At the end of the day

[Audarya lila]

At the end of the day who are we anyway?

 

Flag wavers, slogan sayers, ego fanners?

 

Whatever belief system we have we should strive for progress and we should see if our actions are consistent with our stated beliefs.

 

I wonder how many people who choose to interact on forums with sarcasm and intentional denigration of others do so in their personal dealings with others. It is so easy to be impersonal and careless when it comes to electronic media and communication.

 

I have always really identified with the golden rule - do unto others what you would have them do unto you. This expression resonates deeply within me and calls me to try to practice this and inspect myself for those times that I fail to practice this consisely spoken wisdom.

 

I want people to recognize my human failings and over look my faults like when I speak harshly when I am tired, or misunderstand or feel misunderstood. I want to be helped when I am in need and to have my help accepted by those that I see are in need. I want to be spoken to with kindness and compassion and be treated with respect.

 

I want to be forgiven for things I have done or failed to do and for things that others percieve I have done even when I haven't.

 

In short, I am human and fallible - as are all of us. I like to associate with those who help me and encourage me. I try to do the same for those around me.

 

Here I will relate what for me were two bad experiences for me personally but seemed to be what was wanted by the other person so I accomodated them. These interactions, however, did go against my own personal nature which is why they left me with a bad feeling.

 

Back in the early eighties when I was a painting salesman for Iskcon I sold a painting to one man and he requested that I frame it for him which I did. When I came back with the painting he was very upset and started yelling at me. Needless to say, I was a little bit taken back by his behavior. After listening to him for some time it dawned on me that this is a person who wants to fight and won't feel good about his purchase unless I give him satisfaction in that regard. So I started to yell back at him. After some time the conversation came back to a normal pitch and I could tell that the man was starting to feel relieved. I left his house knowing that he finally felt good about his purchase for which I was thankful even though I myself did not feel good about the method.

 

The other story has to do with a one of my bosses in the past. One day this particular manager asked me to go into a conference room with him. We sat across the table from one another. He started in very firmly and forcefully with his message. After awhile he was yelling and pounding his fists on the table. This was the type of manager who is used to bullying people around and managing with fear. He crossed his arms and leered at me from across the table when he had finally finished with the show. I immediately took the opportunity to speak forcefully back to him slowly raising my tone and ending with a tirade that matched, and in some respects, exceeded his own. He was very surprised at my response. I knew that he was used to having others cower under his forceful jargon and demeanor. However the outcome couldn't have been better. He never again raised his voice to me and from that day he had a much higher degree of respect for me.

 

In both of the above interactions I sensed that these individuals were looking for a certain response and I gave it to them even though, in both cases, it went against my natural tendencies. In my second story, I knew that my boss didn't respect me and I was either going to change that, quit or get fired. Regardless of the outcome I wasn't going to allow someone to abuse me in that fashion. My response was as much about reacting to his actions as it was about a rejection of his mode of operation in general. He had not pulled his antics on me prior to this, but I had seen him in action with others and knew how he operated. I took that opportunity to take a stand against him and I told him directly that I don't cower to bullhying tactics and that I don't appreciate them but when confronted with them I will stand against them.

 

Sorry for the rambling in this post. What I am really trying to convey is that we should all strive to be honest and progressive. When we are wrong, we should admit it and correct ourselves. As my wife's religion says 'we are all sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God'. My nephew and I were talking on the way to a dodger game several years ago and he was telling me why he wasn't involved in any organized religion. He said that he felt they were all hypocrites. He said, they don't follow what they preach. My only response to him was that for the vast majority of practicioners in any religion that is certainly the case but it is not a bad thing, in fact it is a good thing if the hypocrites are honest about it and trying to improve themselves. I asked him, 'what would be the purpose of going to the doctor if we all waited until we were no longer sick?' In the same way, I told him, most of us are trying to improve and realize our short comings and that we aren't perfect examples of our faith. Fortunately for all of us there are those who we can look to and see our prospect. These are our Guru's, those who inspire us and give us hope that through our practice and persistence we will one day come to the platform of consistency in practice and precept.

 

Your servant,

Audarya lila dasa

[Tarun]

t r u t h o u t | Statement

Jon Coifman

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

Thursday, 18 July, 2002

 

Simple Shift in Bush Aid Budget Would Leverage Nearly $700 Million for

Health, Environment Problems in Poorest Countries - At No Extra Cost to U.S.

Leading Groups Call for Technical Change to Unlock 4-to-1 International Funding Match

 

WASHINGTON (July 15, 2002) - A group of leading environmental organizations is urging the Bush administration to make a simple but sweeping change in its international aid budget that would leverage up to $680 million additional dollars from other donor countries - at no added cost to the U.S. The money would help the world's poorest countries tackle pressing health and environmental problems including clean drinking water, toxic chemical pollution, desertification, tropical deforestation and global warming.

 

The change concerns the U.S. contribution to the Global Environment Facility (GEF, or "jeff"), which was created in 1994 to help developing countries deal with global environmental challenges whose impacts cut across international borders - especially those problems covered by multilateral treaties to which both developing and industrialized nations are party.

 

The GEF's funding structure, combined with a quirk in the U.S. budget, offers an unprecedented opportunity to unlock a trove of matching funds with the stroke of pen.

 

By convention, other donor countries set their GEF contributions at a fixed ratio to the U.S. financial commitment. In practice, each American dollar for the GEF elicits four additional dollars from elsewhere. The process is virtually automatic, even legally mandated by some donor country legislatures.

 

The White House budget for FY 2003 includes $177.8 million dollars per year for the GEF for the next four years - $107.5 million to cover current pledges, and $70.3 million to clear U.S. arrears (although the GEF is a young entity, we are already behind due to persistent underfunding by Congress).

 

Unfortunately, however, U.S. arrearages don't count in other donors' matching fund calculations. By reallocating $42 million already budgeted by the Bush administration so that it goes to current funding instead of arrearages, the U.S. would trigger matching contributions as high as $680 million.

 

The move would boost overall GEF funding by almost 40 percent to a total of $3 billion over the next four years, helping fight urgent health and environmental problems in the neediest corners of the globe. The GEF is under increasing financial pressure thanks to the growing number of environmental accords, including treaties on toxic chemicals (persistent organic pollutants), desertification and climate change. As new demands arise, existing efforts risk getting short-changed.

 

Groups including NRDC (the Natural Resources Defense Council), the World Wildlife Fund, the Nature Conservancy and Conservation International have asked the White House to change the budget allocation to take advantage of this huge opportunity, and to do it in time for the upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development, which starts August 26 in Johannesburg, South Africa.