Language, Law, and the End of the World as We Know It

My friends and family know that I do take pride in being a collegiate cross-ex debater. Mostly, I take pride in being good at it, though I had begun to detest the state of cross-ex debate by the time I left it. It thrived on spewing, the act of speaking your case or your rebuttal so quickly that it would be difficult for your opponents to pick up on each point -- and if they drop a point, you win. It also thrived of language -- using very strict definitions to prove that a case/rebuttal was relevant (or topical) based on the words used. Finally, it thrived on nuclear war. The goal of any team would be to prove to the judge that it would be the end of the world as we know it if the judge accepts your opponents case. Nuclear war is the easiest way to end the world, so any debater can link nuclear war from pudding pops (my favorite case) to pesticides. Towards the end, my partner and I ended up running a winning critique against our opponents that basically said that promoting the use of nuclear war as the fall out option would itself result in nuclear war.

We built most of course case off prejudicial cases (primarily sexual harassment) that demonstrated how use of words like "babe," "chick," "honey" in professional settings lent itself to women being taken less seriously as professionals. Eliminating the words, and defining them as harassment, elevated the standing of women. Similarly, we argued, eliminating people's propensity to use nuclear war as the go-to option elevated its legitimacy as a solution and anyone or any case that did so was itself propagating nuclear war.

A Nebraska judge recently used similar logic to ban "rape," "sexual assault," "sexual assault kit," "assailant," and "victim" during a rape case. According to Judget Cheavront, those words are prejudicial and emotional -- they assume guilt and set the jury up to assume guilt as well. He mandated that the act in question be referred to as "sex." This too is problematic, and perhaps as prejudicial, because most people define and understand sex as CONSENSUAL between two people.

Is the judge creating a level playing field? Or is he casting aspersions and preventing a case to be made? (One other tid bit is that the jury members, use to hearing the banned words, were not told that the words were indeed banned). Is the judge charged with ensuring that the rules of debate are adhered to in a court of law or is it his charge ensure that a debate is as 'fact' driven as possible?

A little more Gore Hugging...

Maybe its because I'm seeing the world through a authenticity lens -- but I'm loving the blogosphere's reaction to Gore's new book, The Assault on Reason. An inspiring perspective from someone who saw him read last night.

Fierce Conversations and Authenticity

Recently, I had a love at first sight experience -- Arianna Huffington. I was listening to her keynote the Women's Funding Network closing luncheon.

(A bit of a declaimer is that while I have been a Washingonian for the past several years, I have stayed out of the political news. It didn't seems worth paying attention to. As a result, I probably would have told you that Huffington was still a Republican, and I could never have told you about the Huffington Post -- of which I'm now a daily reader.)

Huffington was a very good speaker -- but what made me fall in love was her emphasis on authenticity. Asked, in an all women, pro-women forum, what she thought of Hillary Clinton - she replied, not much. "She lack's authenticity. She's unwilling to take responsibility for the decisions she's made and the votes she's taken." While most politicians lack authenticity (as an aside, I do find that Gore to be authentic and I am bummed that he's not running again soley based on that) -- trying to be all things to all people, they aren't true to themselves -- I appreciated Huffington's authenticity. In no way did she try to placate the audience.

Most people who know me know that I love the blogosphere because it feels like an authenticate place to me. A place where marketing and sound bytes don't belong -- though shameless self-promotion is allowed. A place for fierce conversations.

A fierce conversation is one in which we come out from behind ourselves into the conversation and make it real. Fierce means identifying those conversations out there with your name on them and resolving to have them with all the courage, grace, and vulnerability they require. In fierce conversations, there is neither a struggle for approval nor an attempt to persuade. There is, instead, an interchange of ideas and sentiments, during which you pay attention to and disclose your inner thoughts while actively inviting others to do the same. During fierce conversations, people don't cling to their positions as the undeniable truth. Instead, they consider their views as hypothesis to be explored and tested against others. -- Susan Scott, Fierce Conversations.

I think life requires fierce conversations -- and the concept is so important to me now as my life continues to be in a constant state of churn, transition, change, and wonder. Leadership requires fierce conversations -- knowing you don't always know the answer, being flexible in your perspectives and passions, but most importantly, stepping up to be present in the conversation.

Stewardship vs. Civic Leadership

Serving as an Executive Director is a huge learning opportunity for me -- daily my assuptions, perceptions, and positions are challenged. For example...

Many nonprofits are public entities -- mine is at least. We are public foundation that receives the majority of its resources from individuals. I view the organization and its board of directors to be the stewards of the organization and the public's resources. I think it goes without saying that the board would probably also agree with me.

Board members are lured onto the board through a sense of civic responsibility and leadership. They have personal callings, world views, which they must realize and they join boards as an outlet. Or at least, when an individual feels passionately about an issue, joining a board of an organization with shared values and passions is one way make dreams into a reality.

So when it comes to making important decision for the board, how far can an individual's personal passions affect their decision making? What's the point of joining a board if you can't realize your personal passions? And rarely does an organization recruit a board member who's values aren't aligned with the organization, so should not the organization trust that the board member, making decisions based on their own values, will also make decisions that are in the best interest of the organization?

Funny, and of course, pointed commentary by Tony Newman in the Huffington Post -- equating random drug testing in schools with random virginity testing. It falls into the category of "common sense" can go a long long way.

It also gives me the occassion for a little prideful MWF promotion. We (the Maine Women's Fund) recently funded Real Life, Real Talk -- an national initiative of planned parenthood promoting hard but good conversations about sex. Shockingly its an initiative that even pro-abstinence camps are getting behind. The Real Life Real Talk commercial are airing in national prime time media and if you haven't seen one, here's a click from You Tube.



We funded a project specifically designed to use community based theatre to get families talking about sex. Our team, along with a team of volunteers, captured the collaboration through a cool video. Check it out!

I love stories about the interconnectedness of our world. This one, from my favorite farm writer Jon Katz, is about the interconnected of people, donkeys, and dogs. It a good for an afternoon laugh.

Mari forwarded this Slate article by Jonathon Katz because, like most of you, she knows I have an affinity for raising chickens. I liked this line:

" Some things simply can't be accounted for by human perception. Often, the best part of living on a farm is the mystery."

It's akin to local story. Jenny the Donkey. Jenny was chasing off vermin on a farm when she escaped and has been at large for, oh, about 6 weeks now. Jenny's orneriness has been contributed to, well, being a donkey. When the local rags picked up the story it appears the mystery is beyond human perception. Jenny seems to be searching for her mate -- Isabella who is living in New Hampshire.

A lover's reunion is scheduled for the near future.

More on Choice and Nature vs. Nurture

The issue of men at MWF is a hot button. Invite men to the board? Invest in men and boys through grantmaking?

I know it is a hot button because most people I meet make sure I know their opinions, which inevitably fall into one of four camps.

1. Give women and girls the opportunity to define their fund "first" before we invite men to contribute. In a combined situation, women will defer to men, losing the empowerment that the institution stands for.

- or -

We need a level playing field first, so invest in women and girls primarily.

2. Live the equality and diverity value that we preach.

- or -

Let us not create a false environment where women and girls succeed on thier own; then expect them to succeed in a environment that they have no experience negotiating.

My personal opinion (and though being the ED, my personal opinion does not necessarily represent the opinion of the organization) is the latter. If we believe in feminism, we must believe that women have the natural ability to compete in an environment with men and that we must give them the ability to choose whether or not to do that. We can not make that decision for them.

That is not to say that we're not battling societal norms and cultural baggage along the way and that some nurturing is required.

Interesting piece by Slate about transparency in the philanthropic world.

Transparency and accountability are a big deal in the philanthropic/nonprofit world of late. Which drives me nuts because its just another buzz word for folks initiated by Sarbanes/Oxley. I love it when foundations and nonprofits figure out what it is they want to hold themselves accountable for and deliver on that promise... rather than talking about 'accountability' and 'transparency' in a vaccuum. So articles like these make me happy.

Choice

This is a bit embarassing to admit for the Executive Director of a women's fund -- but lately, I've been having some revelations about what it means to be 'pro-choice' and realize that my definition has always been severely limited. I assumed that the term referred only to reproductive health -- and to that end, I always felt that the pro-choicers got the short end of the stick when it came to categorization. Pro-choicers are obviously in favor of life and believe that the ability to choose is part of a self-determined life. And I do believe that name positioning is important -- there is a huge difference between 'global warming' and 'climate change' -- the latter not paralyzing people in fear...

But choice goes far beyond reproductive health. Choice is about not making a women's decision for her and proactively giving her the opportunity to be self-determined, believing that when a woman makes decisions in her own self-interest, her community and family will be better off. And there are many applications of this. Most recently this came to light in the fundraising world -- when a board member and I were trying to decide how much to ask (financially) of a potential donor. She was more inclined to ask for a lower amount given that the donor gives so much to the movement in addition to financial dollars. I was more inclined to ask for more becauseI I believe that the if she can't give at that level, she'll tell me so and give me what she can. The concepts of choice offered a third rationale -- its not our job to predefine a giving bracket for her -- in doing so, we never give her the choice to be a major donor. We are telling her its 'out of grasp.'

The same could be applied to many areas -- the level of transparency we use with employees when talking about staff development, providing clear and understandable health information to let parents choose whether or not vaccine are right for their children, etc. etc.

Superman was Superman first. He had to be Clark Kent to pay the bills. Not vice versa.

Why then do we think of our secret identities as our alter egos rather than owning our secret identities as our core identity?

Having an alter ego is about owning a secret passion -- a passion so deep that we long for its actualization in our daily lives. My alter ego is Eli The Chef. In a more perfect world, I would have invested my creativity in a culinary institute. But we don't live in a more perfect world and so I came online as EliTheChef about the same time Mari and I started having deep debates about identity and I started struggling for a sense of place.
Seven months later, I no longer feel that EliTheChef is an alter ego. I'm living the dichotomy in my virtual world. Mari's right. In a virtual world, I can be Elithechef, Eli the Global Foodie, and Eli the Executive Director of the Maine Women's Fund. Not one is more core than the other.

Any one else going the route of virtual schitzophrenia?

I'm officially a tri-blogger. It's funny how quickly it happened. I had agreed with Mari that managing multiple blogs was a scary/time consuming prospect and hadn't intended to be working on 3 blogs at once (as well as religiously following a host of others). But today the Maine Women's Fund launched E-quality Matters to bring our offline conversations about the future of the fund online. I've said it before and I will say it again. Maine is a big state. My hope is that a blog can help bring ideas, challenges, persepctives, and beliefs together in one place. This would be a huge coup for Fund that is hoping to become a 'statewide' fund.

A little video montage (and great music!) from the Maine Women's Fund. I work with such creative folks. Enjoy!

Make video montages at onetruemedia.com

Whose job is it anyway?

I've been participating in a conversation at SSIR that begs the question -- who's responsibility is it to pay for social services? I've been dancing around this question for the last few years from my professional life to online conversations.

Last week I met with a leader in the homeless community -- who is dealing with the issue of homeless in Maine through the housing first model. This model was introduced to pop culture by Malcolm Gladwell, in his New Yorker article Million Dollar Murray. Interestingly enough the vast majority of people at a homeless shelter on a given night will only spend that one night at a shelter -- despite the fact that there are so many of them, they are not a costly group to serve. The major costs of homelessness are borne by 10% of the homeless population that are 'chronically homeless' -- they suffer from mental diseases, substance abuse, and a host of other health issues. They are expensive to treat because once a month they will end up in emergency care for hypothermia, cirrhosis, broken bones, etc. Emergency care is a very expensive way to care for these folks. Malcolm's Million Dollar Murray is one man who cost the city of Las Vegas over $1 million because of this care.

The Homeless first model prescribes dealing with these people on the front end to reduce the high end cost of dealing with them on the back end. A model has been established in Portland and seems to be working fairly well (an economic analysis is underway to determine if any efficiencies were really gained). A new model home is being developed to support the chronically female homeless who in addition to all the other problems are more vulnerable to violence and sexual assault.

Once this home is set up, it will take a $1 million/year to service the home. This is an economic burden for a nonprofit. Should the government pay the cost because the government would have paid the more expensive costs on the back end?

Today launches birthday week for ElitheChef. My funny fabulous friends here at the Maine Women's Fund were quick to catch on (to my not so subtle hints that I love to celebrate January 28th), and put together my birthday montage. Check it out, they have a sense of humor and know how to use it.


Happy Birthday Eli

PS -- The weather forecast called for sunshine today and, go figure, its been snowing since noon!

Only in Maine... I feel bad for the guy -- but the headline sparked a case of the giggles anyway. One other landmark transition event -- the temperature this morning was a high of 7 degrees, and with complete disregard for my DC clothes attitude of dress to impress, I layered on the long underwear beneath cold weather gear :)

Worm digger rescued after foot freezes in muck




3:41 PMWESTPORT ISLAND - Rescue crews had to battle the cold on Wednesday to save a man along the banks of Westport Island.

They said the man, a worm digger, became stuck when his boot filled with water then froze.

The man's co-workers called for help, and Westport volunteer firefighters responded. They said that when they arrived, the unidentified man was showing signs of hypothermia.

Volunteer firefighter Rusty Robertson said, "He was shivering uncontrollably, but he was answering questions appropriately. So he had his faculties, but he was definitely showing signs of being out in the weather."

The man was taken to Maine Medical Center in Portland. There is no word on his condition, but firefighters said they didn't believe he will lose his foot.



Reader comments




Josh of Carrabassett Valley, ME
Jan 18, 2007 3:14 PM
Nice Headline...

Today, I attended a panel discussion, at which the five largest foundations in Maine discussed growing philanthropic trends. I expected the conversation to focus on new philanthropic tools and mechanisms, growth rates, geographic representation, etc. Instead, the conversation was targeted at the recipients of philanthropic funds and ultimately their disfunction:

- There are too many nonprofits.
- They do not collaborate enough.
- They reinvent the wheel.
- The need to improve accountabiity and transparency.
- They need to stop head counting and start measuring actual change.

These are not unfamiliar points. I recognize them, and I even own having contributed to this conversation at some point in my life. But as I listened to the conversation, I felt uncomfortable with the tone -- nonprofits are the source of the innovation that we invest in. It is their passion and drive that constantly mend the tears of our social fabric. Yes, their proposals are the stuff of our files and email jams, but they are not the source of our problems.

As to there being too many of them. It does make life complicated for the consumer, i.e. the donor who sorts through message after message to find the one or two worthy of a donation. But in the end, isn't this quantity good for innovation, competition, volunteerism, and all the other stuff that social capital is made of?

Super Dog, alias George, is settling in just fine to her new digs. Perhaps in part to beginning to dress like a Mainer. George's new attire includes:


Wonder Boots. Obviously a wardrobe essential for any web footed female. The ice and snow builds up quickly, making my partner a snoe shoeing obstacle as she stops mid-trail to knaw out the painful crustations.




Blaze Orange Reflective Super Cape. Capable of warding off hunters and speeding cars alike.





Side kick. Bullwinkle the Moose, courtesty of DCisME, stands watch as Super Dog naps. and naps. and naps some more.



John Updike wrote that "people who live in Maine need things like Pasta Makers." The quote went through my mind when I bought the wonder boots and the cape. Perhaps he was making light of the banality of yuppie life (which most Mainer's don't live). I don't think people in Maine desire or need things like pasta makers the way they desire or need things like long underwear. A good hat. Gortex boots. And the same goes for my dog.

a foodie's hell

I did indeed return to Natasha's for lunch the following day. Had a great half sandwich/soup bowl. Returned home and finished up some deli salads and the Caribbean soup.

Then died.

6 hours in food poisening hell. And too all those who know me, I will admit that perhaps my immune system is a bit weakened by the ladened stress lately. However, it was food poisening indeed.

4 days later and I can sip gingerale and nibble on crackers.

A foodie's hell is not bad restaurants, it is having no interest in food at all.

a foodie's paradise

A moment now, to put all this world changing stuff aside, and focus on another true delight of Maine: The Food.

 

This morning I finished off the blueberry buckwheat pancakes that Scott and I had gorged on all weekend. At the health food store (no, not Whole Food, my friends, this former addict hasn’t stepped foot in a Whole Foods since leaving the District… the run of the mill Hannafords and Royal River Health Food is serving me just fine), I was amazed to find straight from the patch frozen blueberries that, despite any formal packaging, I bought and tested anyway. Um umm good. I still can’t believe that I had never really liked blueberries until I tasted Megan’s Mom’s Maine blueberry pie… blueberries don’t get better than those from Maine as I’m beginning to realize that the ½ inch diameter blueberries from Whole Foods are nuclear-waste scary, not intriguing.

 

This afternoon I lunched at Natasha’s – Portland owned and operated by none other than… Natasha! Natasha herself was running around the comfy farm/chic restaurant in a black Asian tunic which she made herself ‘for comfort.’ Natasha also owns Mim’s – a little bistro in old Port which makes a fabulous Haddock Chowder (I’ve begun to realize that chowders (chowda-z) are everywhere and I need not order it every time I see it on the menu.) My favorite thing about both menus is this. There are 3-4 soups on the lunch menu – each creative and yummy. Roasted tomato with feta crème fraiche and chives. Clam chowder with fennel, bacon, and potatoes. Butternut squash with apple chunks. And.. there are 3-4 salad selections. Roasted pumpkin with duck prociutto on a bed of greens. Pot sticker salad with sesame, oranges, and greens. For $9, you can get a bowl of any of the soups and half of any of the salads. That’s the best part. Today, however, because I’ve got another lunch meeting at Natasha’s tomorrow, I went with the fish tacos. Another thing I love about Maine. I LOVE FISH TACOS. They are all over the west coast and I’ve had them even in the eBay cafeteria. They are equally represented in Portland and I’ve had them more times since moving here than all my West coast trips. Today’s selection were wrapped in thin crispy flat bread, with apple slaw, wasabi cream, and roasted habanera salsa. Oh dear heaven… so good!

 

And last but not least my random fine this evening. Days start early in Maine (to the extent that I’ve had a lunch meeting start as early as 11:45… back in the District, Dana would still be on her second breakfast at that time). Usually they end earlier too and I head home to Super Dog. Only this evening, a meeting ran late and I was hustling to get out of the office at 6:30 to make it home. With no food in the house, I swung by a take out place on my way home and found the crème de la crème of soups. Caribbean chicken and sweet potato. The broth was somehow addictive in its spicyness. The chicken was tender and soft. The tomatoes were chunky. I think it is the best soup I have ever had (a hard second to that French Onion soup I had at TGIF– unknowingly sick with Pneumonia and having spent the day outside to watch Clinton’s bitter cold inauguration – that soup tasted damn good.)

 

Finding something this good random locations is what defines a foodie’s paradise.