Beneficence

Blogging Relief!

Thanks to Chris Corrigan   for the link to  Hurricane Katrina Direct Relief.    She lists Christ United Methodist Church, where my mom worked at their distribution center this afternoon.  Tomorrow they move the center into a nearby vacant Winn Dixie store.  Thanks, Winn Dixie!

My mom found a fellow with a 16-foot trailer who will deliver it with water and other supplies to Project: K.I.D. tomorrow.  Gotta love the can-do American spirit in action!  Too bad the press aren't getting more of these stories!  We'll work on that, too!

Katrina Response

I invite those of you following the developing post-Katrina relief story to visit Project K.I.D.

This project was launched by my good friend Paige Ellison of Fairhope, AL, and I have signed on as head of the advisory team.

In the first days after Hurricane Katrina, Paige traveled through some of the most devastated coastal areas and saw first-hand the need for emergency child care services.  Children were exposed to environments in chaos, lacking food, water, clothing or proper sanitation facilities.

In many instances, children were inadequately supervised and exposed to injury from "playing" amidst flood waters and debris. We know of at least one instance where a child was hit by a car and another where a toddler who had lost his parents in the flooding was found in the company of an unrelated drunken man.  Even in the best cases, where families are intact, the needs of caring for the immediate supervision of their children can hamper parents' efforts to obtain what they needed for survival, shelter, and relief. 

With her past experience in training child care workers for the U.S. Armed Services and other organizations, Paige saw the need and knew how to respond.

Project: K.I.D. was established to organize a timely and effective response to kids in devastation by providing what we are calling "Play Care." 

We will appreciate any assistance you can provide--please visit our website and find out how you can help.  And please help us spread the word.

Thanks so much for your attention and consideration!

Small rewards

A new book, Business Blogs:  A Practical Guide, has just been published by Bill Ives and Amanda Watlington.  It's an eye-opening overview of the variety of uses that are being made of this new "infowork" (INFOrmation + netWORK) technology.  I'll plug it in part because it features a short write-up on my meager efforts here at Beneficence!  Here's an excerpt:

Lenore Ealy writes the philanthropy blog, Beneficence,
(http://thinkitecture.typepad.com/beneficence/) and has the following advice for
prospective bloggers.

“Explicitly outline your objectives and determine how much of your time is
worth allocating to the accomplishment of those objectives. Blogging is fun
so it can eat more and more time. Some serious cost-benefit analysis
should precede launching into blogging. Also, think clearly about how your
products can be developed, promoted, and/or sold via the blog.”

Hmmm, that sounds pretty good, eh?!  Given that my productivity has slipped here tremendously, I think that I need to reconsider my own advice... and maybe even have a closer look at the book! 

Not to worry, I give credit where it's due:  Phil earns his own mention in the book, but I also put in a plug for him and acknowledge that this space truly owes its existence to a little game of "I dare you!"

From David Allen's recent enewsletter:

Create, maintain, and nurture a place where you can think and write in a more relaxed mode than where you deal with bills, email, phone calls, and the nitty-gritty of your work flow. Keep a separate set of writing tools, paper, journal, and inspirational reading there. Give yourself permission to sit there and not produce or express anything, but put pen (and/or laptop) at hand so that on the slightest whim you have no resistance to writing something.

This "tip" speaks to a particular point of pain I've had lately.  When I come to my desk in a more reflective mood, I suddenly confront all the things that I need "to do," and what may have turned into a time for some intellectual creativity or spiritual refreshment slips away as I become more task-oriented. 

I'm thinking that my blogging time should take place in this other space, too.  Lately it's been too difficult to justify the time blogging when I'm looking at client deadlines posted clearly right here in my workspace!

Now to find such a space here in my home office, which already contains two desks, two computers, two filing cabinets,  hundreds of books, and most of my material for homeschooling my son next year! 

 

Corporate Ethics and Ordered Liberty

In this recent article, Prison Fellowship president Mark Earley uses the concept of ordered liberty to argue for a high standard of ethics in corporate (and all public) life. 

Building Bridges

Ahhhh, now we're getting somewhere.  Dave Pollard has discovered Ivan Illich!   De-Schooling Society has been prominent on my recommended reading list here from the beginning.    Yes, Dave, I think there are several places of common agreement from which we can together leap forward toward a more unifying understanding of social cooperation and order, but we'll have to go back a bit.  The decade between about 1965 and 1975 was a fertile period, and we would do look back to those years and pick up Cornuelle, Jonas Salk, Illich, Kenneth Boulding, and a handful of others grappling with the problems honestly and inventively but in ways that were largely buried by the increasing politicization of American intellectual life that ensued in the wake of Deconstruction and postmodernism. 

You outline part of the challenge:   "Instead of being obsessed with 'building something better' should we instead be focused on 'deconstruction tools' that liberate us from institutions and government and business and systems, and allow us to apply them to self-organized community-based networks?"   

I would suggest it is really the work of building that is required.. the deconstruction will take care of itself once people have better alternatives from which to choose.  But there is another problem with your vocabulary of deconstruction:  the politics of difference promulgated by deconstructionists and postmodernists in the academy and embraced by many progressives today throws up strange and unnecessary barriers to the creation of the strong and weak links necessary in self-organizing networks.   For an organic society to be possible, we have to believe that we can communicate with one another, and that our modes of discourse are not merely attempts at hegemony over one another. 

Phil Cubeta at GiftHub doesn't like my choice of language at times--complaining that my earnest desire to explore the possibility and problems of "beneficence" is merely a front for "stinginess--and one of his commentors supposes that the religious roots of my approach to the world are merely "warmed over calvinism" that has little appeal to "adults."   These are not trust-building criticisms.

If I'm speaking as truly as possible here from my heart and mind, but I'm condemned as one capable only of either false consciousness (a conservative "head fake" I believe Phil calls it) or a facile intellectual and spiritual immaturity, it really doesn't leave us much room to have a conversation about Illich or anyone else. 

My faith enjoins charity and humility and provides me a robust model of communication in the Three-in-One (and through the sacrament of communion)--which holds that the signifiers we call language can and do point to deeper truths about reality than what we meagerly minded humans can make up on our own.  Ultimately, it is only through my faith that I have hope that there can be trust and common ground between us, and it is in good faith that I continue to try to build bridges rather than throw up walls.

Red, Blue, and Green

Enjoy this Valentine's Day inspired reflection by Dan Klein.   Dan  puts an interesting twist on red/blue politics relevant to the exchange in the comments to my previous post.  The only thing I wonder is why  those who tend to call themselves Democrats or progressives tend  so often to the color green and allow their rhetoric to sound more like a  politics of envy (i.e., make the rich pay) than a politics of compassion.   In compassion we may come closer to finding some unity of spirit and truth, whether we experience the hot red passion of romance or the cooler blue passion of prudence.  Envy, however, is by nature divisive.   

Identifying Need

How do we best deal with the needs of the others?  Phil Cubeta at GiftHub writes:

Involuntary philanthropy or taxation is a forced exaction to make up for the limitations of our own sympathy and range of personal experience and face to face compassion. As citizens in our little communities of interest, we do not know, often, who needs what most. Government programs fill in what glamorous giving, and elite giving, and "be like me" giving so often forgets, that those most in need may be out of sight, beyond the pale of our sympathy and yet have a call upon us as fellow citizens. Nor can business do much for those without marketable skills, good health, or the ability to buy things.

The problem with this critique of our giving patterns, is in the assumption that government programs which tend to centralization and bureaucratization can have BETTER knowledge of "who needs what most."  The conservative case when stated at its best does not deny that needs exist but hones in on the critical problem of the limited knowledge of central planners.  The failure of centralized Soviet-style economic planning is patent, so why do so many continue to presume that bureaucratized government-centered social planning (aka redistribution) can succeed any better. 

Phil has identified the key problem:  how do we come to know the who, what, when, and where of true needs.  But the answer is not to pretend that government can put on some mighty spectacles that grant omnivision.   Rather the challenge is to help us all become better citizens by looking more closely at the needs of our neighbors--and that includes the communities we drive through from our bedroom communities in suburbia to our jobs in downtown highrises.   Dislocation of civic responsibility by entrusting it all to government merely allows me to put on my sunglasses, lock the doors, and turn up my satellite radio so I'm not required to look.

I fear that  the  "limitations of our own sympathy" are more encouraged by "forced exactions" than by our participation in the life-changing "little platoons" of civil society.  What we should be pursuing is both to foster more personal engagement in the nexus of associations and organizations--the "communities of interest"--that comprise society and to raise the sights, expand the interests, increase connections and communication among these communities so that the needs of some of the poorest among us become known to us personally, not written off as "not my problem anymore" each year when we pay our tax bill. 

For Such a Time as This

I've started a new blog, For Such a Time as This, where I can focus more of my reflections on faith and Christian witness.  That will leave this blog more for issues philanthropic.  Certainly I believe that faith and philanthropy are related, but the new blog will iterate the faith themes more exclusively. 

Left2Right

I'm not yet ready to jump back into blogging full speed, but spent much of this evening catching up on reading other people's blogs that I like to follow.  Was intrigued to see this new blog on the scene:  Left2Right .  When I do get caught up on my offline projects, I will look forward to engaging with this group some.  Especially interests me to see Stephen Darwall there.  I wrote my doctoral dissertation on the English moral philosopher Ralph Cudworth.   Darwall's actually one of the probably less than 50 living people who've read much of Cudworth, and I cite his work in my dissertation (which, sigh, sits idly on my shelf).

I did wonder at this early post by Eliz. Anderson:  What Hume Can Teach Us  About Our Partisan Divisions, who writes:

Hume observed that differences in interest are the most "reasonable." They are most open to compromise and negotiation.  Moreover, arguments about what policies are in people's interest are most open to revision in light of evidence.   If interests were all that divided us, the Democratic Party (what there is of the Left that has institutional power) would enjoy an overwhelming majority, since it represents the interests of the bulk of the population, while Republican policies favor mainly the rich.  Most people understand this, and the Left can offer sound arguments and evidence to persuade those who disagree.

This confused me at first--for it doesn't seem patently obvious to me that most people DO think the Democratic Party represents their interests.  Then I wondered whether there was actually something rather favorable in this in that perhaps Anderson is suggesting that the majority of the voters who voted Republican in the recent election must be rich, or at least must consider themselves to be so.  This would mean that, contrary to the typical assertions from the Left, the number of the "rich" in America is growing significantly, a trend that would seem on its very face to begin to undermine the assertion that "most people" understand the Dem Party to represent their interests.