Luc Bresson – open letter

„It costs 250 euros to buy a Kalashnikov but not even three euros to buy a pen – and your response can have a thousand times more impact (…)“

Here is the full text of Besson’s letter, published by the guardian

My brother, if you knew how badly I hurt for you today, you and your beautiful religion that has been so sullied, humiliated, and singled out. Forgotten are your strength, your energy, your humour, your heart, your fraternity. It’s unfair and together we will repair this injustice. We are millions who love you and who are going to help you. Let’s start at the beginning. What is the society we’re offering you today?

It’s based on money, profit, segregation and racism. In some suburbs, unemployment for people under 25 is 50%. You are marginalised because of your colour or your first name. You’re questioned 10 times a day, you’re crowded into apartment blocks and no one represents you. Who could live and thrive under such conditions?

Profit comes before all else. We cut and sell the apple tree’s branches and then are shocked there’s no fruit. The real problem is there, and that’s for all of us to resolve.

I call on the powerful, the big bosses and all leaders. Help this youth that has been humiliated and which asks only to be part of society. The economy is in the service of man and not the reverse. To do good is the greatest of profits. Dear powerful, do you have children? Do you love them? What do you want to leave them? Money? Why not a world that’s more fair? That would make your children the most proud of you.

We cannot build our happiness on the misfortune of others. It is neither Christian, nor Jewish, nor Muslim. It is just selfish and it leads our society and our planet straight into a wall. This is the work we have to do beginning today to honour our dead.

Terrorism will never win.

And you, my brother, you also have a job to do. How can you change this society that’s being offered to you? By working, by studying, by taking up a pencil rather than a Kalashnikov. That’s what’s good about democracy, it offers you the noble tools to defend yourself. Take your destiny in hand, take the power. It costs 250 euros to buy a Kalashnikov but not even three euros to buy a pen – and your response can have a thousand times more impact. Take the power, and play by the rules.

Take power democratically, helped by all your brothers. Terrorism will never win. History is there to prove it. And the beautiful image of the martyr walking in both directions. Today there are a thousand [assassinated Charlie Hebdo journalists] Cabus and Wolinskis who have just been born.

Take the power and don’t let anyone take power over you. If those who are presumed guilty of this tragedy really are, know that these two blood-spilling brothers are not yours, and we all know it.

It would at most be two weak-minded individuals, abandoned by society and then abused by a preacher who sold them eternity … Radical preachers who play on and make your misfortune their business have no good intentions. They use your religion only to their advantage. It is their business, their small business. Tomorrow, my brother, we will be stronger, more connected, closer. I promise you. But today, my brother, I cry with you.

Advertisements

Daniel Münger: Zum Thema #Islamisierung

Hier reposte ich einen lesenswerten Kommentar von Daniel Münger (46./57 Kommentaren) zum Thema #Islamisierung, was ja heute nach Aussage von Michel Friedmann eine rassistische Qualifikation erfüllt. Wer das postuliert, sagt mehr über sein eigenen Rassismus aus, als das er aufklärerisch den Disput weiter entwickelt.

Die Karikatur (von Stuttmann) verbindet also 2 komplett verschiedene Schuhe zu einem Paar und suggeriert damit dem geneigten Leser, ich nenne ihn einen bildungsresistenten Troll, was dieser schon immer gewusst zu haben weiss. Gleich zu Beginn also ein kapitaler Fehler. PEGIDA prangert zu Recht die gleichgeschalteten Massenmedien als linke Propaganda, ja als dutzendfach überführte Lügenpresse an! Hier einen Gegensatz oder gar eine Gemeinsamkeit irgendwelcher Art zu Charlie Hebdo zu konstruieren ist definitiv fehl am Platz!

Während Charlie Hebdo mit spitzer Feder brennende Themen aufgreift, verlangt PEGIDA nichts anderes, als dass die Lügenpresse sofort damit aufhört, den Michel mit gezielter Falschinformation gegen sich aufzuwiegeln. Das hindert die grösste Lügnerin Merkel aber nicht daran, die Gelegenheit zu nutzen, sich gleich mal als Hebdo-Sympathisantin zu outen, sich für die Meinungs– und Pressefreiheit stark zu machen, obwohl sie gleichzeitig einem kritischen Teil ihrer Bürger das Wort verbietet! Nun. Also an einem Fuss ein Kampfstiefel und am anderen eine Adilette. Wohlan.

Nur? Was kommt an welchen Fuss? Dass soll dann Aschenputtel entscheiden!

Ps: Jede gesellschaftliche Anpassung der westlichen Kultur an die Befindlichkeiten der Muslime ist eine Islamisierung. Wer also heute noch behauptet, es fände keine Islamisierung statt, sollte nochmals die Schulbank drücken müssen. Und zwar solange, bis er seine eigene Muttersprache beherrscht. Islamisierung lässt keine persönlichen Deutungen zu, sondern ist klipp und klar im Duden als solche beschrieben! In google zu finden unter *isierung!

Guest Post: Tao and the Art of Being

tao_zent„One of the most significant features we notice in the practice of archery, and in fact of all the arts as they are studied in Japan and probably also in other Far Eastern countries, is that they are not intended for utilitarian purposes only or for purely aesthetic enjoyments, but are meant to train the mind; indeed, to bring it into contact with the ultimate reality.

Archery is, therefore, not practiced solely for hitting the target; the swordsman does not wield the sword just for the sake of outdoing his opponent; the dancer does not dance just to perform certain rhythmical movements of the body. The mind has first to be attuned to the Unconscious.

If one really wishes to be master of an art, technical knowledge of it is not enough. One has to transcend technique so that the art becomes an „artless art“ growing out of the Unconscious.

In the case of archery, the hitter and the hit are no longer two opposing objects, but are one reality. The archer ceases to be conscious of himself as the one who is engaged in hitting the bull’s-eye which confronts him.

This state of unconsciousness is realized only when, completely empty and rid of the self, he becomes one with the perfecting of his technical skill, though there is in it something of a quite different order which cannot be attained by any progressive study of the art.“

~D.T. Suzuki~
Introduction „Zen and the Art of Archery“

Praxis Schule: Positive Kommunikation

Guest Post:
Eine kleine Geschichte der Wertschätzung

(Quelle unbekannt: „zirkulierende E-Mail im Netz“)

Eines Tages bat eine Lehrerin ihre Schüler, die Namen aller anderen Schülerin der Klasse auf ein Blatt Papier zu schreiben und ein wenig Platz neben den Namen zu lassen. Dann sagte sie zu den Schülern, sie sollten überlegen, was das Netteste ist, das sie über jeden ihrer Klassenkameraden sagen können und das sollten sie neben die Namen schreiben. Es dauerte die ganze Stunde, bis jeder fertig war und bevor sie den Klassenraum verließen, gaben sie Ihre Blätter der Lehrerin.

Am Wochenende schrieb die Lehrerin jeden Namen eines Schülers auf ein Blatt Papier und daneben die Liste der netten Bemerkungen, die ihre Mitschüler über den Einzelnen aufgeschrieben hatten. Am Montag gab sie jedem Schüler seine oder ihre Liste. Schon nach kurzer Zeit lächelten alle. (Foto:Stephannie Hofschläger)

„Wirklich?“, hörte man flüstern. „Ich wusste gar nicht, dass ich irgendjemandem was bedeute!“ und „Ich wusste nicht, dass mich andere so mögen“, waren die Kommentare. Niemand erwähnte danach die Listen wieder.

Die Lehrerin wusste nicht, ob die Schüler sie untereinander oder mit ihren Eltern diskutiert hatten, aber das machte nichts aus. Die Übung hatte ihren Zweck erfüllt. Die Schüler waren glücklich mit sich und mit den anderen.

Einige Jahre später war einer der Schüler gestorben und die Lehrerin ging zum Begräbnis dieses Schülers. Die Kirche war überfüllt mit vielen Freunden. Einer nach dem anderen, der den jungen Mann geliebt oder gekannt hatte, ging am Sarg vorbei und erwies ihm die letzte Ehre.

Die Lehrerin ging als letzte und betete vor dem Sarg. Als sie dort stand, sagte einer der Anwesenden, die den Sarg trugen, zu ihr:

„Waren Sie Marks Mathelehrerin?“ Sie nickte: „Ja“. Dann sagte er: „Mark hat sehr oft von Ihnen gesprochen.“ Nach dem Begräbnis waren die meisten von Marks früheren Schulfreunden versammelt. Marks Eltern waren auch da und sie warteten offenbar sehnsüchtig darauf, mit der Lehrerin zu sprechen. „Wir wollen Ihnen etwas zeigen“, sagte der Vater und zog eine Geldbörse aus seiner Tasche.

„Das wurde gefunden, als Mark verunglückt ist. Wir dachten, Sie würden es erkennen.“ Aus der Geldbörse zog er ein stark abgenutztes Blatt, das offensichtlich zusammengeklebt, viele Male gefaltet und auseinandergefaltet worden war. Die Lehrerin wusste ohne hinzusehen, dass dies eines der Blätter war, auf denen die netten Dinge standen, die seine Klassenkameraden über Mark geschrieben hatten. „Wir möchten Ihnen so sehr dafür danken, dass Sie das gemacht haben“, sagte Marks Mutter. „Wie Sie sehen können, hat Mark das sehr geschätzt.“ Alle früheren Schüler versammelten sich um die Lehrerin. Charlie lächelte ein bisschen und sagte: „Ich habe meine Liste auch noch. Sie ist in der obersten Schublade in meinem Schreibtisch“.

Die Frau von Heinz sagte: „Heinz bat mich, die Liste in unser Hochzeitsalbum zu kleben.“ „Ich habe meine auch noch“, sagte Monika. „Sie ist in meinem Tagebuch.“ Dann griff Irene, eine andere Mitschülerin, in ihren Taschenkalender und zeigte ihre abgegriffene und ausgefranste Liste den anderen. „Ich trage sie immer bei mir“, sagte Irene und meinte dann: „Ich glaube, wir haben alle die Listen aufbewahrt.“ Die Lehrerin war so gerührt, dass sie sich setzen musste und weinte. Sie weinte um Mark und für alle seine Freunde, die ihn nie mehr sehen würden.

Im Zusammenleben mit unseren Mitmenschen vergessen wir oft, dass jedes Leben eines Tages endet und dass wir nicht wissen, wann dieser Tag sein wird. Deshalb sollte man den Menschen, die man liebt und um die man sich sorgt, sagen, dass sie etwas Besonderes und Wichtiges sind. Sag es ihnen, bevor es zu spät ist. (Text via Dr.H.Mück/Köln)

Interne Kommunikation: Da ist noch Luft nach oben

Interne Kommunikation

Guest Post:
Studie zeigt da ist mehr Spielraum und ein Nachholbedarf bei der HR-Kommunikation in Unternehmen

Chef rügt einen Mitarbeiter

Quelle: Fotolia © giz

HR-Kommunikation ist mehr als Rüge und Abmahnung, via Springer30.10.2012.

HR-Kommunikation gewinnt an Bedeutung, um Mitarbeiter zu motivieren und im Unternehmen zu halten. Einer Studie zufolge sehen viele Firmen bei der Kommunikation mit Mitarbeitern aber Nachholbedarf.

Die Bedeutung der HR-Kommunikation haben die meisten Unternehmen (88 Prozent) erkannt, doch nicht einmal die Hälfte investiert in strategische HR-Kommunikation. Das geht aus einer Studie der Kommunikationsagentur Lux+ und der Personalmanagement-Beratung Dr. Geke & Associates hervor. Neben der Bindung und Motivation von Mitarbeitern, geht es Firmen um die Reputation als Arbeitgeber und das Recruiting, aber auch um die Kommunikation von Change- oder Geschäftsprozessen sowie Informationstransfer generell. 67 Prozent der Befragten schätzen den Optimierungsbedarf in der HR-Communication allerdings als hoch ein.

Gelungene Kommunikation mit den Mitarbeitern

Dass ein guter interner Informationsfluss wichtig ist für den wirtschaftlichen Erfolg ist nicht neu. Doch offenbar musste erst der Fachkräftemangel kommen, um den Stellenwert der HR-Kommunikation zu unterstreichen. Marco Hillmann hat die Grundlagen und Anforderungen an die Interne Kommunikation zusammengefasst. Demnach sollten folgenden Kriterien erfüllt sein, damit die Kommunikation mit Mitarbeitern gelingen kann:

  • eine systematisch Planung
  • verständliche Botschaften
  • proaktiv, statt reaktiv kommunizieren
  • sachliche Richtigkeit
  • Glaubwürdigkeit
  • Problemorientierung
  • Rechtzeitigkeit
  • Kontinuität

Die Auflistung mag auf dem ersten Blick banal erscheinen. Doch die Studie von Lux+ und Dr. Geke & Associates zeigt, dass in vielen Unternehmen bei der HR-Kommunikation noch Nachholbedarf besteht. Auch, das interne Kommunikation schnell verständlich und ehrlich sein sollte, bestätigt die Studie. Das Hauptmedium der Internen Kommunikation ist demnach übrigens im Print-Bereich die Mitarbeiterzeitung. Bei den Online-Medien haben dasIntranet und E-Mails die Nase vorn. Im Live-Bereich sind neben Meetings und Workshops die häufigsten Kanäle, dicht gefolgt von den Events.

Guest Post: What women know about leadership?

Guest Post:
What women need and know about leadership that men don’t?

via Havard Business Review written by Tony Schwartz, october, 30., 2012

No single challenge has been greater for me as a leader than learning how to take better care of the people I lead, and to create a safe, supportive space in which they can thrive. Like most men I know, I grew up with very little modeling around empathy — the ability to recognize, experience and be sensitive to what others are feeling.

Empathy proved especially difficult for me whenever I felt vulnerable. My instinctive response was to protect myself, most often with aggression. I equated aggression with safety, and vulnerability with weakness. Today, I recognize the opposite is often true. The more I acknowledge my own fears and uncertainties, the safer people feel with me and the more effectively they work. But even now, I’m amazed at how dense I can sometimes be.

An effective modern leader requires a blend of intellectual qualities — the ability to think analytically, strategically and creatively — and emotional ones, including self-awareness, empathy, and humility. In short, great leadership begins with being a whole human being.

I meet far more women with this blend of qualities than I do men, and especially so when it comes to emotional and social intelligence.

To a significant degree, that’s a reflection of limitations men almost inevitably develop in a culture that measures us by the ability to project strength and confidence, hide what we’re feeling (including from ourselves), and define who we are above all by our external accomplishments and our capacity to prevail over others.

The vast majority of CEOs and senior executives I’ve met over the past decade are men with just these limitations. Most of them resist introspection, feel more comfortable measuring outcomes than they do managing emotions, and under-appreciate the powerful connection between how people feel and how they perform.

I’m not suggesting gender ensures or precludes any specific qualities. I’ve met and hired men who are just as self-aware, authentic and capable of connection as any women. This is especially (and encouragingly) true among younger men. I’ve also encountered many senior women executives who’ve modeled themselves after male leaders, or perhaps felt they had to adopt their style to survive, and are just as narrow and emotionally limited as their worst male counterparts.

For the most part, however, women, more than men, bring to leadership a more complete range of the qualities modern leaders need, including self-awareness, emotional attunement, humility and authenticity.

That’s scarcely just my own view. In March, Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman reported here on their study of 7300 leaders who got rated by their peers, supervisors and direct reports. Women scored higher in 12 of 16 key skills — not just developing others, building relationships, collaborating, and practicing self development, but also taking initiative, driving for results and solving problems and analyzing issues.

In another study of 2250 adults conducted by the PEW center, women were rated higher on a range of leadership qualities including honesty, intelligence, diligence, compassion and creativity.

For all that, women still hold only 14 percent of senior executive positions in Fortune 500 companies, a percentage has barely budged over the last decade. So why do women remain so vastly underrepresented at the highest levels of large companies?

There are many answers, including the fact that even the most educated women typically take the primary role in raising their children, and are far more likely than men to scale back their careers and ambitions, or even leave the workforce altogether.

But perhaps the key explanation is that men commonly bring more of one key capacity to the competition for senior leadership roles: aggression. The word aggression comes from The Latin root „ag“ (before) and „gred“ (to walk or step). Aggression, therefore, connotes stepping before or in front of someone and it has an undeniably genetic component. Men have in 7 to 8 times the concentration of testosterone in their blood plasma than women do.

From an early age, men often overvalue their strengths, while women too frequently underrate theirs. In reality, we all struggle to feel a stable sense of value and self-worth. Men often defend against their doubts by moving to grandiosity and inflation, while women more frequently move to insecurity and deferral. Men seek more often to win, women to connect. So long as the path to power is connected to proving you’re bigger and badder, it’s no surprise that men have mostly prevailed.

But the leadership skills required to fuel great performance are far more nuanced and multi-dimensional today than ever before. As Hanna Rosin puts it in her new book The End of Men, „The post-industrial economy is indifferent to men’s size and strength.“

Instead, we need more male leaders with the courage to stand down, comfortably acknowledge their shortcomings, and help those they lead feel safe and appreciated rather than fearful and inadequate. We need more women with the courage to step up, fully own their strengths, and lead with confidence and resolve while also holding on to their humanity and their humility.

We need a new generation of leaders — men and women — who willingly embrace their opposites.

Fatherhood: my son is amazing but

kornelis_breastfeeding banner 2.jpgFoto: Reuters

Guest Post: It may be the healthiest choice for a baby
but not necessarily for sleep-deprived parents.

via theAltanic

My son is amazing.

Thomas is practically reading Oh, Daddy! to me, and he’s only 23 months old (almost two, for those of you without kids). He’s off the charts in height, and he’s well above average for weight-enough to be strong, but, you know, not an overweight child. Not Thomas.

He helps me unload the dishes. He helps my wife fold the laundry. He’s even more incredible when you consider that he’s accomplished all this, at such an early age, in spite of his troubled upbringing. Thomas grew up on formula, the stuff Michael Bloomberg is trying to keep away from mothers and infants in New York’s hospitals.

Betsy really wanted to breastfeed. She tried. Really hard. It wasn’t easy. There were problems with the „latch“ and with Thomas getting enough to eat. We went to a lactation consultant, rented a pump, and were up every two hours for a hazy routine of turning on the machine, attaching the tubes, applying the supplemental nipple system, and trying to feed a crying baby. There wasn’t much milk, but there were plenty of tears.

Begrudgingly, we gave up—I’m owning the „we“ because it was a team effort—and bought a Costco-sized pack of Enfamil. We brought it home, shook up a batch, and noticed the comforting words placed prominently across the front of the box: „Experts agree breastfeeding is best.“ Thanks. We needed that. Betsy really needed it. She already thought she’d failed.

I’ve never seen a sticker on the outside of a box of frozen chicken nuggets that says „experts agree, feeding your child chicken that’s definitely chicken and not covered in breading is best.“ Our pediatrician told us it was no big deal to switch to formula. Do you think he’d say the same for a steady diet of fast food?

Thomas has always been a good sleeper (he excels at everything, remember?). When he was an infant he was kind enough to go at least three hours between meals. When Betsy was breastfeeding, that meant we ONLY had to get up every couple hours to heat up the pump, and try and extract a few drops before his second midnight snack. Some friends had it much worse. One baby in our circle needed to be fed every hour. To give her child the „ideal,“ his mom didn’t sleep for days.

When we switched to formula, everything changed. Only one of us got up. That meant that I could get up on my own and feed Thomas while his mom went for six hours of sleep. The advantages extended beyond quality REM sleep. I got to bond with my son. I got to sing him songs and tell him stories. Those hours of father-child bonding were a good thing. I got to take him to my parents‘ house for the day—without worrying about having enough milk or keeping it cold—and give Betsy an afternoon to rest. Betsy and I got to go away for a long weekend-to be together, to work on our marriage, something that was not just good for us, but good for the baby, too.

Experts may agree that breastfeeding is best. But experts will also tell you that mistakes happen when people are exhausted. What’s better: a baby who’s formula-fed and driven to story time by a mom who’s had six hours of sleep, or a parent who hasn’t had that much in a week?

The American Academy of Pediatrics says breastfeeding is the „ideal method of feeding and nurturing infants.“ Fine. I get it. So, what’s the ideal car for teenagers to drive? What’s the safest? Is it the used Civic or the new Volvo? Why is it that when it comes to being pregnant and raising babies there’s no middle ground between „ideal“ and shaken baby syndrome? Do divorce counselors guilt parents into staying together because it’s „the ideal way to raise children“? I sure hope not.

Not long before his daughter was born, a friend of mine who doesn’t live with his baby’s mother told me that he didn’t want to settle for making the best of the situation. He wanted to find the advantages that his daughter would have growing up with parents and families in two different homes. How refreshing. That’s a line of thinking can be brilliantly extended to the formula debate.

Unfortunately, there isn’t much debate to speak of. There’s discussion of what medical professionals believe is the ideal—a group, it must be said, that changes its rigid positions, and once insisted that all babies sleep on their bellies, anathema to today’s prescribed wisdom—and anxious parents trying to check every box on the list. I’m not seeing the kind of judgment from my peers that Hanna Rosin experienced (and wrote about at length in „The Case Against Breastfeeding“ in The Atlantic in 2009). I’m seeing exhausted parents who are told there’s only one right way.

What’s missing in the conversation is perspective. Instead of focusing solely on the „ideal“ way to feed a baby, people should be talking about the healthiest option for the family. That’s in the best interest of the child.