Buddha meets the Chicago Bears
Watching football is an exercise in observing desire (tanha). How attached am I to the outcome of this play? How much do I care if Rex Grossman throws an interception? What am I doing here, flipping the TV on and off because I can't bear to see a Bear error? There is an end to suffering, according to the Four Noble Truths. It's a Super Bowl victory for the Chicago Bears.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
You could look it up
Oprah Winfrey does not need me to defend her. Nor does she pay me to say nice things about her. She has well-compensated people to do that. My point about the recent criticism of her for spending $40 million on a school for South African girls is that much of the criticism is unjustified because it’s underinformed. She should spend money on schools here? In 2000 she gave $10 million to A Better Chance , a Boston organization for gifted high school students of color, and has served as spokesperson for the organization. And that’s just one of her million-dollar size checks. Teachers are her favorite people. She said that at least as early as 1987. In early 2006, she did a special report on education in America. Did you see it? If not, you could look it up.
She should fund AIDS clinics? She has. Check the tax filing for her Oprah Winfrey Foundation . She got Brad Pitt interested in Africa before Angelina Jolie did. Watch the show. She has spent a lot of time in Africa focusing on a variety of conditions on that needy continent – women raped in Rwanda, civil war in Darfur, AIDS orphans. How many other people can you think of offhand who have spent TV airtime explaining to people what a fistula is – you could look it up -- and how a dedicated doctor is working to help Ethiopian women who suffer from incontinence and social ostracism because of this condition?
We need money here? Oprah pledged $10 million to Hurricane Katrina relief and made it the subject of extensive coverage on her show, seen around the world. She got a lot of celebrities – people like Jamie Foxx -- to pitch in with relief, so that she could leverage the valuable currency of celebrity and grab more spotlight for more of the hundreds of thousands of people affected by this catastrophe. She’s spearheaded a drive to build houses for those displaced. You could look it up at her website.
There’s a whole portion of Oprah’s website devoted to her philanthropy. It’s not hidden. That, too, you can look up. In 2006, Business Week estimated her lifetime giving at $303 million. On the magazine’s top 50 philanthropists list , she’s #32. I just looked it up. Education is freedom, she told Business Week in 2004. She really does like education. It’s been a pattern and intention in her giving.
So: How much is enough dollars or attention? Or too much? People have different opinions on that. But please, before you express your opinion, do a little homework. Look it up. It would be educational.
Oprah Winfrey does not need me to defend her. Nor does she pay me to say nice things about her. She has well-compensated people to do that. My point about the recent criticism of her for spending $40 million on a school for South African girls is that much of the criticism is unjustified because it’s underinformed. She should spend money on schools here? In 2000 she gave $10 million to A Better Chance , a Boston organization for gifted high school students of color, and has served as spokesperson for the organization. And that’s just one of her million-dollar size checks. Teachers are her favorite people. She said that at least as early as 1987. In early 2006, she did a special report on education in America. Did you see it? If not, you could look it up.
She should fund AIDS clinics? She has. Check the tax filing for her Oprah Winfrey Foundation . She got Brad Pitt interested in Africa before Angelina Jolie did. Watch the show. She has spent a lot of time in Africa focusing on a variety of conditions on that needy continent – women raped in Rwanda, civil war in Darfur, AIDS orphans. How many other people can you think of offhand who have spent TV airtime explaining to people what a fistula is – you could look it up -- and how a dedicated doctor is working to help Ethiopian women who suffer from incontinence and social ostracism because of this condition?
We need money here? Oprah pledged $10 million to Hurricane Katrina relief and made it the subject of extensive coverage on her show, seen around the world. She got a lot of celebrities – people like Jamie Foxx -- to pitch in with relief, so that she could leverage the valuable currency of celebrity and grab more spotlight for more of the hundreds of thousands of people affected by this catastrophe. She’s spearheaded a drive to build houses for those displaced. You could look it up at her website.
There’s a whole portion of Oprah’s website devoted to her philanthropy. It’s not hidden. That, too, you can look up. In 2006, Business Week estimated her lifetime giving at $303 million. On the magazine’s top 50 philanthropists list , she’s #32. I just looked it up. Education is freedom, she told Business Week in 2004. She really does like education. It’s been a pattern and intention in her giving.
So: How much is enough dollars or attention? Or too much? People have different opinions on that. But please, before you express your opinion, do a little homework. Look it up. It would be educational.
Monday, January 08, 2007
What I'm reading
Friendship: An Expose. By Joseph Epstein.
I would not normally be reading this. I tried Epstein's Fabulous Small Jews and didn't like his characters. But this book was given to me in exchange for some volunteer work I had done with a good friend. Epstein's style is classy and classical; he writes for people who will not be puzzled by words like "inanition" (I paused) and references to La Rochefoucauld. He reminds me of 18th century English essayists, mulling the next phrase, quill poised over parchment. It takes me back to graduate school. Maybe a cocktail party on the North Shore. It's growing on me, except for the cover.
Friendship: An Expose. By Joseph Epstein.
I would not normally be reading this. I tried Epstein's Fabulous Small Jews and didn't like his characters. But this book was given to me in exchange for some volunteer work I had done with a good friend. Epstein's style is classy and classical; he writes for people who will not be puzzled by words like "inanition" (I paused) and references to La Rochefoucauld. He reminds me of 18th century English essayists, mulling the next phrase, quill poised over parchment. It takes me back to graduate school. Maybe a cocktail party on the North Shore. It's growing on me, except for the cover.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
The lady protesteth a lot
As someone who has written about Oprah, I've been following the James Frey contretemps, and particularly today's coverage, closely. It's a tough crowd. People don't like being lied to, and Oprah especially doesn't like being lied to. It's her platform and she invited the wrong guy to climb on it. That is her mistake, even if she would like to pass the responsibility to the publisher. Oprah has always gotten a lot of mileage -- meaning shows -- out of her mistakes. Look for more on this.
As someone who has written about Oprah, I've been following the James Frey contretemps, and particularly today's coverage, closely. It's a tough crowd. People don't like being lied to, and Oprah especially doesn't like being lied to. It's her platform and she invited the wrong guy to climb on it. That is her mistake, even if she would like to pass the responsibility to the publisher. Oprah has always gotten a lot of mileage -- meaning shows -- out of her mistakes. Look for more on this.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Watched like a hawk
Walking to school earlier this week I came upon a hawk. He was sitting on a fence alongside the sidewalk atop a tangle of bare clematis. He was eye level with me. I stopped three or feet from him, startled. He looked at me, or looked me over, I thought. I was wearing a scarlet beret and I wondered if I looked like something edible. He sat there long enough for me to study his mottled brown coloring so I could identify him: red tail? red shoulder? His beak was hooked and sharp and his talons also looked fit for hunting. I opened my mouth and out came a little laugh or throat clearing and he spread his big wings and flew away with an audible swoosh of air. It felt like a visitation. Wild birds don't do this: ca ne se fait pas. I always thought my totem was different. This hawk was an observer. Bold yet not aggressive. Both of us stood our ground.
Walking to school earlier this week I came upon a hawk. He was sitting on a fence alongside the sidewalk atop a tangle of bare clematis. He was eye level with me. I stopped three or feet from him, startled. He looked at me, or looked me over, I thought. I was wearing a scarlet beret and I wondered if I looked like something edible. He sat there long enough for me to study his mottled brown coloring so I could identify him: red tail? red shoulder? His beak was hooked and sharp and his talons also looked fit for hunting. I opened my mouth and out came a little laugh or throat clearing and he spread his big wings and flew away with an audible swoosh of air. It felt like a visitation. Wild birds don't do this: ca ne se fait pas. I always thought my totem was different. This hawk was an observer. Bold yet not aggressive. Both of us stood our ground.
Friday, December 09, 2005
Oprah said the J-word
Today’s Oprah Winfrey Show (Dec. 9) provided an interesting example of having your Christmas and celebrating it too while doing so inclusively. While some people are afraid the season of good will has been hijacked by the politically correct, Oprah and her mentor Maya Angelou found a way to acknowledge Christmas and share the holiday with all of Oprah’s viewers worldwide. Their emphasis on the spirit of joy and peace of Christmas is quite a traditional emphasis. It also speaks across cultures. The discontent say that the “spirit of Christmas” has been lost in the hustle of buying and the wrapping paper of commercialism. Christmas has always been about gifts. For Christians, the birth of Jesus is a gift. And so Oprah, who has done Christmas shows in the past, today presents a choir singing Joy to the World. Interestingly, earlier in the show, Faith Hill sang I Surrender All, and Oprah explained why this song was important to her. It allowed her tp give up her obsession about whether she’d be cast in The Color Purple. “I gave it up to Jesus,” O said. The J-word: Jesus, joy.
Today’s Oprah Winfrey Show (Dec. 9) provided an interesting example of having your Christmas and celebrating it too while doing so inclusively. While some people are afraid the season of good will has been hijacked by the politically correct, Oprah and her mentor Maya Angelou found a way to acknowledge Christmas and share the holiday with all of Oprah’s viewers worldwide. Their emphasis on the spirit of joy and peace of Christmas is quite a traditional emphasis. It also speaks across cultures. The discontent say that the “spirit of Christmas” has been lost in the hustle of buying and the wrapping paper of commercialism. Christmas has always been about gifts. For Christians, the birth of Jesus is a gift. And so Oprah, who has done Christmas shows in the past, today presents a choir singing Joy to the World. Interestingly, earlier in the show, Faith Hill sang I Surrender All, and Oprah explained why this song was important to her. It allowed her tp give up her obsession about whether she’d be cast in The Color Purple. “I gave it up to Jesus,” O said. The J-word: Jesus, joy.
Monday, November 28, 2005
The koan of the talents
I get an FAQ as I have been doing interviews about The Gospel According to Oprah: Does Oprah encourage consuermism/materialism? Yes, I am somewhat troubled by the excess aspect of things that Oprah does. In answering that, I am put in mind of the Christian parable of the talents, which I took somewhat literally when I was first taught it when I was little. (I thought somebody could sing and dance and so forth..) The stewards are given different amounts of talents. Those who have put their talents to use are put in charge of more things. The fearful servant who does nothing with his talent is punished. The master says in the parable, "For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away." (Matt 25:29)
In this parable, I am really sure Jesus is not telling us to become investment bankers or that the poor are lazy. What I take from this puzzling story is a lesson about right use of resources leading to recognition of abundance. I think Oprah's "abundance" ethic -- give because there is more than enough to go around -- is very unorthodox as a basis for giving. But more and more I see that she is doing things on her own terms, which means commanding resources and then distributing them according to her reckoning of "deserving."
I often think of it like this: If people were asked, would you rather be Gandhi or Oprah, what do you think the response would be? Myself, I'd probably say Oprah and feel very guilty. But I know Oprah does a lot of good, and that I know experimentally.
I get an FAQ as I have been doing interviews about The Gospel According to Oprah: Does Oprah encourage consuermism/materialism? Yes, I am somewhat troubled by the excess aspect of things that Oprah does. In answering that, I am put in mind of the Christian parable of the talents, which I took somewhat literally when I was first taught it when I was little. (I thought somebody could sing and dance and so forth..) The stewards are given different amounts of talents. Those who have put their talents to use are put in charge of more things. The fearful servant who does nothing with his talent is punished. The master says in the parable, "For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away." (Matt 25:29)
In this parable, I am really sure Jesus is not telling us to become investment bankers or that the poor are lazy. What I take from this puzzling story is a lesson about right use of resources leading to recognition of abundance. I think Oprah's "abundance" ethic -- give because there is more than enough to go around -- is very unorthodox as a basis for giving. But more and more I see that she is doing things on her own terms, which means commanding resources and then distributing them according to her reckoning of "deserving."
I often think of it like this: If people were asked, would you rather be Gandhi or Oprah, what do you think the response would be? Myself, I'd probably say Oprah and feel very guilty. But I know Oprah does a lot of good, and that I know experimentally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
