given. To those who have not more is taken away."
Gratitude is the greatest prayer we can ever offer our Creator. Inspiration is the greatest meditation we can ever receive from our Creator. Prosperous people who experience abundance know the importance of unconditional love and gratitude. Learn to look for gratitude in very crack, crevice and cranny in life.
Explore...Discover…Experience…Express…Transform…Now
Focus on your purpose like a laser point of light as you birth your vision and get your calling. Affirm it as you feel the power of love for what you are to Be…Do…and Have. Write what you love. Take action with energy on the matter made available to you. Express your gratitude for what is, as it is in the matter available and be inspired as you find yourself persevering toward your purpose.
© 2001 Phi Publishing. All Rights Reserved
__________
Dr. Richard Bellamy is a chiropractic neurologist, author, speaker, consultant and life coach. Visit his site at www.drbellamy.net
Abundance and prosperity, what is it? Many people have different definitions for abundance and prosperity. For one person it might be feeling the freedom to do what they love.
For someone else it might mean having material possessions such as a car, or a house in a certain area of town. For another it might mean having the realization that once food, water and air requirements are met they have all their needs met, so anything else is a bonus.
Our abundance and prosperity are largely a result of the thoughts and feelings we direct toward life. I invite you to understand that our thoughts are like currency we spend or save towards our destiny in life.
Consider for a minute, the word "thought." Being a noun, you can have thought. Now imagine your thought as currency. How do you "spend" your thoughts? Do you purchase with your thought presence that which you love, or do you squander the currency of your thought on what you don’t want?
In our bodies we have a neuro-sensory system (input or attention), and a neuro-motor (expression) system. Within the muscles of the motor system exist what are called "motor units" or "units of bodily expression." I invite you to understand that just as the neuro-motor system has "motor units", the neuro-sensory system has "attention units".
Ultimately, at some level, consciously or other-than-consciously, your "motor units" express or output the quality of your "attention units" in much the same way a binary computer expresses the quality of what is input. You have probably heard the saying, "Garbage in equals garbage out."
We have all heard the law of physics quoted "Nature abhors a vacuum" have we not? Nature fills vacuums if we fail to fill them. We either fill our "vacuum" of life by spending our currency on what we most value or we soon find that nature, AKA universal law, AKA universe has filled in the blanks in the absence of our attention.
You may already be having the thought, "How do I think about not thinking about something without finding myself thinking about it?" For example, if you were already trying not to think about a juicy, yellow and sour lemon in your mouth, right now you might already be experiencing your mouth watering from the imagined juicy yellow lemon.
Realize that you cannot not think about something, at least at some other- than-conscious level, by trying to avoid it, but you can spend your thought on something of a higher order. The more you invest your currency of thought toward what you love, the less currency you have left to spill over into that which you do not want.
How can you more wisely spend your currency of thought? One way is by changing your questions.
Here’s an example: I consulted with someone in New York . Ann was an owner of a property management company that managed properties in the area. She had me fly out to consult with her about her business and to lead a workshop with her employees.
During her initial consultation, I asked Ann what was her most dominant thought? She answered, "I keep asking what I did wrong to make my husband leave. I think about getting even with my ex-husband." I asked her if she felt that having, "What did I do wrong?" and "Getting even with my ex-husband" as her dominant questions was serving her well?
Was it costing her business to be ruminating on what she might or might not have done, and continue to have resentment for her former husband? She agreed that it would be wise to change her questions.
We spent some time doing the Quantum Collapse Process that helped her to find the balance in both "good" and "bad" characteristics and to transform her resentments about her former husband. A detailed description of the Collapse Process and forms are in my book "12 Secrets for Manifesting Your Vision, Inspiration and Purpose."
After some time Ann broke through her frustrations and resentments. She said she felt free for the first time in months, and her dominant question had changed. Her dominant question became, "How can I get my business back on track?" Ann was now able to ask higher quality questions. We then went to work on her business. She went on to have her business double in six months.
Einstein once stated, and I paraphrase, "If I had a problem to solve, and only had an hour to solve the problem and my life depended on solving the problem, I would spend the first fifty-five minutes determining the proper question to ask, because once I had the proper question I could solve the problem in less than five minutes."
Many people are looking for answers to problems they have not asked the proper questions about. Genius appears to be, at least in part, a result of the questions we ask ourselves. If you ask yourself and others trivial questions you will likely find yourself feeling that your life is a tragedy, much like a soap opera.
If you ask yourself great questions, then your life will most likely begin to become very fulfilling and inspiring, with less reaction to the ups and downs, in other words a great life, a classic.
In case you were already wondering what the other important characteristic of genius is, it is the ability to discover a hidden order within apparent disorder, and the ability to have a perception of balance within apparent unbalance, symmetry within apparent asymmetry, a revealed beauty behind the apparent ugliness of life.
One way we waste our mental resources is through what have been called "awfulizing," or exaggerating out of proportion away from the truth about an event, person, place or thing. In awfulizing we tend to make more of a bad thing of something, and less of a good thing of something than it is.
Conversely, "wonderfulizing," or making more of a good thing of something, and less of a bad thing of something than it is, is another way we overspend our attention units.
Another way we squander our attention units is by not directing attention toward what is true and significant in our lives. We squander our attention units by directing them at tangents or trivia. This way we focus the majority our thought currency toward minor considerations instead of major considerations in life.
Why do we squander our units of thought? I believe that at least in part, it is because we fear our own magnificence. More specifically, I believe we fear our ability-to-respond, we fear our responsibility to our unique magnificence, perhaps because we know that to surrender to it means letting go of some parts of ourselves that can no longer run the show.
Fear is usually accompanied by guilt. We sometimes fear the future and regret the past. Having a feeling of guilt about our past makes us feel unworthy of our hidden desires. As a result we are fearful of discovering them, or fearful of making them a reality, or both.
"Nelson Mandela said in his inaugural speech, "Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, ‘Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous?’ Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God.
You playing small does not serve the world. There’s nothing enlightening about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us.
It’s not just in some of us, it’s in everyone. And as we let our light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. And as we are liberated from our fear, our presence automatically liberates others." He was paraphrasing the Course in Miracles. Some say he was also paraphrasing Marianne Williamson.
Another reason we sometimes unwisely invest our attention units is because we believe that life should be all pleasure and very little or no pain. We believe that in order to be "happy," life must be mostly supportive and pleasurable with little or no challenging and painful events. As a result of this unbalanced expectation we find ourselves "happy" only about half of the time. Even during the time we are "happy," we often find ourselves not present with the feeling because we are already in the back of our mind trying to strategize a way to make ourselves "happy" all the time which de-focuses our attention from our major considerations in life.
I define true happiness as the ability to appreciate both the ups and downs, the pains and the pleasures, the support and challenges of life as we move toward something greater than ourselves, a great purpose that gives us significance and meaning.
One more reason we sometimes squander our attention units is because we simply are not aware of our awareness. When you stop and think about it, we probably have not had much help from schooling and society in learning how to be aware of ourselves spending and saving our units of thought. Usually we have not had anyone to help us to spend and save wisely financially either.
One way we wisely invest our thought is by periodically investing our thought in a purely pleasurable and care free way. This helps us to re-create our creativity and spontaneity of thought, feelings and actions. "Goofing off" or "daydreaming" can be a valuable resource.
Einstein would sometimes get some of his greatest insights while shaving. How many of us have had a sudden discovery or thought while in the shower? This seems to come about best after we have been involved in concentrated and purposeful thought for sometime before our "down time". Once we take the pressure off ourselves, new insights and ideas come bubbling up.
I invite you to realize that by changing the quality of your questions you can change your abundance and prosperity for the better as well. Begin to explore the questions that you can ask yourself and others as you discover the ones that will improve your quality of life. Some examples of questions that you can begin to ask yourself are:
1. What lights me up and inspires me? What am I good at?
2. What gives me and my life the most significance and meaning?
3. What cause that is greater than myself can I devote my life toward?
4. What are the wisest actions I can take toward fulfilling my purpose today?
5. How can I major in what I love, minor in what I need to, let others worry about what I should do, delegate what I have to, and dump what is not necessary?
6. How can I do what I love and love what I do and get paid well doing it?
7. How can I do it by the inch in an cinch, until the yard is not hard, and the mile is not a pile?
8. How can I direct my service more and more, to touch more people’s lives in less time each day?
9. How can I save wisely for my purposeful future today?
10. What is the greatest prayer I can offer my Creator today?
11. What is the greatest meditation I can receive from my Creator today?
Now, as you take a closer look at these questions and ponder them, and really begin to ask yourself them, you can find yourself beginning to experience new thoughts, and new feelings.
New thoughts and feelings that lead to new actions leading to new directions, and to more and more fulfillment deep within you, deep down inside your heart of hearts, at the very essence of your true being.
People, who are "following their bliss" as the great scholar Joseph Campbell called it, are living a life of significance and meaning and are devoted to a cause greater than themselves.
Joseph Campbell followed his bliss as he chronicled the mythologies of the world, leaving a great body of work that lives on. Mahatma Gandhi certainly had a great purpose that changed the course of nations. Mother Teresa certainly lived for a cause greater than herself. The Dahli Lama certainly has a purpose greater than himself. A mother sacrificing herself so that her children can have the hope of a better life is living for a cause greater than herself.
People who are devoting themselves to a purpose beyond themselves are blessed with an abundant heart that attracts resources to fulfill their mission. People who know from whence they have come and to whither they will go, and know that they know that they know what they are here to do, increase their probability curve of finding themselves prosperous.
I had the good fortune to have been invited to a dinner for six where I was introduced to an astronaut by the name of Franklin Chang-Diaz. He has been on many space shuttle missions and spent a lot of time in the space station.
In talking with him over dinner, it was readily apparent that he knew that his purpose was devoted to space exploration. He is one of the most brilliant minds, working toward the day when we will visit Mars.
During the dinner, one of the guests began to inquire about what he did and wanted to know about how he was compensated as an astronaut working for the government. He readily admitted without reservation that he could be making much more money in the private sector, but what I noticed was something else.
He had his own laboratory at NASA and could work until his hearts content on his pet projects to do with space exploration. In many ways he was wealthier than the wealthiest billionaire, for he had unfathomable resources at his command. As this became evident the questions ceased.
As an aside, I began to mention to Dr. Chang-Diaz that I had read an article about plasma propulsion for space travel in Scientific American a few months before. With a very unassuming manner he let me know that he had been the author of the article.
I could clearly see that he was certainly taking the wisest actions he could take toward fulfilling his purpose in life. He was obviously majoring in what he loved to do.
Many years ago, when I was a student, I used be a personal trainer. I would start people with exercise "by the inch in a cinch until the yard was not hard" on a frequent basis. After a while, I increased the intensity to where they found themselves doing it "by the yard until it wasn’t so hard" and still enjoying it.
In some time they progressed in their workouts to where they were doing it "by the mile with a smile." Then I began to train them to do more in less time as they became more efficient in their abilities.
When a patient comes to me to restore their health and rejuvenate their life, I begin to ask questions to help me understand all that has occurred in their lives in the past. Then I begin to examine them, looking for clues as to what has caused their problem.
I begin to ask them questions to help them begin to think about the difference between what they had thought of as health and what truly is health and then tell me what they would love in the way of vitality and rejuvenation. I then begin them with bodywork, then nutrition, then the mind and heart. We do it together "by the inch in a cinch until the yard is not too hard and the mile is not a pile." Just one step at a time gets us to where we want to go.
When I consult with an entrepreneur or athlete, we begin by discovering where we want to improve, then we begin with baby steps at first, leading to giant steps over time.
You can readily realize that when you were a baby you started out on your back. Then you started to flagellate your legs from side to side… then you were on your side… then your stomach...then your back…within a few weeks you started to lift your head "above water" so to speak.
Before long you were on your hands and knees pulling yourself…then you were cross crawling…then you were climbing on things…and finally you were walking. And it is the same way in anything we desire to do. People who attract abundance and prosperity keep moving forward touching people’s lives.
People who are prosperous and experience abundance manage to save some of the energy they have in the way of money. Saving plans begin by "the inch in cinch" as well. It is like building muscle. First you begin to exert yourself a little, then it becomes second nature. Over time with consistent savings compound interest makes your financial well being grow. "To those who have, more is given. To those who have not more is taken away."
Gratitude is the greatest prayer we can ever offer our Creator. Inspiration is the greatest meditation we can ever receive from our Creator. Prosperous people who experience abundance know the importance of unconditional love and gratitude. Learn to look for gratitude in very crack, crevice and cranny in life.
Explore...Discover…Experience…Express…Transform…Now
Focus on your purpose like a laser point of light as you birth your vision and get your calling. Affirm it as you feel the power of love for what you are to Be…Do…and Have. Write what you love. Take action with energy on the matter made available to you. Express your gratitude for what is, as it is in the matter available and be inspired as you find yourself persevering toward your purpose.
© 2001 Phi Publishing. All Rights Reserved
__________
Dr. Richard Bellamy is a chiropractic neurologist, author, speaker, consultant and life coach. Visit his site at www.drbellamy.net
Waste is a failure of design
There are at least two places that blame falls for the problem of a global economy fueled by dirty consumption (and probably more).
The first, as we’ve all heard many times, is with us. We use more than we should. What we have is disposable so we can only use it once. We try to recycle, and we do it sometimes, but it’s hard. (We’ve all heard the old mantra, ‘Reduce, Reuse, Recycle,’ but it’s a big enough step for most of us to even reach the lowest rung on that ladder and actually recycle all that we could.)
I’m not going to dwell on that. It’s important. We all need work. Don’t forget it.
There is another aspect that I want to particularly focus on. Certainly some of the blame for our cultural consumption patterns falls directly on the designers of the products on the shelves, the corporations that manufacture them, the wonks that come up with and perpetuate the policies our government supports. One of the capstone classes I took in college can be summarized like this: ‘Nothing is morally neutral—the things we make (products, businesses, policies) have a tendency to push us in a positive or negative direction and as Christians we need to rethink many of our cultural assumptions and practices with this in mind.’
I find one particular aspect of this ‘rethinking’ in the ‘cradle to cradle’ design principles, which start with the premise that waste product is a failure of design, and that mimicking natural, cyclical processes is critical to a successful design. ("Cradle to Cradle Design is a system of thinking based on the belief that human design can approach the effectiveness and elegance of natural systems by learning from nature and incorporating its patterns. Industry can be transformed into a sustaining enterprise—one that creates economic, ecological, and social value—through thoughtful and intentional design that mirrors the safe, regenerative productivity of nature and eliminates the concept of waste." About Cradle to Cradle Design)
You’ve heard the phrase ‘cradle to grave,’ meaning from the time something is made to the time it is disposed of. This is the point where we generally start trying to solve the problem—nuclear waste, garbage, landfills, exhaust fumes, and so on. "Cradle to cradle" design starts much earlier and emulates a process parallel to plant growth and composting: the vegetation that we do not eat breaks down and fertilizes the next round of growth.
The designer bears responsibility for what happens to the product after its useful life is over—how can it be disposed of or reused appropriately? This is different than recycling—which is often "down-cycling," meaning that the product that results is generally lower on the chain then what you started with. (For example, the three different kinds of metal that are layered in an aluminum can are melted into one blended, inferior metal in the recycling process).
It’s worth noting that the environmental sphere is only one aspect of this ‘non-neutrality’—there are more. An automatic machine gun may be built so that it is completely biodegradable—the fact that it is engineered to kill many people quickly is another aspect of the design that is not morally neutral.
So poor design bears responsibility for products that encourage waste�or, waste and pollution are failures of the design process. Likewise, poor policy and decision-making bear responsibility for the direction countries tend in areas like energy consumption. (‘Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer also dismissed suggestions that high energy costs should change American lifestyles. "That’s a big no," he told reporters. "It should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life."’)
An economy based so heavily on oil is a failure of policy design. You often hear that things are the way they are because that’s how the economy works—you don’t often hear that it works that way because it was designed poorly. Why should complying with Kyoto be an economic hardship? Because it makes companies innovate and stay ahead of the technological curve? Because it preserves or improves environmental conditions?
Why does dirty energy get so much money in subsidies? Why do we need to drill in ANWAR instead of requiring better design in automobile efficiency? Because of a policy design failure. ("The Bush [first term] energy plan, for example, called for more than $35 billion in subsidies over ten years to [dirty energy] industries, while calculations by some energy experts suggest that total federal subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear power amount to as much as $21 billion a year. A wind production tax credit, meanwhile, will give the wind power industry — the fastest growing energy sector in the world-about $5 million for each of the next two years. Rather than allowing innovation and markets to drive the energy economy, subsidies prop up an economy built almost entirely on a single energy source….If we begin now to develop commercial enterprises around proven cradle-to-cradle design protocols, the U.S. can become a world leader in intelligent design and resource recovery, rather than competing on uneven and unhealthy terms within the old industrial system. This would not only protect the health and well being of American consumers, it would nourish the American economy and the American land. It would also yield exceedingly profitable, effective benchmarks to export to developing nations, rather than exporting harm." -McDonough, Waging Peace)
Listen to these figures, from the same article referenced above:
Texas, North Dakota and Kansas have enough wind energy to meet America’s electricity needs.
In Nevada, 100 square miles could produce enough solar electricity to meet the energy needs of the entire nation.
Germany has already harnessed wind power equivalent to twenty coal-fired power plants and the European Union plans to generate 22 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2010.
Wind power is now available for less than 4.5 cents per kWh, and up to 90 "green pricing" programs nationwide allow consumers to choose wind and other renewables."
Not focusing on renewables seems like a huge design failure in our country’s policies. The cynics among us will claim that this won’t work nationally and it won’t work on a corporate level, but there are examples of companies that have seen the light. Notably, carpet manufacturer Interface, Inc. took a 180 degree environmental turn when Ray Anderson, the founder, had a change of heart and decided to be pro-active instead of just complying with the minimum government requirements. For ten years, the company has been a leader in the push towards sustainability. (‘Each choice we make has a "cost." True cost is a combination of the economic, social and environmental costs set against the offsetting benefits associated with each choice that we make.’)
I’ll end with a comparison/contrast from MBDC, a product and process design firm that uses Cradle to Cradle design strategies:
"Consider looking at the industrial revolution of the 19th century and its aftermath as a kind of retroactive design assignment, focusing on some of its unintended, questionable effects. The assignment might sound like this: Design a system of production that
Puts billions of pounds of toxic material into the air, water, and soil every year
Produces some materials so dangerous they will require constant vigilance by future generations
Results in gigantic amounts of waste
Puts valuable materials in holes all over the planet, where they can never be retrieved
Requires thousands of complex regulations to keep people and natural systems from being poisoned too quickly
Measures productivity by how few people are working?
Creates prosperity by digging up or cutting down natural resources and then burying or burning them
Erodes the diversity of species and cultural practices
Does this seem like a good design assignment?…
We are proposing a new design assignment where people and industries set out to create the following:
Buildings that, like trees, are net energy exporters, produce more energy than they consume, accrue and store solar energy, and purify their own waste water and release it slowly in a purer form.
Factory effluent water that is cleaner than the influent.
Products that, when their useful life is over, do not become useless waste, but can be tossed onto the ground to decompose and become food for plants and animals, rebuilding soil; or, alternately, return to industrial cycles to supply high quality raw materials for new products.
Billions, even trillions of dollars worth of materials accrued for human and natural purposes each year.
A world of abundance, not one of limits, pollution, and waste."
The first, as we’ve all heard many times, is with us. We use more than we should. What we have is disposable so we can only use it once. We try to recycle, and we do it sometimes, but it’s hard. (We’ve all heard the old mantra, ‘Reduce, Reuse, Recycle,’ but it’s a big enough step for most of us to even reach the lowest rung on that ladder and actually recycle all that we could.)
I’m not going to dwell on that. It’s important. We all need work. Don’t forget it.
There is another aspect that I want to particularly focus on. Certainly some of the blame for our cultural consumption patterns falls directly on the designers of the products on the shelves, the corporations that manufacture them, the wonks that come up with and perpetuate the policies our government supports. One of the capstone classes I took in college can be summarized like this: ‘Nothing is morally neutral—the things we make (products, businesses, policies) have a tendency to push us in a positive or negative direction and as Christians we need to rethink many of our cultural assumptions and practices with this in mind.’
I find one particular aspect of this ‘rethinking’ in the ‘cradle to cradle’ design principles, which start with the premise that waste product is a failure of design, and that mimicking natural, cyclical processes is critical to a successful design. ("Cradle to Cradle Design is a system of thinking based on the belief that human design can approach the effectiveness and elegance of natural systems by learning from nature and incorporating its patterns. Industry can be transformed into a sustaining enterprise—one that creates economic, ecological, and social value—through thoughtful and intentional design that mirrors the safe, regenerative productivity of nature and eliminates the concept of waste." About Cradle to Cradle Design)
You’ve heard the phrase ‘cradle to grave,’ meaning from the time something is made to the time it is disposed of. This is the point where we generally start trying to solve the problem—nuclear waste, garbage, landfills, exhaust fumes, and so on. "Cradle to cradle" design starts much earlier and emulates a process parallel to plant growth and composting: the vegetation that we do not eat breaks down and fertilizes the next round of growth.
The designer bears responsibility for what happens to the product after its useful life is over—how can it be disposed of or reused appropriately? This is different than recycling—which is often "down-cycling," meaning that the product that results is generally lower on the chain then what you started with. (For example, the three different kinds of metal that are layered in an aluminum can are melted into one blended, inferior metal in the recycling process).
It’s worth noting that the environmental sphere is only one aspect of this ‘non-neutrality’—there are more. An automatic machine gun may be built so that it is completely biodegradable—the fact that it is engineered to kill many people quickly is another aspect of the design that is not morally neutral.
So poor design bears responsibility for products that encourage waste�or, waste and pollution are failures of the design process. Likewise, poor policy and decision-making bear responsibility for the direction countries tend in areas like energy consumption. (‘Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer also dismissed suggestions that high energy costs should change American lifestyles. "That’s a big no," he told reporters. "It should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life."’)
An economy based so heavily on oil is a failure of policy design. You often hear that things are the way they are because that’s how the economy works—you don’t often hear that it works that way because it was designed poorly. Why should complying with Kyoto be an economic hardship? Because it makes companies innovate and stay ahead of the technological curve? Because it preserves or improves environmental conditions?
Why does dirty energy get so much money in subsidies? Why do we need to drill in ANWAR instead of requiring better design in automobile efficiency? Because of a policy design failure. ("The Bush [first term] energy plan, for example, called for more than $35 billion in subsidies over ten years to [dirty energy] industries, while calculations by some energy experts suggest that total federal subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear power amount to as much as $21 billion a year. A wind production tax credit, meanwhile, will give the wind power industry — the fastest growing energy sector in the world-about $5 million for each of the next two years. Rather than allowing innovation and markets to drive the energy economy, subsidies prop up an economy built almost entirely on a single energy source….If we begin now to develop commercial enterprises around proven cradle-to-cradle design protocols, the U.S. can become a world leader in intelligent design and resource recovery, rather than competing on uneven and unhealthy terms within the old industrial system. This would not only protect the health and well being of American consumers, it would nourish the American economy and the American land. It would also yield exceedingly profitable, effective benchmarks to export to developing nations, rather than exporting harm." -McDonough, Waging Peace)
Listen to these figures, from the same article referenced above:
Texas, North Dakota and Kansas have enough wind energy to meet America’s electricity needs.
In Nevada, 100 square miles could produce enough solar electricity to meet the energy needs of the entire nation.
Germany has already harnessed wind power equivalent to twenty coal-fired power plants and the European Union plans to generate 22 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2010.
Wind power is now available for less than 4.5 cents per kWh, and up to 90 "green pricing" programs nationwide allow consumers to choose wind and other renewables."
Not focusing on renewables seems like a huge design failure in our country’s policies. The cynics among us will claim that this won’t work nationally and it won’t work on a corporate level, but there are examples of companies that have seen the light. Notably, carpet manufacturer Interface, Inc. took a 180 degree environmental turn when Ray Anderson, the founder, had a change of heart and decided to be pro-active instead of just complying with the minimum government requirements. For ten years, the company has been a leader in the push towards sustainability. (‘Each choice we make has a "cost." True cost is a combination of the economic, social and environmental costs set against the offsetting benefits associated with each choice that we make.’)
I’ll end with a comparison/contrast from MBDC, a product and process design firm that uses Cradle to Cradle design strategies:
"Consider looking at the industrial revolution of the 19th century and its aftermath as a kind of retroactive design assignment, focusing on some of its unintended, questionable effects. The assignment might sound like this: Design a system of production that
Puts billions of pounds of toxic material into the air, water, and soil every year
Produces some materials so dangerous they will require constant vigilance by future generations
Results in gigantic amounts of waste
Puts valuable materials in holes all over the planet, where they can never be retrieved
Requires thousands of complex regulations to keep people and natural systems from being poisoned too quickly
Measures productivity by how few people are working?
Creates prosperity by digging up or cutting down natural resources and then burying or burning them
Erodes the diversity of species and cultural practices
Does this seem like a good design assignment?…
We are proposing a new design assignment where people and industries set out to create the following:
Buildings that, like trees, are net energy exporters, produce more energy than they consume, accrue and store solar energy, and purify their own waste water and release it slowly in a purer form.
Factory effluent water that is cleaner than the influent.
Products that, when their useful life is over, do not become useless waste, but can be tossed onto the ground to decompose and become food for plants and animals, rebuilding soil; or, alternately, return to industrial cycles to supply high quality raw materials for new products.
Billions, even trillions of dollars worth of materials accrued for human and natural purposes each year.
A world of abundance, not one of limits, pollution, and waste."
What is: Pareto's Principle - The 80-20 Rule
How the 80/20 rule can help you be more effective
In 1906, Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto created a mathematical formula to describe the unequal distribution of wealth in his country, observing that twenty percent of the people owned eighty percent of the wealth. In the late 1940s, Dr. Joseph M. Juran inaccurately attributed the 80/20 Rule to Pareto, calling it Pareto's Principle. While it may be misnamed, Pareto's Principle or Pareto's Law as it is sometimes called, can be a very effective tool to help you manage effectively.
Where It Came From
After Pareto made his observation and created his formula, many others observed similar phenomena in their own areas of expertise. Quality Management pioneer, Dr. Joseph Juran, working in the US in the 1930s and 40s recognized a universal principle he called the "vital few and trivial many" and reduced it to writing. In an early work, a lack of precision on Juran's part made it appear that he was applying Pareto's observations about economics to a broader body of work. The name Pareto's Principle stuck, probably because it sounded better than Juran's Principle.
As a result, Dr. Juran's observation of the "vital few and trivial many", the principle that 20 percent of something always are responsible for 80 percent of the results, became known as Pareto's Principle or the 80/20 Rule. You can read his own description of the events in the Juran Institute article titled Juran's Non-Pareto Principle.
What It Means
The 80/20 Rule means that in anything a few (20 percent) are vital and many(80 percent) are trivial. In Pareto's case it meant 20 percent of the people owned 80 percent of the wealth. In Juran's initial work he identified 20 percent of the defects causing 80 percent of the problems. Project Managers know that 20 percent of the work (the first 10 percent and the last 10 percent) consume 80 percent of your time and resources. You can apply the 80/20 Rule to almost anything, from the science of management to the physical world.
You know 20 percent of you stock takes up 80 percent of your warehouse space and that 80 percent of your stock comes from 20 percent of your suppliers. Also 80 percent of your sales will come from 20 percent of your sales staff. 20 percent of your staff will cause 80 percent of your problems, but another 20 percent of your staff will provide 80 percent of your production. It works both ways.
How It Can Help You
The value of the Pareto Principle for a manager is that it reminds you to focus on the 20 percent that matters. Of the things you do during your day, only 20 percent really matter. Those 20 percent produce 80 percent of your results. Identify and focus on those things. When the fire drills of the day begin to sap your time, remind yourself of the 20 percent you need to focus on. If something in the schedule has to slip, if something isn't going to get done, make sure it's not part of that 20 percent.
There is a management theory floating around at the moment that proposes to interpret Pareto's Principle in such a way as to produce what is called Superstar Management. The theory's supporters claim that since 20 percent of your people produce 80 percent of your results you should focus your limited time on managing only that 20 percent, the superstars. The theory is flawed, as we are discussing here because it overlooks the fact that 80 percent of your time should be spent doing what is really important. Helping the good become better is a better use of your time than helping the great become terrific. Apply the Pareto Principle to all you do, but use it wisely.
Manage This Issue
Pareto's Principle, the 80/20 Rule, should serve as a daily reminder to focus 80 percent of your time and energy on the 20 percent of you work that is really important. Don't just "work smart", work smart on the right things.
In 1906, Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto created a mathematical formula to describe the unequal distribution of wealth in his country, observing that twenty percent of the people owned eighty percent of the wealth. In the late 1940s, Dr. Joseph M. Juran inaccurately attributed the 80/20 Rule to Pareto, calling it Pareto's Principle. While it may be misnamed, Pareto's Principle or Pareto's Law as it is sometimes called, can be a very effective tool to help you manage effectively.
Where It Came From
After Pareto made his observation and created his formula, many others observed similar phenomena in their own areas of expertise. Quality Management pioneer, Dr. Joseph Juran, working in the US in the 1930s and 40s recognized a universal principle he called the "vital few and trivial many" and reduced it to writing. In an early work, a lack of precision on Juran's part made it appear that he was applying Pareto's observations about economics to a broader body of work. The name Pareto's Principle stuck, probably because it sounded better than Juran's Principle.
As a result, Dr. Juran's observation of the "vital few and trivial many", the principle that 20 percent of something always are responsible for 80 percent of the results, became known as Pareto's Principle or the 80/20 Rule. You can read his own description of the events in the Juran Institute article titled Juran's Non-Pareto Principle.
What It Means
The 80/20 Rule means that in anything a few (20 percent) are vital and many(80 percent) are trivial. In Pareto's case it meant 20 percent of the people owned 80 percent of the wealth. In Juran's initial work he identified 20 percent of the defects causing 80 percent of the problems. Project Managers know that 20 percent of the work (the first 10 percent and the last 10 percent) consume 80 percent of your time and resources. You can apply the 80/20 Rule to almost anything, from the science of management to the physical world.
You know 20 percent of you stock takes up 80 percent of your warehouse space and that 80 percent of your stock comes from 20 percent of your suppliers. Also 80 percent of your sales will come from 20 percent of your sales staff. 20 percent of your staff will cause 80 percent of your problems, but another 20 percent of your staff will provide 80 percent of your production. It works both ways.
How It Can Help You
The value of the Pareto Principle for a manager is that it reminds you to focus on the 20 percent that matters. Of the things you do during your day, only 20 percent really matter. Those 20 percent produce 80 percent of your results. Identify and focus on those things. When the fire drills of the day begin to sap your time, remind yourself of the 20 percent you need to focus on. If something in the schedule has to slip, if something isn't going to get done, make sure it's not part of that 20 percent.
There is a management theory floating around at the moment that proposes to interpret Pareto's Principle in such a way as to produce what is called Superstar Management. The theory's supporters claim that since 20 percent of your people produce 80 percent of your results you should focus your limited time on managing only that 20 percent, the superstars. The theory is flawed, as we are discussing here because it overlooks the fact that 80 percent of your time should be spent doing what is really important. Helping the good become better is a better use of your time than helping the great become terrific. Apply the Pareto Principle to all you do, but use it wisely.
Manage This Issue
Pareto's Principle, the 80/20 Rule, should serve as a daily reminder to focus 80 percent of your time and energy on the 20 percent of you work that is really important. Don't just "work smart", work smart on the right things.
Parkinson's Law: Work expands so as to fill the time available...
Parkinson's law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson
Parkinson's law states that "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion."
It was first articulated by C. Northcote Parkinson in the book Parkinson's Law: The Pursuit of Progress, (London, John Murray, 1958) based on extensive experience in the British Civil Service. The scientific observations which contributed to the law's development included noting that as Britain's overseas empire declined in importance, the number of employees at the Colonial Office increased.
According to Parkinson, this is motivated by two forces: (1) "An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals" and (2) "Officials make work for each other." He also noted that the total of those employed inside a bureaucracy rose by 5-7% per year "irrespective of any variation in the amount of work (if any) to be done".
"Parkinson's law" is also used to refer to a derivative of the original relating to computers: "Data expands to fill the space available for storage"; buying more memory encourages the use of more memory-intensive techniques. It has been observed over the last 10 years that the memory usage of evolving systems tends to double roughly once every 18 months. Fortunately, memory density available for constant dollars also tends to double about once every 12 months (see Moore's Law); unfortunately, the laws of physics guarantee that the latter cannot continue indefinitely.
"Parkinson's Law" could be more generalized still as: "The demand upon a resource always expands to match the supply of the resource."
Parkinson also proposed a rule about the efficiency of administrative councils. He defines a coefficient of inefficiency with the number of members as the main explaining variable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parkinson's Law
Prof. Cyril Northcote Parkinson
http://www.adstockweb.com/business-lore/Parkinson's_Law.htm
‘WORK EXPANDS SO AS TO FILL THE TIME AVAILABLE FOR ITS COMPLETION’
General recognition of this fact is shown in the proverbial phrase 'It is the busiest man who has time to spare.' Thus, an elderly lady of leisure can spend the entire day in writing and dispatching a postcard to her niece at Bognor Regis. An hour will be spent finding the postcard, another in hunting for spectacles, half an hour in a search for the address, an hour and a quarter in composition, and twenty minutes in deciding whether or not to take an umbrella when going to the pillar box in the next street. The total effort that would occupy a busy man for three minutes all told may in this fashion leave another person prostrate after a day of doubt, anxiety, and toil.
Granted that work (and especially paperwork) is thus elastic in its demands on time, it is manifest that there need be little or no relationship between the work to be done and the size of the staff to which it may be assigned. A lack of real activity does not, of necessity, result in leisure. A lack of occupation is not necessarily revealed by a manifest idleness. The thing to be done swells in importance and complexity in a direct ratio with the time to be spent. This fact is widely recognized, but less attention has been paid to its wider implications, more especially in the field of public administration. Politicians and taxpayers have assumed (with occasional phases of doubt) that a rising total in the number of civil servants must reflect a growing volume of work to be done. Cynics, in questioning this belief, have imagined that the multiplication of officials must have left some of them idle or all of them able to work for shorter hours. But this is a matter in which faith and doubt seem equally misplaced. The fact is that the number of the officials and the quantity of the work are not related to each other at all. The rise in the total of those employed is governed by Parkinson's Law and would be much the same whether the volume of the work were to increase, diminish, or even disappear. The importance of Parkinson's Law lies in the fact that it is a law of growth based upon an analysis of the factors by which that growth is controlled.
The validity of this recently discovered law must rest mainly on statistical proofs, which will follow. Of more interest to the general reader is the explanation of the factors underlying the general tendency to which this law gives definition. Omitting technicalities (which are numerous) we may distinguish at the outset two motive forces. They can be represented for the present purpose by two almost axiomatic statements, thus: (1) 'An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals' and (2) 'Officials make work for each other.'
To comprehend Factor One, we must picture a civil servant, called A, who finds himself overworked. Whether this overwork is real or imaginary is immaterial, but we should observe, in passing, that A's sensation (or illusion) might easily result from his own decreasing energy: a normal symptom of middle age. For this real or imagined overwork there are, broadly speaking, three possible remedies. He may resign; he may ask to halve the work with a colleague called B; he may demand the assistance of two subordinates, to be called C and D. There is probably no instance, however, in history of A choosing any but the third alternative. By resignation he would lose his pension rights. By having B appointed, on his own level in the hierarchy, he would merely bring in a rival for promotion to W's vacancy when W (at long last) retires. So A would rather have C and D, junior men, below him. They will add to his consequence and, by dividing the work into two categories, as between C and D, he will have the merit of being the only man who comprehends them both. It is essential to realize at this point that C and D are, as it were, inseparable. To appoint C alone would have been impossible. Why? Because C, if by himself, would divide the work with A and so assume almost the equal status that has been refused in the first instance to B; a status the more emphasized if C is A's only possible successor. Subordinates must thus number two or more, each being thus kept in order by fear of the other's promotion. When C complains in turn of being overworked (as he certainly will) A will, with the concurrence of C, advise the appointment of two assistants to help C. But he can then avert internal friction only by advising the appointment of two more assistants to help D, whose position is much the same. With this recruitment of E, F, G and H the promotion of A is now practically certain.
Seven officials are now doing what one did before. This is where Factor Two comes into operation. For these seven make so much work for each other that all are fully occupied and A is actually working harder than ever. An incoming document may well come before each of them in turn. Official E decides that it falls within the province of F, who places a draft reply before C, who amends it drastically before consulting D, who asks G to deal with it. But G goes on leave at this point, handing the file over to H, who drafts a minute that is signed by D and returned to C, who revises his draft accordingly and lays the new version before A.
What does A do? He would have every excuse for signing the thing unread, for he has many other matters on his mind. Knowing now that he is to succeed W next year, he has to decide whether C or D should succeed to his own office. He had to agree to G's going on leave even if not yet strictly entitled to it. He is worried whether H should not have gone instead, for reasons of health. He has looked pale recently – partly but not solely because of his domestic troubles. Then there is the business of F's special increment of salary for the period of the conference and E's application for transfer to the Ministry of Pensions. A has heard that D is in love with a married typist and that G and F are no longer on speaking terms – no-one seems to know why. So A might be tempted to sign C's draft and have done with it. But A is a conscientious man. Beset as he is with problems created by his colleagues for themselves and for him – created by the mere fact of these officials' existence – he is not the man to shirk his duty. He reads through the draft with care, deletes the fussy paragraphs added by C and H, and restores the thing to the form preferred in the first instance by the able (if quarrelsome) F. He corrects the English – none of these young men can write grammatically – and finally produces the same reply he would have written if officials C to H had never been born. Far more people have taken far longer to produce the same result. No-one has been idle. All have done their best. And it is late in the evening before A finally quits his office and begins the return journey to Ealing. The last of the office lights are being turned off in the gathering dusk that marks the end of another day's administrative toil. Among the last to leave, A reflects with bowed shoulders and a wry smile that late hours, like grey hairs, are among the penalties of success.
C. Northcote Parkinson, Parkinson's Law: The Pursuit of Progress, London, John Murray (1958) ]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson
Parkinson's law states that "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion."
It was first articulated by C. Northcote Parkinson in the book Parkinson's Law: The Pursuit of Progress, (London, John Murray, 1958) based on extensive experience in the British Civil Service. The scientific observations which contributed to the law's development included noting that as Britain's overseas empire declined in importance, the number of employees at the Colonial Office increased.
According to Parkinson, this is motivated by two forces: (1) "An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals" and (2) "Officials make work for each other." He also noted that the total of those employed inside a bureaucracy rose by 5-7% per year "irrespective of any variation in the amount of work (if any) to be done".
"Parkinson's law" is also used to refer to a derivative of the original relating to computers: "Data expands to fill the space available for storage"; buying more memory encourages the use of more memory-intensive techniques. It has been observed over the last 10 years that the memory usage of evolving systems tends to double roughly once every 18 months. Fortunately, memory density available for constant dollars also tends to double about once every 12 months (see Moore's Law); unfortunately, the laws of physics guarantee that the latter cannot continue indefinitely.
"Parkinson's Law" could be more generalized still as: "The demand upon a resource always expands to match the supply of the resource."
Parkinson also proposed a rule about the efficiency of administrative councils. He defines a coefficient of inefficiency with the number of members as the main explaining variable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parkinson's Law
Prof. Cyril Northcote Parkinson
http://www.adstockweb.com/business-lore/Parkinson's_Law.htm
‘WORK EXPANDS SO AS TO FILL THE TIME AVAILABLE FOR ITS COMPLETION’
General recognition of this fact is shown in the proverbial phrase 'It is the busiest man who has time to spare.' Thus, an elderly lady of leisure can spend the entire day in writing and dispatching a postcard to her niece at Bognor Regis. An hour will be spent finding the postcard, another in hunting for spectacles, half an hour in a search for the address, an hour and a quarter in composition, and twenty minutes in deciding whether or not to take an umbrella when going to the pillar box in the next street. The total effort that would occupy a busy man for three minutes all told may in this fashion leave another person prostrate after a day of doubt, anxiety, and toil.
Granted that work (and especially paperwork) is thus elastic in its demands on time, it is manifest that there need be little or no relationship between the work to be done and the size of the staff to which it may be assigned. A lack of real activity does not, of necessity, result in leisure. A lack of occupation is not necessarily revealed by a manifest idleness. The thing to be done swells in importance and complexity in a direct ratio with the time to be spent. This fact is widely recognized, but less attention has been paid to its wider implications, more especially in the field of public administration. Politicians and taxpayers have assumed (with occasional phases of doubt) that a rising total in the number of civil servants must reflect a growing volume of work to be done. Cynics, in questioning this belief, have imagined that the multiplication of officials must have left some of them idle or all of them able to work for shorter hours. But this is a matter in which faith and doubt seem equally misplaced. The fact is that the number of the officials and the quantity of the work are not related to each other at all. The rise in the total of those employed is governed by Parkinson's Law and would be much the same whether the volume of the work were to increase, diminish, or even disappear. The importance of Parkinson's Law lies in the fact that it is a law of growth based upon an analysis of the factors by which that growth is controlled.
The validity of this recently discovered law must rest mainly on statistical proofs, which will follow. Of more interest to the general reader is the explanation of the factors underlying the general tendency to which this law gives definition. Omitting technicalities (which are numerous) we may distinguish at the outset two motive forces. They can be represented for the present purpose by two almost axiomatic statements, thus: (1) 'An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals' and (2) 'Officials make work for each other.'
To comprehend Factor One, we must picture a civil servant, called A, who finds himself overworked. Whether this overwork is real or imaginary is immaterial, but we should observe, in passing, that A's sensation (or illusion) might easily result from his own decreasing energy: a normal symptom of middle age. For this real or imagined overwork there are, broadly speaking, three possible remedies. He may resign; he may ask to halve the work with a colleague called B; he may demand the assistance of two subordinates, to be called C and D. There is probably no instance, however, in history of A choosing any but the third alternative. By resignation he would lose his pension rights. By having B appointed, on his own level in the hierarchy, he would merely bring in a rival for promotion to W's vacancy when W (at long last) retires. So A would rather have C and D, junior men, below him. They will add to his consequence and, by dividing the work into two categories, as between C and D, he will have the merit of being the only man who comprehends them both. It is essential to realize at this point that C and D are, as it were, inseparable. To appoint C alone would have been impossible. Why? Because C, if by himself, would divide the work with A and so assume almost the equal status that has been refused in the first instance to B; a status the more emphasized if C is A's only possible successor. Subordinates must thus number two or more, each being thus kept in order by fear of the other's promotion. When C complains in turn of being overworked (as he certainly will) A will, with the concurrence of C, advise the appointment of two assistants to help C. But he can then avert internal friction only by advising the appointment of two more assistants to help D, whose position is much the same. With this recruitment of E, F, G and H the promotion of A is now practically certain.
Seven officials are now doing what one did before. This is where Factor Two comes into operation. For these seven make so much work for each other that all are fully occupied and A is actually working harder than ever. An incoming document may well come before each of them in turn. Official E decides that it falls within the province of F, who places a draft reply before C, who amends it drastically before consulting D, who asks G to deal with it. But G goes on leave at this point, handing the file over to H, who drafts a minute that is signed by D and returned to C, who revises his draft accordingly and lays the new version before A.
What does A do? He would have every excuse for signing the thing unread, for he has many other matters on his mind. Knowing now that he is to succeed W next year, he has to decide whether C or D should succeed to his own office. He had to agree to G's going on leave even if not yet strictly entitled to it. He is worried whether H should not have gone instead, for reasons of health. He has looked pale recently – partly but not solely because of his domestic troubles. Then there is the business of F's special increment of salary for the period of the conference and E's application for transfer to the Ministry of Pensions. A has heard that D is in love with a married typist and that G and F are no longer on speaking terms – no-one seems to know why. So A might be tempted to sign C's draft and have done with it. But A is a conscientious man. Beset as he is with problems created by his colleagues for themselves and for him – created by the mere fact of these officials' existence – he is not the man to shirk his duty. He reads through the draft with care, deletes the fussy paragraphs added by C and H, and restores the thing to the form preferred in the first instance by the able (if quarrelsome) F. He corrects the English – none of these young men can write grammatically – and finally produces the same reply he would have written if officials C to H had never been born. Far more people have taken far longer to produce the same result. No-one has been idle. All have done their best. And it is late in the evening before A finally quits his office and begins the return journey to Ealing. The last of the office lights are being turned off in the gathering dusk that marks the end of another day's administrative toil. Among the last to leave, A reflects with bowed shoulders and a wry smile that late hours, like grey hairs, are among the penalties of success.
C. Northcote Parkinson, Parkinson's Law: The Pursuit of Progress, London, John Murray (1958) ]
For God so loved the world (John 3:16)
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. (WEB)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. (ASV)
For God had such love for the world that he gave his only Son, so that whoever has faith in him may not come to destruction but have eternal life. (BBE)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal. (DBY)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. (WBS)
For so greatly did God love the world that He gave His only Son, that every one who trusts in Him may not perish but may have the Life of Ages. (WEY)
for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during. (YLT)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. (WEB)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. (ASV)
For God had such love for the world that he gave his only Son, so that whoever has faith in him may not come to destruction but have eternal life. (BBE)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal. (DBY)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. (WBS)
For so greatly did God love the world that He gave His only Son, that every one who trusts in Him may not perish but may have the Life of Ages. (WEY)
for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during. (YLT)
For when I am weak, then am I strong (2 Corinthians 12:10)
2 Corinthians 12:10
Therefore I take pleasure in weaknesses, in injuries, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then am I strong. (WEB)
Wherefore I take pleasure in weaknesses, in injuries, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong. (ASV)
So I take pleasure in being feeble, in unkind words, in needs, in cruel attacks, in troubles, on account of Christ: for when I am feeble, then am I strong. (BBE)
Wherefore I take pleasure in weaknesses, in insults, in necessities, in persecutions, in straits, for Christ: for when I am weak, then I am powerful. (DBY)
Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong. (KJV)
Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong. (WBS)
In fact I take pleasure in infirmities, in the bearing of insults, in distress, in persecutions, in grievous difficulties--for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong. (WEY)
wherefore I am well pleased in infirmities, in damages, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses -- for Christ; for whenever I am infirm, then I am powerful; (YLT)
Therefore I take pleasure in weaknesses, in injuries, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then am I strong. (WEB)
Wherefore I take pleasure in weaknesses, in injuries, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong. (ASV)
So I take pleasure in being feeble, in unkind words, in needs, in cruel attacks, in troubles, on account of Christ: for when I am feeble, then am I strong. (BBE)
Wherefore I take pleasure in weaknesses, in insults, in necessities, in persecutions, in straits, for Christ: for when I am weak, then I am powerful. (DBY)
Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong. (KJV)
Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong. (WBS)
In fact I take pleasure in infirmities, in the bearing of insults, in distress, in persecutions, in grievous difficulties--for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong. (WEY)
wherefore I am well pleased in infirmities, in damages, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses -- for Christ; for whenever I am infirm, then I am powerful; (YLT)
Friday, January 20, 2006
It's the curriculum
This story was taken from www.inq7.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.inq7.net/opinion/index.php?index=2&story_id=63060
Opinions/Columns
It's the curriculum
First posted 00:02am (Mla time) Jan 16, 2006
By Eugenia Duran Apostol
Inquirer
"IT'S THE CURRICULUM, STUPID!" THE AMERICANS exclaimed when they were told that their education system was not effective.
So did the Filipinos, when they were told the same thing.
That's what Dr. Isagani Cruz is saying in his book, "The Basic Education Curriculum in 17 Easy Lessons."
At a recent dinner celebrating the golden wedding anniversary of Rody and Mayette Lichauco, I happened to be seated beside Rody's brother Ding. In times like this, I never miss a chance to talk about the Education Revolution.
My egghead dinner companion's gut reaction to our advocacy was crisp, concise and not unexpected. "It's the curriculum. That's what we should look into," Ding said as he contemplated the hors d'oeuvres.
Afterwards, I did a bit of research and I found out that the Department of Education's textbook definition of curriculum is that "it is a systematic group of experiences or sequences of courses or subjects required for graduation or certification in the elementary and secondary levels of education."
Hmmm...
There's more to it than this, of course. Any educator will tell you that a curriculum is designed to meet certain pre-determined objectives. For instance, there's a set of simple exercises for color and shape recognition in the curriculum for pre-schoolers.
On the other hand, the various curricula being implemented under our educational system are mandated by law to give "maximum contribution toward the attainment of national development goals." One of these goals is "to achieve and strengthen national unity and consciousness, and preserve, develop and promote desirable cultural, moral and spiritual values in a changing world." Ostensibly, through a meticulously crafted curriculum, our educational institutions should be able to "inculcate love of country, teach the duties of citizenship, and develop moral character, personal discipline, and scientific, technological and vocational efficiency."
(In case you're wondering, the above quotes come from Batas Pambansa Blg. 232, also called the Education Act of 1982. As far as I can tell, this is the prevailing legislation that provides for the establishment and maintenance of the Philippine education system. The newer RA 9155 [the Governance of Basic Education Act] passed in 2001 focuses on establishing a governance framework and defines levels of authority and accountability in the DepEd. Plainly put, it was already very clear to us in 1982 that the education system is a key factor in our growth as a nation.)
How near are we to the attainment of these lofty goals?
Let's do a "Chapter Search" to January 2005. (Notice that I did not say "Rewind." We're in a digital world after all.) In his keynote address at the Unesco National Conference, Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo quoted the United Nations resolution declaring 2005-2015 as the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development where "the vision of education for social development is a world where everyone has the opportunity to benefit from quality education and learn the values, behavior and lifestyle required for a sustainable future and for positive social transformation."
To attain this vision, we have to have a truly responsive curriculum in place.
Secretary Romulo also pointed out that one of the policy recommendations on education-formulated at the July 2003 Conference on Globalization with a Human Face held in Japan-was that "curriculum development must be the product of a consultative process that involves all stakeholders including civil society, local communities, parents and students."
Ding Lichauco's heart was in the right place when he said that we really should look into the curriculum if we want our education system to be world-class. The good news is that in 2002, the DepEd not only looked but actually made major revisions to the existing curriculum for elementary and high school. The output of this undertaking was the controversial Revised Basic Education Curriculum (RBEC), more popularly known as the Makabayan Curriculum. The merits-as well as the downside-of the RBEC are until now the subject of furious debate-which is probably why its full and widespread implementation is yet to be.
When he was still education undersecretary, Dr. Cruz maintained the view that the responsibility for forming a new curriculum should be removed from the DepEd. "Sincere though most of them are, the DepEd officials have only an official view of the curriculum. As any educator knows, the official view is only one of many equally valid ways to look at the public school curriculum. Curricular change is not managed by a secretary or undersecretary, not even by an entire 480,000-strong Department of Education. It is managed and will be managed by 75 million Filipinos," said Dr. Cruz in 2001, two years before his sentiments were validated at the Japan Globalization Conference.
Dr. Cruz called this undertaking the People Power Model of Curricular Change. "A real curriculum should be a couple of volumes long, because it would contain learning competencies, lesson plans, reference materials and all the other things demanded by educational theory. The very fact that [the RBEC] is only a few pages long (should cue us that it is up to us) as parents of children in public schools, as teachers in public schools, as concerned citizens, to fill in the huge gaps in the RBEC," said Dr. Cruz.
We say this is what the Education Revolution is all about. What and how our children learn is our collective responsibility.
That they grow up to become socially responsible citizens steeped in democratic principles is our moral imperative.
©2006 www.inq7.net all rights reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.inq7.net/opinion/index.php?index=2&story_id=63060
Opinions/Columns
It's the curriculum
First posted 00:02am (Mla time) Jan 16, 2006
By Eugenia Duran Apostol
Inquirer
"IT'S THE CURRICULUM, STUPID!" THE AMERICANS exclaimed when they were told that their education system was not effective.
So did the Filipinos, when they were told the same thing.
That's what Dr. Isagani Cruz is saying in his book, "The Basic Education Curriculum in 17 Easy Lessons."
At a recent dinner celebrating the golden wedding anniversary of Rody and Mayette Lichauco, I happened to be seated beside Rody's brother Ding. In times like this, I never miss a chance to talk about the Education Revolution.
My egghead dinner companion's gut reaction to our advocacy was crisp, concise and not unexpected. "It's the curriculum. That's what we should look into," Ding said as he contemplated the hors d'oeuvres.
Afterwards, I did a bit of research and I found out that the Department of Education's textbook definition of curriculum is that "it is a systematic group of experiences or sequences of courses or subjects required for graduation or certification in the elementary and secondary levels of education."
Hmmm...
There's more to it than this, of course. Any educator will tell you that a curriculum is designed to meet certain pre-determined objectives. For instance, there's a set of simple exercises for color and shape recognition in the curriculum for pre-schoolers.
On the other hand, the various curricula being implemented under our educational system are mandated by law to give "maximum contribution toward the attainment of national development goals." One of these goals is "to achieve and strengthen national unity and consciousness, and preserve, develop and promote desirable cultural, moral and spiritual values in a changing world." Ostensibly, through a meticulously crafted curriculum, our educational institutions should be able to "inculcate love of country, teach the duties of citizenship, and develop moral character, personal discipline, and scientific, technological and vocational efficiency."
(In case you're wondering, the above quotes come from Batas Pambansa Blg. 232, also called the Education Act of 1982. As far as I can tell, this is the prevailing legislation that provides for the establishment and maintenance of the Philippine education system. The newer RA 9155 [the Governance of Basic Education Act] passed in 2001 focuses on establishing a governance framework and defines levels of authority and accountability in the DepEd. Plainly put, it was already very clear to us in 1982 that the education system is a key factor in our growth as a nation.)
How near are we to the attainment of these lofty goals?
Let's do a "Chapter Search" to January 2005. (Notice that I did not say "Rewind." We're in a digital world after all.) In his keynote address at the Unesco National Conference, Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo quoted the United Nations resolution declaring 2005-2015 as the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development where "the vision of education for social development is a world where everyone has the opportunity to benefit from quality education and learn the values, behavior and lifestyle required for a sustainable future and for positive social transformation."
To attain this vision, we have to have a truly responsive curriculum in place.
Secretary Romulo also pointed out that one of the policy recommendations on education-formulated at the July 2003 Conference on Globalization with a Human Face held in Japan-was that "curriculum development must be the product of a consultative process that involves all stakeholders including civil society, local communities, parents and students."
Ding Lichauco's heart was in the right place when he said that we really should look into the curriculum if we want our education system to be world-class. The good news is that in 2002, the DepEd not only looked but actually made major revisions to the existing curriculum for elementary and high school. The output of this undertaking was the controversial Revised Basic Education Curriculum (RBEC), more popularly known as the Makabayan Curriculum. The merits-as well as the downside-of the RBEC are until now the subject of furious debate-which is probably why its full and widespread implementation is yet to be.
When he was still education undersecretary, Dr. Cruz maintained the view that the responsibility for forming a new curriculum should be removed from the DepEd. "Sincere though most of them are, the DepEd officials have only an official view of the curriculum. As any educator knows, the official view is only one of many equally valid ways to look at the public school curriculum. Curricular change is not managed by a secretary or undersecretary, not even by an entire 480,000-strong Department of Education. It is managed and will be managed by 75 million Filipinos," said Dr. Cruz in 2001, two years before his sentiments were validated at the Japan Globalization Conference.
Dr. Cruz called this undertaking the People Power Model of Curricular Change. "A real curriculum should be a couple of volumes long, because it would contain learning competencies, lesson plans, reference materials and all the other things demanded by educational theory. The very fact that [the RBEC] is only a few pages long (should cue us that it is up to us) as parents of children in public schools, as teachers in public schools, as concerned citizens, to fill in the huge gaps in the RBEC," said Dr. Cruz.
We say this is what the Education Revolution is all about. What and how our children learn is our collective responsibility.
That they grow up to become socially responsible citizens steeped in democratic principles is our moral imperative.
©2006 www.inq7.net all rights reserved
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Do The Things We Do Have An Positive Impact On The Poorest Of The Poor?
hi andrew,
i don't find the remark of your officemate "do the things we do have an positive impact on the poorest of the poor?" sarcastic as i have basically the same question addressed to "development" oriented people? i work with an ngo ercof (www.ercof.org) and we are into migration and development.
as a development manager, you are aware of poverty mapping. i believe this is really needed to have more effective (not just efficient) intervention strategies. for effectiveness is doing the right things, while efficiency is doing things right.
doing the wrong things right is fatal! it is similar to giving the right dose of medicine but the wrong medicine to a patient. also most performance indicators are quantitative (efficiency indicators) not qualitative (effective).
in anything i do, i ask myself first the question "is it the right thing to do?" only when i am fully convinced that i am doing the right thing will i ask the second question, "am i doing it right?"
this way i always find meaning in anything i do. that is how i end up as an advocate of change.
so if you have yet to answer "yes" to the question, then you have to start asking yourself, "are what we doing as development managers in the government the right things to do to create positive impact on the poorest of the poor?"
are you familiar with pcm/lfa (project cycle management/log frame approach?
you said that there are those from the rural areas who don't actually see themselves as "poor," but just living a "simple life." this is actually what i meant when i said, "being poor is only a state of mind, of not having enough, a never-ending desire to have more than what we really have."
cheers!
tony
i don't find the remark of your officemate "do the things we do have an positive impact on the poorest of the poor?" sarcastic as i have basically the same question addressed to "development" oriented people? i work with an ngo ercof (www.ercof.org) and we are into migration and development.
as a development manager, you are aware of poverty mapping. i believe this is really needed to have more effective (not just efficient) intervention strategies. for effectiveness is doing the right things, while efficiency is doing things right.
doing the wrong things right is fatal! it is similar to giving the right dose of medicine but the wrong medicine to a patient. also most performance indicators are quantitative (efficiency indicators) not qualitative (effective).
in anything i do, i ask myself first the question "is it the right thing to do?" only when i am fully convinced that i am doing the right thing will i ask the second question, "am i doing it right?"
this way i always find meaning in anything i do. that is how i end up as an advocate of change.
so if you have yet to answer "yes" to the question, then you have to start asking yourself, "are what we doing as development managers in the government the right things to do to create positive impact on the poorest of the poor?"
are you familiar with pcm/lfa (project cycle management/log frame approach?
you said that there are those from the rural areas who don't actually see themselves as "poor," but just living a "simple life." this is actually what i meant when i said, "being poor is only a state of mind, of not having enough, a never-ending desire to have more than what we really have."
cheers!
tony
Entrepreneurship Subject In Any Course
hi roy,
you brought up an issue on what is missing with the curriculum that we use in school. we are all educated/trained to become employees not entrepreneurs. in fact, i think we need to do some lobbying so that there should be at least one subject on entrepreneurship in any course.
i am a registered mechanical engineer by profession but learned the tricks on how to run a business organization by taking "certification" courses and through self-learning.
i believe in just-in-time learning, meaning i only try to learn those that i need now or in the near future and by practicing what i learn, i find out what theories work or not.
so if you plan to have your own business, i suggest you make yourself dirty as early as possible.
maybe most if not all parents want their children to finish their studies first before venturing into business. but unfortunately, business opportunities wait for no one.
imagine the shock of most graduates who studied full time to finish their chosen course only to find out that there are no jobs waiting for them. some of them end up under-employed which is quite discouraging and sometimes demeaning. i have observed that while before, most fastfood chain crew are part-time workers who are still studying, now you see college graduates running the same fast food chains.
i know most people will say that the more the chance of finding a job becomes slim if one doesn't graduate. on the other hand, why insist in preparing for a job that doesn't exist? come to think of it, i have yet to see a working student who did not succeed in their chosen career.
to summarize these are my suggestions:
1. those students who plan to own and run their own business in the future should start working part time for a small company so that he is exposed to all the requirements in running a business even while still studying.
2. those who can afford to start their own small businesses while still studying should decide what matters most: finishing a course or earning a living.
3. find a summer job even as an apprentice.
in short, by starting early while still young, you can easily do some shifting in your chosen endeavour.
tony
p.s. please email me privately if you want further advices. i may act as your mentor if you give me the chance.
(posted at pwedenabook egroup)
you brought up an issue on what is missing with the curriculum that we use in school. we are all educated/trained to become employees not entrepreneurs. in fact, i think we need to do some lobbying so that there should be at least one subject on entrepreneurship in any course.
i am a registered mechanical engineer by profession but learned the tricks on how to run a business organization by taking "certification" courses and through self-learning.
i believe in just-in-time learning, meaning i only try to learn those that i need now or in the near future and by practicing what i learn, i find out what theories work or not.
so if you plan to have your own business, i suggest you make yourself dirty as early as possible.
maybe most if not all parents want their children to finish their studies first before venturing into business. but unfortunately, business opportunities wait for no one.
imagine the shock of most graduates who studied full time to finish their chosen course only to find out that there are no jobs waiting for them. some of them end up under-employed which is quite discouraging and sometimes demeaning. i have observed that while before, most fastfood chain crew are part-time workers who are still studying, now you see college graduates running the same fast food chains.
i know most people will say that the more the chance of finding a job becomes slim if one doesn't graduate. on the other hand, why insist in preparing for a job that doesn't exist? come to think of it, i have yet to see a working student who did not succeed in their chosen career.
to summarize these are my suggestions:
1. those students who plan to own and run their own business in the future should start working part time for a small company so that he is exposed to all the requirements in running a business even while still studying.
2. those who can afford to start their own small businesses while still studying should decide what matters most: finishing a course or earning a living.
3. find a summer job even as an apprentice.
in short, by starting early while still young, you can easily do some shifting in your chosen endeavour.
tony
p.s. please email me privately if you want further advices. i may act as your mentor if you give me the chance.
(posted at pwedenabook egroup)
On Savings and Poverty
philip,
you use money either way, now or in the future. you use it now for basic needs or for instant gratification and save some for future needs or for delayed gratification.
your example of one who cannot feed his family is a worst scenario which jen is trying to address. we see them all around us, people who do not even have decent jobs marrying and having children. i believe this has got to do with the "bahala na" attitude of some of us.
i don't want to sound very technical but as we have the rich, the middle income and the poor categories, there are also categories of poverty and those who want to do interventions (those who are into poverty alleviation/reduction programs) should know which category they are addressing to.
for example, micro-finance are for the entrepreneurial poor. grants/aids/donations are for the chronic poor.
for more information, one may access the world bank's povertynet website: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/
0,,menuPK:336998~pagePK:149018~piPK:149093~theSitePK:
336992,00.html
to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger is one of the eight millenium development goals (mdg) (http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/index.html). The poverty goal calls for reducing by half the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day by 2015. A reduction from 28 percent in 1990 to 12.7 percent in 2015, would reduce the number of extreme poor by 363 million.
tony
(posted at pwedenabook egroup)
you use money either way, now or in the future. you use it now for basic needs or for instant gratification and save some for future needs or for delayed gratification.
your example of one who cannot feed his family is a worst scenario which jen is trying to address. we see them all around us, people who do not even have decent jobs marrying and having children. i believe this has got to do with the "bahala na" attitude of some of us.
i don't want to sound very technical but as we have the rich, the middle income and the poor categories, there are also categories of poverty and those who want to do interventions (those who are into poverty alleviation/reduction programs) should know which category they are addressing to.
for example, micro-finance are for the entrepreneurial poor. grants/aids/donations are for the chronic poor.
for more information, one may access the world bank's povertynet website: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/
0,,menuPK:336998~pagePK:149018~piPK:149093~theSitePK:
336992,00.html
to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger is one of the eight millenium development goals (mdg) (http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/index.html). The poverty goal calls for reducing by half the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day by 2015. A reduction from 28 percent in 1990 to 12.7 percent in 2015, would reduce the number of extreme poor by 363 million.
tony
(posted at pwedenabook egroup)
Effectiveness vs Efficiency
Effectiveness is doing the right things. Effectiveness is doing things right. Doing the wrong things right is disastrous. Peter F. Drucker
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. Peter F. Drucker
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.peter-drucker.com/books/0887306128.html
Effectiveness Can Be Learned
To be, effective is the job of the executive. "To effect" and "to execute" are, after all, near-synonyms. Whether he works in a business or in a hospital, in a government agency or in a labor union, in a university or in the army, the executive is, first of all, expected to get the right things done. And this is simply that he is expected to be effective.
Yet men of high effectiveness are conspicuous by their absence in executive jobs. High intelligence is common enough among executives. Imagination is far from rare. The level of knowledge tends to be high. But there seems to be little correlation between a man's effectiveness and his intelligence, his imagination or his knowledge. Brilliant men are often strikingly ineffectual; they fail to realize that the brilliant insight is not by itself achievement. They never have learned that insights become effectiveness only through hard systematic work. Conversely, in every organization there are some highly effective plodders. While others rush around in the frenzy and busyness which very bright people so often confuse with "creativity," the plodder puts one foot in front of the other and gets there like the tortoise in the old fable.
Intelligence, imagination, and knowledge are essential resources, but only effectiveness converts them into results. By themselves, they only set limits to what can be attained.
WHY WE NEED EFFECTIVE EXECUTIVES
All this should be obvious. But why then has so little attention been paid to effectiveness, in an age in which there are mountains of books and articles on every other aspect of the executive's tasks?
One reason for this neglect is that effectiveness is the specific technology of the knowledge worker within an organization. Until recently, there was no more than a handful of these around.
For manual work, we need only efficiency; that is, the ability to do things right rather than the ability to get the right things done. The manual worker can always be judged in terms of the quantity and quality of a definable and discrete output, such as a pair of shoes. We have learned how to measure efficiency and how to define quality in manual work during the last hundred years-to the point where we have been able to multiply the output of the individual worker tremendously.
Formerly, the manual worker-whether machine operator or front-line soldier-predominated in an organizations. Few people of effectiveness were needed: those at the top who gave the orders that others carried out. They were so small a fraction of the total work population that we could, rightly or wrongly, take their effectiveness for granted. We could depend on the supply of "naturals," the few people in any area of human endeavor who somehow know what the rest of us have to learn the hard way.
This was true not only of business and the army. It is hard to realize today that "government" during the American Civil War a hundred years ago meant the merest handful of people. Lincoln's Secretary of War had fewer than fifty civilian subordinates, most of them not "executives' and policy-makers but telegraph clerks. The entire Washington establishment of the U.S. government in Theodore Roosevelt's time, around 1900, could be comfortably housed in any one of the government buildings along the Mall today.
The hospital of yesterday did not know any of the "health-service professionals," the X-ray and lab technicians, the dieticians and therapists, the social workers, and so on, of whom it now employs as many as two hundred and fifty for every one hundred patients. Apart from a few nurses, there were only cleaning women, cooks and maids. The physician was the knowledge worker, with the nurse as his aide.
In other words, up to recent times, the major problem o organization was efficiency in the performance of the manual worker who did what he had been told to do. Knowledge workers were not predominant in organization.
In fact, only a small fraction of the knowledge workers of earlier days were part of an organization. Most of them worked by themselves as professionals, at best with a clerk. Their effectiveness or lack of effectiveness concerned only themselves and affected only themselves.
Today, however, the large knowledge organization is the central reality. Modem society is a society of large organized institutions. In every one of them, including the armed services, the center of gravity has shifted to the knowledge worker, the man who puts to work what he has between his ears rather than the brawn of his muscles or the skill of his hands. Increasingly, the majority of people who have been schooled to use knowledge, theory, and concept rather than physical force or manual skill work in an organization and are effective insofar as they can make a contribution to the organization.
Now effectiveness can no longer be taken for granted. Now it can no longer be neglected.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. Peter F. Drucker
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.peter-drucker.com/books/0887306128.html
Effectiveness Can Be Learned
To be, effective is the job of the executive. "To effect" and "to execute" are, after all, near-synonyms. Whether he works in a business or in a hospital, in a government agency or in a labor union, in a university or in the army, the executive is, first of all, expected to get the right things done. And this is simply that he is expected to be effective.
Yet men of high effectiveness are conspicuous by their absence in executive jobs. High intelligence is common enough among executives. Imagination is far from rare. The level of knowledge tends to be high. But there seems to be little correlation between a man's effectiveness and his intelligence, his imagination or his knowledge. Brilliant men are often strikingly ineffectual; they fail to realize that the brilliant insight is not by itself achievement. They never have learned that insights become effectiveness only through hard systematic work. Conversely, in every organization there are some highly effective plodders. While others rush around in the frenzy and busyness which very bright people so often confuse with "creativity," the plodder puts one foot in front of the other and gets there like the tortoise in the old fable.
Intelligence, imagination, and knowledge are essential resources, but only effectiveness converts them into results. By themselves, they only set limits to what can be attained.
WHY WE NEED EFFECTIVE EXECUTIVES
All this should be obvious. But why then has so little attention been paid to effectiveness, in an age in which there are mountains of books and articles on every other aspect of the executive's tasks?
One reason for this neglect is that effectiveness is the specific technology of the knowledge worker within an organization. Until recently, there was no more than a handful of these around.
For manual work, we need only efficiency; that is, the ability to do things right rather than the ability to get the right things done. The manual worker can always be judged in terms of the quantity and quality of a definable and discrete output, such as a pair of shoes. We have learned how to measure efficiency and how to define quality in manual work during the last hundred years-to the point where we have been able to multiply the output of the individual worker tremendously.
Formerly, the manual worker-whether machine operator or front-line soldier-predominated in an organizations. Few people of effectiveness were needed: those at the top who gave the orders that others carried out. They were so small a fraction of the total work population that we could, rightly or wrongly, take their effectiveness for granted. We could depend on the supply of "naturals," the few people in any area of human endeavor who somehow know what the rest of us have to learn the hard way.
This was true not only of business and the army. It is hard to realize today that "government" during the American Civil War a hundred years ago meant the merest handful of people. Lincoln's Secretary of War had fewer than fifty civilian subordinates, most of them not "executives' and policy-makers but telegraph clerks. The entire Washington establishment of the U.S. government in Theodore Roosevelt's time, around 1900, could be comfortably housed in any one of the government buildings along the Mall today.
The hospital of yesterday did not know any of the "health-service professionals," the X-ray and lab technicians, the dieticians and therapists, the social workers, and so on, of whom it now employs as many as two hundred and fifty for every one hundred patients. Apart from a few nurses, there were only cleaning women, cooks and maids. The physician was the knowledge worker, with the nurse as his aide.
In other words, up to recent times, the major problem o organization was efficiency in the performance of the manual worker who did what he had been told to do. Knowledge workers were not predominant in organization.
In fact, only a small fraction of the knowledge workers of earlier days were part of an organization. Most of them worked by themselves as professionals, at best with a clerk. Their effectiveness or lack of effectiveness concerned only themselves and affected only themselves.
Today, however, the large knowledge organization is the central reality. Modem society is a society of large organized institutions. In every one of them, including the armed services, the center of gravity has shifted to the knowledge worker, the man who puts to work what he has between his ears rather than the brawn of his muscles or the skill of his hands. Increasingly, the majority of people who have been schooled to use knowledge, theory, and concept rather than physical force or manual skill work in an organization and are effective insofar as they can make a contribution to the organization.
Now effectiveness can no longer be taken for granted. Now it can no longer be neglected.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thinkingmanagers.com/blog/2005/11/23/peter-drucker-effective-efficient/
Peter Drucker - Efficient v Effective
November 23, 2005
Filed under: Management Gurus, Management — Bob @ 9:58 pm
I promised to let you into the late Peter Drucker’s secrets of managing effectively. First, how good are you at the five functions of the manager?
1. setting objectives
2. organising the group
3. motivating and communicating
4. measuring performance
5. developing people
For each of the five, ask two questions: am I truly effective (doing the right thing) or am I merely efficient (doing things right)? Score yourself on effectiveness and efficiency on each of the five functions on a scale of 0–10: 35 or below is inadequate. Rectify fast! 35-70 is average to good. Improve! And 75 and above is great, but don’t relax!
To set objectives, do a feedback analysis on a regular basis. Whenever you take a key decision or action, write down what you expect to happen. Review results at regular intervals and compare them with expectations. Use this feedback as a guide and goad to reinforce strengths and eliminate weaknesses.
Then organise yourself. Ask three absolutely basic and marvellous time management questions.
o What am I doing that does not need to be done at all?
o What am I doing that can be done by somebody else?
o What am I doing that only I can do?
Obviously, you scrap the first, delegate the second, and concentrate only on tasks in the last question. You’ll free up huge quantities of time, but watch out, the unnecessary time-wasters keep on creeping back – shoot ‘em on sight.
Motivating hinges on people identifying themselves with the organisation and their own group, and with its products and/or services: while accepting individual and group responsibility for the quality and performance of their work. The key tools are the three Ps: Pay, Placement and Promotion. That means how you reward people, put the round and square pegs in the appropriate holes, and raise people to realise more of their potential.
Don’t measure performance by financial numbers alone. Look for indicators like market share, quality ratings by customers, successful innovations, competitive rankings, customer satisfaction, employment morale, cost of waste, use of capital, productivity. It’s a measure of the complexity of the management task that you need to get all these indicators moving upwards at the same time.
Finally, developing yourself and others requires constantly taking action to improve – and there will ALWAYS be room for improvement. So take the six step action plan:
1. Identify your strengths
2. Improve your strengths
3. Increase your knowledge
4. Eliminate bad habits
5. Practice good manners
6. Avoid weak areas
It’s no use just concentrating on yourself; being a good deed in a naughty world won’t get you far. Everybody should have their own individual action plans to guide and improve their performance, making the best use of time by concentrating on strengths and wasting as little as possible on areas of low performance.
Drucker, as you can see, was a highly pragmatic man. Pragmatic means ‘concerned with what is practicable, expedient or convenient, or with practical consequences rather than with theories and ideas’. Drucker actually combines both - and that’s how you combine efficiency with effectiveness.
Good and Bad Procrastination
December 2005
The most impressive people I know are all terrible procrastinators. So could it be that procrastination isn't always bad?
Most people who write about procrastination write about how to cure it. But this is, strictly speaking, impossible. There are an infinite number of things you could be doing. No matter what you work on, you're not working on everything else. So the question is not how to avoid procrastination, but how to procrastinate well.
There are three variants of procrastination, depending on what you do instead of working on something: you could work on (a) nothing, (b) something less important, or (c) something more important. That last type, I'd argue, is good procrastination.
The most impressive people I know are all terrible procrastinators. So could it be that procrastination isn't always bad?
Most people who write about procrastination write about how to cure it. But this is, strictly speaking, impossible. There are an infinite number of things you could be doing. No matter what you work on, you're not working on everything else. So the question is not how to avoid procrastination, but how to procrastinate well.
There are three variants of procrastination, depending on what you do instead of working on something: you could work on (a) nothing, (b) something less important, or (c) something more important. That last type, I'd argue, is good procrastination.
How to Make Wealth
Written May 2004, Posted December 2005
(This essay was originally published in Hackers & Painters but I had not put it online till now.)
If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.
(This essay was originally published in Hackers & Painters but I had not put it online till now.)
If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.
Being poor is only a state of mind
the answer to your question is like giving solutions to the nation's woes which is a very complex one.
but let me take a crack on it
for me, being poor is only a state of mind, of not having enough, of fulfilling a never-ending desire to have more than what we already have. this is the rat race which fuels a consumer economy. but isn't it odd for a poor country like the philippines to have the culture of consumption instead of promoting the culture of savings?
most of us think that happiness is obtained by the possessions we bought by spending what we earn. some of us even end in deficit spending.
most of us will ask how can we do that what we earn is not even enough? but if take a closer look we spend a lot on non-essential things.
we need to learn to live within or below our means. we should be frugal in our spending and learn how to "save for rainy days". the money that we save may become sources of cheap capital which those with entrepreneurial mind can tap to produce cheaper products which are competitive in the global market. this will generate employment opportunities.
we will not be able to acquire assets which will give us passive income if we don't have any savings.
what we need in the philippines is a cultural revolution. the change should start from within. i believe the solution is more psychological (individual) than sociological (collective).
many will say, "dapat ganito, dapat ganoon" but never lifts a finger to change one's self. it's unfortunate that most of us do not practice what we preach and do not walk the talk.
let's ask ourselves, are we part of the solution or part of the problem? do we continue to discuss, argue and debate on these issues or we start talking less and doing more? let's ask ourselves what is our contribution to the society we belong?
i hope that we are not using this egroup as a mere extension of "huntahan" (english translation: unproductive sharing)
let's learn from each other and do something even in our own little ways. for at the end of the day, the little things that we do are much much better than just doing nothing.
let's do it, folks!
tony
(posted in pwedenabook egroup)
but let me take a crack on it
for me, being poor is only a state of mind, of not having enough, of fulfilling a never-ending desire to have more than what we already have. this is the rat race which fuels a consumer economy. but isn't it odd for a poor country like the philippines to have the culture of consumption instead of promoting the culture of savings?
most of us think that happiness is obtained by the possessions we bought by spending what we earn. some of us even end in deficit spending.
most of us will ask how can we do that what we earn is not even enough? but if take a closer look we spend a lot on non-essential things.
we need to learn to live within or below our means. we should be frugal in our spending and learn how to "save for rainy days". the money that we save may become sources of cheap capital which those with entrepreneurial mind can tap to produce cheaper products which are competitive in the global market. this will generate employment opportunities.
we will not be able to acquire assets which will give us passive income if we don't have any savings.
what we need in the philippines is a cultural revolution. the change should start from within. i believe the solution is more psychological (individual) than sociological (collective).
many will say, "dapat ganito, dapat ganoon" but never lifts a finger to change one's self. it's unfortunate that most of us do not practice what we preach and do not walk the talk.
let's ask ourselves, are we part of the solution or part of the problem? do we continue to discuss, argue and debate on these issues or we start talking less and doing more? let's ask ourselves what is our contribution to the society we belong?
i hope that we are not using this egroup as a mere extension of "huntahan" (english translation: unproductive sharing)
let's learn from each other and do something even in our own little ways. for at the end of the day, the little things that we do are much much better than just doing nothing.
let's do it, folks!
tony
(posted in pwedenabook egroup)
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Pondo ng Pinoy P0.25 for the poor (63% poverty rate)
Pondo ng Pinoy:
P0.25 for the poor
Posted: 6:15 AM (Manila Time) Jun. 20, 2004
By Blanche S. Rivera and Peachy E. Yamsuan
Inquirer News Service
http://www.inq7.net/nat/2004/jun/20/nat_12-2.htm
63-percent poverty rate
Rosales said the Pondo ng Pinoy would revolutionize the way Filipinos viewed development, and encourage the poor to be donors and not just beneficiaries.
A study by the Institute of Church and Social Issues pegged the poor and very poor at 52 percent of the population in Metro Manila. The poverty rate nationwide is even worse at 63 percent.
Earlier, Caritas Manila director Father Anton Pascual said the foundation would give priority to livelihood initiatives by NGOs because this was the biggest problem of urban dwellers. But he said housing, family welfare and restorative justice would also be supported.
The foundation will initially focus its support on the archdiocese of Manila, and the dioceses of Antipolo, Cubao, Caloocan, Parañaque, Novaliches, Pasig, Taytay, Imus, Malolos, Puerto Princesa, San Pablo, and the military ordinariate.
There are 86 dioceses and archdioceses nationwide.
"The country needs people who seek what is truly good for its citizens without being blinded by narrow selfish ambitions," Rosales told the gathering. "We call these people statesmen. And when we say that we need people with that selfless perspective... we mean you, and not the politicians."
P12-M inspiration
The Pondo ng Pinoy was inspired by the Pondo Batangan, which Rosales put up in Lipa City, Batangas province, during his term as archbishop there. Pascual said the project collected P12 million in three years.
Rosales was installed archbishop of Manila in November 2003, replacing the retired Jaime Cardinal Sin who headed the archdiocese for 29 years.
Even before he officially assumed office, Rosales had stressed the need for a community to work toward a vision. He had said a leader without a vision was guilty of treason.
The Pondo ng Pinoy is his first project in Manila.
It will be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and will be governed by a board composed of eight bishops, four lay people and three priests.
Rosales pointed out that the Pondo ng Pinoy was not a mere fund-raising campaign similar to the corporate and political worlds' concept of development because it also involved liberating people from selfishness, viciousness and greed.
First and foremost, it is an evangelization tool and a development process, he said.
"The result is a developed person shaped by the values, principles and attitude of a Christian who will know how to handle resources. So why talk about billions and trillions when the person handling that is completely greedy, vicious?" Rosales said in a press conference on June 10.
The archbishop added: "Jesus started with people. He served to educate people, purify their intentions and clarify their values. This will change the perception of what a country ought to be."
'Kairos'
In an emotional moment at the closing of the pastoral assembly on June 12, Rosales repeatedly pounded his chest and said: "Pakiramdam ko, ito na."
This is the moment, he said, the kairos (in Greek, the opportune time, as opposed to chronos the chronological time).
"This is our kairos. We should not allow this moment to pass us by," he said.
According to Rosales, the final aim of the Pondo ng Pinoy is to bring to everyone "fullness of life."
He promised to go to all the dioceses, apostolic vicariates and sites of general pastoral assemblies, to explain the foundation.
"Tayo na, sakay na (Let's go, hop on)," he urged his audience.
It is clear that the archbishop will be the untiring voice and promoter of the Pondo ng Pinoy.
P0.25 for the poor
Posted: 6:15 AM (Manila Time) Jun. 20, 2004
By Blanche S. Rivera and Peachy E. Yamsuan
Inquirer News Service
http://www.inq7.net/nat/2004/jun/20/nat_12-2.htm
63-percent poverty rate
Rosales said the Pondo ng Pinoy would revolutionize the way Filipinos viewed development, and encourage the poor to be donors and not just beneficiaries.
A study by the Institute of Church and Social Issues pegged the poor and very poor at 52 percent of the population in Metro Manila. The poverty rate nationwide is even worse at 63 percent.
Earlier, Caritas Manila director Father Anton Pascual said the foundation would give priority to livelihood initiatives by NGOs because this was the biggest problem of urban dwellers. But he said housing, family welfare and restorative justice would also be supported.
The foundation will initially focus its support on the archdiocese of Manila, and the dioceses of Antipolo, Cubao, Caloocan, Parañaque, Novaliches, Pasig, Taytay, Imus, Malolos, Puerto Princesa, San Pablo, and the military ordinariate.
There are 86 dioceses and archdioceses nationwide.
"The country needs people who seek what is truly good for its citizens without being blinded by narrow selfish ambitions," Rosales told the gathering. "We call these people statesmen. And when we say that we need people with that selfless perspective... we mean you, and not the politicians."
P12-M inspiration
The Pondo ng Pinoy was inspired by the Pondo Batangan, which Rosales put up in Lipa City, Batangas province, during his term as archbishop there. Pascual said the project collected P12 million in three years.
Rosales was installed archbishop of Manila in November 2003, replacing the retired Jaime Cardinal Sin who headed the archdiocese for 29 years.
Even before he officially assumed office, Rosales had stressed the need for a community to work toward a vision. He had said a leader without a vision was guilty of treason.
The Pondo ng Pinoy is his first project in Manila.
It will be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and will be governed by a board composed of eight bishops, four lay people and three priests.
Rosales pointed out that the Pondo ng Pinoy was not a mere fund-raising campaign similar to the corporate and political worlds' concept of development because it also involved liberating people from selfishness, viciousness and greed.
First and foremost, it is an evangelization tool and a development process, he said.
"The result is a developed person shaped by the values, principles and attitude of a Christian who will know how to handle resources. So why talk about billions and trillions when the person handling that is completely greedy, vicious?" Rosales said in a press conference on June 10.
The archbishop added: "Jesus started with people. He served to educate people, purify their intentions and clarify their values. This will change the perception of what a country ought to be."
'Kairos'
In an emotional moment at the closing of the pastoral assembly on June 12, Rosales repeatedly pounded his chest and said: "Pakiramdam ko, ito na."
This is the moment, he said, the kairos (in Greek, the opportune time, as opposed to chronos the chronological time).
"This is our kairos. We should not allow this moment to pass us by," he said.
According to Rosales, the final aim of the Pondo ng Pinoy is to bring to everyone "fullness of life."
He promised to go to all the dioceses, apostolic vicariates and sites of general pastoral assemblies, to explain the foundation.
"Tayo na, sakay na (Let's go, hop on)," he urged his audience.
It is clear that the archbishop will be the untiring voice and promoter of the Pondo ng Pinoy.
Pondo ng Pinoy P0.25 for the poor
Pondo ng Pinoy:
P0.25 for the poor
Posted: 6:15 AM (Manila Time) Jun. 20, 2004
By Blanche S. Rivera and Peachy E. Yamsuan
Inquirer News Service
http://www.inq7.net/nat/2004/jun/20/nat_12-1.htm
Community foundation
THE CHURCH is building a foundation for the poor on 25 centavos.
Picking up from the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, the archdiocese of Manila launched on June 11 the Pondo ng Pinoy, a community foundation that will be supported by 25-centavo donations to the parishes in 13 dioceses covered by the ecclesiastical province of Manila.
The project encourages all Catholics to set aside 25 centavos daily for the foundation, whose aim is to support projects of nongovernment organizations and provide the people an alternative to entrusting their welfare to politicians.
Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Rosales said Pondo ng Pinoy would bring about not only the development of the Filipino people, especially the poor, but also a miraculous transformation of the country.
Addressing some 9,000 people gathered at the Folk Arts Theater for the first-ever Manila Interdiocesan General Pastoral Assembly, Rosales said the foundation would replace the government funds that should be used for the public welfare but were being cornered by politicians.
He cited a study by the World Bank showing that 40 percent of the Philippines' annual budget was being lost to graft and corruption. He assailed the politicians who, he said, always took advantage of the poor during elections and political rallies but subsequently ignored them.
"It is not I who condemn; only God can condemn," he said. "We cannot stop [politicians] from taking that 40 percent through corruption, but we can provide an alternative. And this is our alternative."
A crumb's weight
The Pondo ng Pinoy is rooted in the "Theology of the Crumbs" based on the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in the gospel written by Saint Luke.
The rich man feasted on good food every day, while Lazarus, the beggar, lay by the door waiting for the crumbs to fall from the rich man's table.
Upon their deaths, Lazarus went to heaven, and the rich man, to hell.
Rosales said the rich man was not sent to hell because he was rich: "He was condemned because he did not allow even a small thing such as a crumb to fall in the way of Lazarus. Selfishness and greed, no matter how they are expressed, are what keep hell going.
"When the quarrel is over millions and billions, the stake is for the devil, but when the issue is about crumbs and morsels, the obvious destiny is heaven."
Thus, the dictum of the Pondo ng Pinoy is "Anumang magaling, kahit maliit, basta't malimit, ay patungong langit (Whatever is good, no matter how small, as long as it is given regularly, is directed toward heaven)."
The weight of a crumb is 25 centavos, Rosales said, adding:
"Every Filipino believer in the goodness and love of God, expressed in Jesus His Son, will set aside a 'crumb,' 25 centavos, every day."
Individuals and families are urged to save 25-centavo coins in small containers, such as empty water bottles or soft drink cans, and deliver these to their parishes or schools.
If each of the estimated eight million Catholics in Metro Manila saves P1.75 a week, the donations will translate to P14 million weekly and P728 million annually.
More important, Rosales said "the practice will make love and compassion a way of life."
P0.25 for the poor
Posted: 6:15 AM (Manila Time) Jun. 20, 2004
By Blanche S. Rivera and Peachy E. Yamsuan
Inquirer News Service
http://www.inq7.net/nat/2004/jun/20/nat_12-1.htm
Community foundation
THE CHURCH is building a foundation for the poor on 25 centavos.
Picking up from the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, the archdiocese of Manila launched on June 11 the Pondo ng Pinoy, a community foundation that will be supported by 25-centavo donations to the parishes in 13 dioceses covered by the ecclesiastical province of Manila.
The project encourages all Catholics to set aside 25 centavos daily for the foundation, whose aim is to support projects of nongovernment organizations and provide the people an alternative to entrusting their welfare to politicians.
Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Rosales said Pondo ng Pinoy would bring about not only the development of the Filipino people, especially the poor, but also a miraculous transformation of the country.
Addressing some 9,000 people gathered at the Folk Arts Theater for the first-ever Manila Interdiocesan General Pastoral Assembly, Rosales said the foundation would replace the government funds that should be used for the public welfare but were being cornered by politicians.
He cited a study by the World Bank showing that 40 percent of the Philippines' annual budget was being lost to graft and corruption. He assailed the politicians who, he said, always took advantage of the poor during elections and political rallies but subsequently ignored them.
"It is not I who condemn; only God can condemn," he said. "We cannot stop [politicians] from taking that 40 percent through corruption, but we can provide an alternative. And this is our alternative."
A crumb's weight
The Pondo ng Pinoy is rooted in the "Theology of the Crumbs" based on the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in the gospel written by Saint Luke.
The rich man feasted on good food every day, while Lazarus, the beggar, lay by the door waiting for the crumbs to fall from the rich man's table.
Upon their deaths, Lazarus went to heaven, and the rich man, to hell.
Rosales said the rich man was not sent to hell because he was rich: "He was condemned because he did not allow even a small thing such as a crumb to fall in the way of Lazarus. Selfishness and greed, no matter how they are expressed, are what keep hell going.
"When the quarrel is over millions and billions, the stake is for the devil, but when the issue is about crumbs and morsels, the obvious destiny is heaven."
Thus, the dictum of the Pondo ng Pinoy is "Anumang magaling, kahit maliit, basta't malimit, ay patungong langit (Whatever is good, no matter how small, as long as it is given regularly, is directed toward heaven)."
The weight of a crumb is 25 centavos, Rosales said, adding:
"Every Filipino believer in the goodness and love of God, expressed in Jesus His Son, will set aside a 'crumb,' 25 centavos, every day."
Individuals and families are urged to save 25-centavo coins in small containers, such as empty water bottles or soft drink cans, and deliver these to their parishes or schools.
If each of the estimated eight million Catholics in Metro Manila saves P1.75 a week, the donations will translate to P14 million weekly and P728 million annually.
More important, Rosales said "the practice will make love and compassion a way of life."
On Frugality
the article you read in the reader's digest has confirmed what i thought is a common but unknown trait among the rich - frugality.
in a poor country like the philippines....frugality (being matipid) should be one trait that must be inculcated in each and everyone of us. unfortunately, it is commonly mistaken as being a miser (kuripot) like scrooge, the main character in Charles Dickens' 1843 novella A Christmas Carol whose name has come into the English language as a byword for miserliness and misanthropy
anybody who has done a comparison between bar soaps and liquid soaps? which is more economical?
i believe one of the better ways to economize is to use generic items not those branded ones heavily promoted by advertisements. unfortunately, we filipinos have a penchant of using well known brands as in designer items where in we spend more of the brand than the item we are buying.
syempre iba ang sikat! (kahit na walang laman ang bulsa!)
(as posted in pwedenabook egroup)
in a poor country like the philippines....frugality (being matipid) should be one trait that must be inculcated in each and everyone of us. unfortunately, it is commonly mistaken as being a miser (kuripot) like scrooge, the main character in Charles Dickens' 1843 novella A Christmas Carol whose name has come into the English language as a byword for miserliness and misanthropy
anybody who has done a comparison between bar soaps and liquid soaps? which is more economical?
i believe one of the better ways to economize is to use generic items not those branded ones heavily promoted by advertisements. unfortunately, we filipinos have a penchant of using well known brands as in designer items where in we spend more of the brand than the item we are buying.
syempre iba ang sikat! (kahit na walang laman ang bulsa!)
(as posted in pwedenabook egroup)
Retirement Is Not About Age But About Affordability
retirement is not about age but of affordability. we know of people who retire an an earlier age.
retirement is not about not working anymore...but not being pressured to work for a living, or working for money.
one may do volunteer work or do what he likes doing when he retires to make him/herself useful.
coz if always think that when we retire, it would be like pabandying bandying na lang....well we will not be better off than the istambays sa kanto.
(as posted in pwedenabook egroup)
retirement is not about not working anymore...but not being pressured to work for a living, or working for money.
one may do volunteer work or do what he likes doing when he retires to make him/herself useful.
coz if always think that when we retire, it would be like pabandying bandying na lang....well we will not be better off than the istambays sa kanto.
(as posted in pwedenabook egroup)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)