Life as an Extreme Sport

Category: …and everything else

Mostly everything else in a brain-academic way.

A Bad Buddhist’s Thoughts on bin Laden’s Death

...and everything else, Buddhism, Politics

How can you be a Buddhist, and celebrate someone’s death? Isn’t that contradictory?

I’m sure the question is going around. I’ve seen quite a few people already make the broader and more vague “could never be happy anyone has died” – to which I say, really? Really? I realize that World War II ended 66 years ago, but really? You would have been sad Hitler died? I just question the sentiment, that’s all.

And before anyone wants to tell me that I’m Godwinning things from the outset, let me say that Hitler is actually relevant to the conversation, at least in regards to being Buddhist and finding the deep relief and release of joy that comes from that, from bin Laden’s death. How is it relevant, aside from the synchronicity in dates of death?

Well, most of the conversations that exist with the Dalai Lama regarding violence and the deaths of someone so horribly evil do revolve around Hitler and the Nazis, for somewhat obvious reasons.

The last time I saw His Holiness speak, someone asked him whether violence was always a bad thing. He clarified that, like all things, it depends. Swiftly smacking someone to bring them out of shock – or to bring them to sense – is certainly an act of violence. But it can also be seen as an act of compassion. And it’s possible to extend that out – sometimes, the most compassionate thing to do might be to end someone’s life.

But, you would be right to point out that the scenario here, with bin Laden, and even the theoretical with Hitler, is not able to be spun as a compassionate gesture for that individual (unless you want to go very theoretical and talk about karma and such, which is just beyond relevant for now). Then what?

In Beyond Dogma, the following question is asked of His Holiness:

Would you have also refused to take up arms against Hitler?

His Holiness had the following response:

I don’t know. We have to go into a bit of detail. At the time Nazism was taking root and beginning to gain strength and importance, I would personally have made every effort to stop it, if I could have at the time.

Not long ago, when I was in Poland, I visited the camp at Auschwitz where thousands of innocent people were exterminated. I stayed for a moment in the gas chamber and when I saw the crematorium I was filled with profound sadness. The worst was when I came upon the piles of shoes and human hair. In the middle of all those shoes were little children’s shoes; they had been patched, the shoes of a poor child. I asked myself why did they kill these people? Why? Let us imagine that at the time there was a small group of SS on one side, and a large group of Jewish prisoners, French and Polish, on the other. If the possibility had really existed that by eliminating those few SS men all the prisoners might be set free, who knows? If I had had a weapon, and were really sure of being able to… I don’t know, it’s very hard to say. Whatever the case, this is mere speculation, so it doesn’t do much good to talk about it. I think that if you had been there, you would have sided with me.

If the temporal leader of Tibetan Buddhists, when faced with the possibility of saving lives in the face of abject evil, gives credit to the possibility that violence may have been the answer… I’m not entirely sure why I, an admittedly very bad Buddhist (witness, please, the glass of wine I’m nursing as I write this), would be expected to have any different a reaction.

Was bin Laden the “same kind” of evil as Hitler? I think whenever we get into trying to quantify evil, it becomes a game of splitting hairs to some other ends. What is important to me is that bin Laden master-minded events that had horrific loss of life Sept 11, 2001, and his continued presence was a rallying point for likeminded people who see America as the Great Satan. If one man could outwit this great nation, how great a nation could it be?

And yes, America has flaws, from how it handles foreign relations to how it’s handled everything involving the post-9/11 world, from our individual freedoms to the way we treat people in overseas countries.

But it was only through blind luck and hitting snooze a few times – very much “there but for the grace of God” – that my family at the time did not lose a very dear member, who was supposed to be in the WTC that long ago September morning. My father was flying that day, and I spent hours not knowing where he was – what part of the country, what airline he had been on, if he was alive or dead. I lived within blocks of the Seattle WTC, and no one knew at the time who was still in the air or what the other targets were. It was a terror unlike anything I had ever experienced.

I was lucky enough to not lose anyone that day. Many people I know were not so fortunate. In the years after, I did lose people to the aftermath. A dear friend is a veteran of that war, and although he is strong and stubborn, that war left a deep impression on him, and it’s something he will always live with.

I am a Navy brat, from a long line of servicemen who proudly served our country. I have had at least one relative in every conflict on American soil since there was such a thing as American soil. I take my ability to be fiercely critical of my country as a requirement of being fiercely patriotic in a way that goes beyond pomp and circumstance, and instead speaks to being deeply committed to the political process and participation within it. Aside from having the certifications saying that I should run towards a disaster to help out, I also seem to have this moral code that demands it – and I recognize a kinship in those people who died, and those who worked at the sites for so much longer attempting rescues, and then recovering remains.

And I know what this death will mean. I know what it will mean for our terror alerts and the threats of retaliations. I know that it will function as a martyr to the cause, and a rallying point for people who need an excuse. And my Buddhism comes to play here, as I feel nothing but deep sadness and compassion for people whose lives are so bad that death in the name of jihad is a better prospect than living.

But I also know what this death will mean for the people who have made sacrifices. I know that this helps to validate those sacrifices – the lost lives, the permanent disability, the nightmares and PTSD. It was not in vain. And that is a powerful message as well.

How can I be a Buddhist and find relief and the concomitant joy in the news of the death of bin Laden? Because I am not a Buddhist first, I am a human being first. A deeply flawed human being who’s just tripping one step at a time along this journey called life, trying to navigate the rapids as they appear and keep my head above the water as best as possible.

Or perhaps it does go back to that deeper idea of the most compassionate thing you can sometimes do is a brief, violent act; as my maternal grandfather would have said, sometimes, all you can do is shoot the rabid dog.

Dead Mother Disqualification

...and everything else, life and living, Tilting at Windmills

On Twitter, there’s a somewhat interesting organization for the area called AroundMainline. Their goal is to increase the visibility of companies and events on the Mainline – simple enough. They also publish an e-newsletter to go with their Twitter feed. They promote restaurant week, do giveaways and prizes, etc.

Today, they said:
AroundMainLine
One of our most amazing giveways EVER! Win a $500 Mother/Daughter day at Joseph Anthony Retreat Spa and Salon!… http://fb.me/WqVVwaPH

I read the details and went “well, that could be fun for me and my sister… but I’d better ask*, since I suspect they would say ‘no’ to that.” So I did, and had the following conversation:

rocza
@AroundMainLine Clarify: must it be mother/daughter duo that accepts/uses the prize?

AroundMainLine
@rocza anyone can comment to win the day at the space but the prize is for a mother/daughter duo to experience, hope that helps!

rocza
@AroundMainLine Clarifies. Unfollowing til after Mother’s Day. It’s insensitive, to say the least, to folks w/o mothers + other traditions

And to be honest, I probably won’t follow again, although who knows – I can be a bit flighty when it comes to things like that.

What’s the big deal? Well, a few things:
1. I get a bit tetchy when it comes down to the grand Mother’s Day push, given that whole “my mother is dead” thing. Having everything I look at or am exposed to via advertising or just having the gall to go to the store be all about CELEBRATE WITH MOM kind of irks because ya know? I don’t have that option.

2. You never see father/daughter giveaways like this for Father’s Day. Or father/son, mother/son, or sibling pairings. It’s not like “Sister’s Day” is going to roll around and you’re going to see someone offering a $500 spa package giveaway for two sisters to share.

3. Who’s to say that the sister and I doing a “mother’s day spa day” to honour the memory of the woman who gave birth to us is a bad thing, or an invalid way of celebrating a day dedicated to someone we can only honour in our memories? What am I supposed to do, win a $500 salon visit and take a ghost?

It’s the whole lack of balance thing. Yes, people who still have mothers who are alive are a special bunch – their mothers are still alive. Let’s try not to make what’s already a difficult thing even harder by rubbing it in with “special special people parties” versus “poor lil’ motherless children who never get invited to the fun.”

*Note: they clarified the contest after I asked my question on Twitter. It was initially left vague and non-specific.

Performance Details & Review – Company

...and everything else, life and living, Pop Culture, The Colbert Report

When a performance is an all-star cast, it’s difficult to structure the review. When the performance includes Neil Patrick Harris and Christina Hendricks stripping to their skivvies in a delicious act of “service ALL the fans,” thoughts of a performance review go right out the window, as one is entirely too busy giving thanks. However, one would be remiss to not give it a try, both for posterity – and pity for those unable to witness such an all-star performance, skivvied or otherwise.

For those unfamiliar with Company, it is a non-linear Sondheim story that follows the life of Bobby (Neil Patrick Harris). Bobby is turning 35, and via vignettes unconnected in time and often separated by song, Bobby discusses love, marriage, and living with his friends.
Continue reading

Being Alive – Thoughts on “Company”

...and everything else, life and living, Pop Culture

I first encountered Sondheim’s “Company” in my early 20s. I was married, living in Reno, and moving into “adult” theatre as opposed to what was appropriate for children.

I was, to say the least, not impressed. It was dated, clearly no one thought that any more – any of that, from marriage to how awesome NYC was to busy signals.

Dated.

However, one makes a lot of concessions for artists one is beholden to, and for various reasons, Neil Patrick Harris and Stephen Colbert are, each in their own ways, artists I am extremely beholden to. Pattie LuPone, Anika Noni Rose, and then later John Cryer and Christina Hendricks all nicely added anticipation to the purchased-basically-when-announced tickets of a limited (four show) performance of “Company” at Avery Fischer Hall with the New York Philharmonic.

Some people suffer for art. I was willing to suffer for artists.

What I was not expecting was resonance.

I am turning 35 in five weeks. I am divorced and have been for years. I live on the East Coast now, and every time I go in to NYC, I have to resist the urge to stand and spin slowly in the streets. Everyone might not be a friend, but I understand the powerful urge to cry.

When I was 22, the problem was not that “Company” had aged, but that I had not aged enough.

Analyzing Groupon’s Failure

...and everything else, Academics, Pop Culture, The Daily Show

I feel like people are probably expecting a comment on Groupon’s amazingly over the top, tasteless, offensive advertisement shown during the Super Bowl last night. (Why do I feel like people expect this? Well, I’m Buddhist and I am known for being cranky. It’s not really a large leap there…)

So, yes, I found that Groupon advertisement to be a masterclass in what not to do. For those who missed the advert, here it is:

The copy reads

Mountainous Tibet – one of the most beautiful places in the world. This is Timothy Hutton. The people of Tibet are in trouble, their very culture in jeopardy. But they still whip up an amazing fish curry. And since 200 of us bought on Groupon.com we’re getting $30 worth of Tibetan food for just $15 at Himalayan restaurant in Chicago.

Let’s get the basics out of the way, first. Tibet is in the Himalayas, yes – and because of this, Tibetan cuisine, along with most Himalayan cuisine, doesn’t involve fish. Neither does it involve curry (although Tibetans living in exile in India have added it to their diet).

Facts aside, there are still massive issues here. Putting aside the big one for a minute, the slightly smaller one is the incredibly tone-deaf advertisement creating a situation that suggests all is okay because the displaced, threatened culture can still cook for the White Man. I am not a race scholar by any means, but you don’t need to be one to see the ugly legacy of colonialism echoing in the advertisement.

And then, of course, there is the big issue. The Big Issue. The fact that Groupon is using the genocide of a people to sell it’s services. The occupation of Tibet is considered by many to be one of the grossest examples of human rights violations in the last fifty years. We know that China has imprisoned, beaten, raped, tortured, and killed men and women, monks and nuns, who refuse to renounce their Buddhist beliefs or their allegiance to the Dalai Lama. We know that China has “disappeared” the entire family of the Panchen Lama – at least, the one recognized by the Dalai Lama and other ranking Buddhist monks. China has made it clear that when the current Dalai Lama dies, they will try to instill a puppetmaster in his place – and that they intend to destroy the religion. They have already destroyed countless monasteries, artifacts, and aspects of culture and way of life.

So naturally, Groupon thinks this is a great thing to use to sell it’s services. Because making fun of Darfur would have been dated, and Egypt happened too quickly for them to jump on that train, I suppose. And Groupon did think it was a great thing; from their Twitter feed:

Like standing too close to a rainbow, viewers’ hearts are warmed by #Groupon’s Super Bowl ad. #brandbowl http://bit.ly/e7X48C

It was only well after the Tibet advertisement aired that Groupon realized it badly miscalculated; almost an hour after airing, the topic was still trending on Twitter, and the feedback was not positive. Then Groupon posted an additional tweet, which has not yet been supplanted by anything else:

Support Tibet’s largest charity here: http://savethemoney.groupon.com/

Now, in it’s supposed-defense, prior to airing of any of the advertisements yesterday, Groupon’s Andrew Mason (founder) posted this at it’s site:

The gist of the concept is this: When groups of people act together to do something, it’s usually to help a cause. With Groupon, people act together to help themselves by getting great deals. So what if we did a parody of a celebrity-narrated, PSA-style commercial that you think is about some noble cause (such as ‘Save the Whales’), but then it’s revealed to actually be a passionate call to action to help yourself (as in ‘Save the Money’)?

The actual “Save the Money” link says:

Money is one of our most important natural resources. Sadly, thousands of dollars are wasted every year. Until now.

Finally, celebrities are lining up to spread the word about this important fight. Watch the informative videos below to find out how you can help save the money.

If you save so much money that you feel like saving something else, donate to the four mission-driven organizations below. Groupon is matching donations to make sure they can save the money too.

There are two issues here. The first is practical: the only people who know about “Save the Money” are the people who are already reading Groupon’s blogs and participating in it’s forum(s). The advertisements themselves don’t include any information. And in fact, had Groupon even decided to air a black title card with information on “Save the Money” with a link to the Tibet Fund, then we might not be having any of this conversation. But instead, the company courted disaster by creating a small group of “in-the-know” people who the advertisement wasn’t created for. The people with no, or only passing, familiarity, with Groupon had no context for the charity aspect of these commercials.

The second is a bit more academic. Andrew Mason has said that this was supposed to be a poke at Groupon’s origins, a fun parody and a satiric take on the celebrity PSA. The issue is in how satire – and even parody – work. Both work when a situation is turned on it’s head, allowing the viewer to see the foolish nature of the person, or position, being targeted (whether it is their own views or, say, Glenn Beck’s). This is why The Daily Show excels at just what they do – they’ve mastered the art of changing perception, and highlighting just how foolish their target (often Fox and personalities) are being.

The problem with Groupon’s target here is that few people think that outrage over the situation in Tibet is wrong or foolish. The concept is a bit more viable in the other two Groupon advertisements aired last night (save the whales by whale-watching and save the rainforest by getting a Brazilian wax) only because those two situations don’t involve the actual torture, imprisonment, and death of a cultural group. So instead, the focus of “who is foolish” flips back on Groupon – people don’t feel that opposing the Chinese occupation of Tibet is foolish, or that their support (financial or otherwise) is foolish. Therefore, Groupon becomes foolish (and tone-deaf, insensitive, and more) for their advertisement. (Note: it taints Timothy Hutton pretty badly, too.)

The takeaway here is pretty simple. It’s really hard to make genocide funny. It’s pretty much going to be impossible to use genocide – be it Nazis, Tibet, or Darfur – to positively reflect your brand or to sell anything. The exception here is if you manage to come up with the musical heir to The Producers. But unless you have the modern equivalent of Springtime for Hitler under your belt, you’d best leave genocide to the documentaries and dramas, and consider something else for your first national advertising campaign.

Note:
The Chicago Tribune has a continuous Twitter-feed of responses (still continuing) to the Tibet advertisement. Some people might argue that any publicity is good publicity, but I’m not sure I agree in this case – associating your product with an apparent callous regard for human life really doesn’t seem like a winning strategy to attract new users, or maintain the old.

Forbes gets the best headline out of the event, noting that Goupon’s 2-for-1 Super Bowl Special Offends Both China and Tibet Activists. Groupon had been trying to make inroads into China. Chinese reaction this morning suggests Groupon just did a worse-than-Google, as far as they’re concerned. So, shooting oneself in both feet? Check!