Belantara Artikel

The Futurist Manifesto

2009-06-24T06:07:00.000-07:00

F. T. Marinetti, 1909

Source:
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/T4PM/futurist-manifesto.html

We have been up all night, my friends and I, beneath mosque lamps whose brass cupolas are bright as our souls, because like them they were illuminated by the internal glow of electric hearts. And trampling underfoot our native sloth on opulent Persian carpets, we have been discussing right up to the limits of logic and scrawling the paper with demented writing.

Our hearts were filled with an immense pride at feeling ourselves standing quite alone, like lighthouses or like the sentinels in an outpost, facing the army of enemy stars encamped in their celestial bivouacs. Alone with the engineers in the infernal stokeholes of great ships, alone with the black spirits which rage in the belly of rogue locomotives, alone with the drunkards beating their wings against the walls.

Then we were suddenly distracted by the rumbling of huge double decker trams that went leaping by, streaked with light like the villages celebrating their festivals, which the Po in flood suddenly knocks down and uproots, and, in the rapids and eddies of a deluge, drags down to the sea.

Then the silence increased. As we listened to the last faint prayer of the old canal and the crumbling of the bones of the moribund palaces with their green growth of beard, suddenly the hungry automobiles roared beneath our windows.

`Come, my friends!' I said. `Let us go! At last Mythology and the mystic cult of the ideal have been left behind. We are going to be present at the birth of the centaur and we shall soon see the first angels fly! We must break down the gates of life to test the bolts and the padlocks! Let us go! Here is they very first sunrise on earth! Nothing equals the splendor of its red sword which strikes for the first time in our millennial darkness.'

We went up to the three snorting machines to caress their breasts. I lay along mine like a corpse on its bier, but I suddenly revived again beneath the steering wheel - a guillotine knife - which threatened my stomach. A great sweep of madness brought us sharply back to ourselves and drove us through the streets, steep and deep, like dried up torrents. Here and there unhappy lamps in the windows taught us to despise our mathematical eyes. `Smell,' I exclaimed, `smell is good enough for wild beasts!'

And we hunted, like young lions, death with its black fur dappled with pale crosses, who ran before us in the vast violet sky, palpable and living.

And yet we had no ideal Mistress stretching her form up to the clouds, nor yet a cruel Queen to whom to offer our corpses twisted into the shape of Byzantine rings! No reason to die unless it is the desire to be rid of the too great weight of our courage!

We drove on, crushing beneath our burning wheels, like shirt-collars under the iron, the watch dogs on the steps of the houses.

Death, tamed, went in front of me at each corner offering me his hand nicely, and sometimes lay on the ground with a noise of creaking jaws giving me velvet glances from the bottom of puddles.

`Let us leave good sense behind like a hideous husk and let us hurl ourselves, like fruit spiced with pride, into the immense mouth and breast of the world! Let us feed the unknown, not from despair, but simply to enrich the unfathomable reservoirs of the Absurd!'

As soon as I had said these words, I turned sharply back on my tracks with the mad intoxication of puppies biting their tails, and suddenly there were two cyclists disapproving of me and tottering in front of me like two persuasive but contradictory reasons. Their stupid swaying got in my way. What a bore! Pouah! I stopped short, and in disgust hurled myself - vlan! - head over heels in a ditch.

Oh, maternal ditch, half full of muddy water! A factory gutter! I savored a mouthful of strengthening muck which recalled the black teat of my Sudanese nurse!

As I raised my body, mud-spattered and smelly, I felt the red hot poker of joy deliciously pierce my heart. A crowd of fishermen and gouty naturalists crowded terrified around this marvel. With patient and tentative care they raised high enormous grappling irons to fish up my car, like a vast shark that had run aground. It rose slowly leaving in the ditch, like scales, its heavy coachwork of good sense and its upholstery of comfort.

We thought it was dead, my good shark, but I woke it with a single caress of its powerful back, and it was revived running as fast as it could on its fins.

Then with my face covered in good factory mud, covered with metal scratches, useless sweat and celestial grime, amidst the complaint of staid fishermen and angry naturalists, we dictated our first will and testament to all the living men on earth.

MANIFESTO OF FUTURISM

We want to sing the love of danger, the habit of energy and rashness.
The essential elements of our poetry will be courage, audacity and revolt.
Literature has up to now magnified pensive immobility, ecstasy and slumber. We want to exalt movements of aggression, feverish sleeplessness, the double march, the perilous leap, the slap and the blow with the fist.
We declare that the splendor of the world has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed. A racing automobile with its bonnet adorned with great tubes like serpents with explosive breath ... a roaring motor car which seems to run on machine-gun fire, is more beautiful than the Victory of Samothrace.
We want to sing the man at the wheel, the ideal axis of which crosses the earth, itself hurled along its orbit.
The poet must spend himself with warmth, glamour and prodigality to increase the enthusiastic fervor of the primordial elements.
Beauty exists only in struggle. There is no masterpiece that has not an aggressive character. Poetry must be a violent assault on the forces of the unknown, to force them to bow before man.
We are on the extreme promontory of the centuries! What is the use of looking behind at the moment when we must open the mysterious shutters of the impossible? Time and Space died yesterday. We are already living in the absolute, since we have already created eternal, omnipresent speed.
We want to glorify war - the only cure for the world - militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman.
We want to demolish museums and libraries, fight morality, feminism and all opportunist and utilitarian cowardice.
We will sing of the great crowds agitated by work, pleasure and revolt; the multi-colored and polyphonic surf of revolutions in modern capitals: the nocturnal vibration of the arsenals and the workshops beneath their violent electric moons: the gluttonous railway stations devouring smoking serpents; factories suspended from the clouds by the thread of their smoke; bridges with the leap of gymnasts flung across the diabolic cutlery of sunny rivers: adventurous steamers sniffing the horizon; great-breasted locomotives, puffing on the rails like enormous steel horses with long tubes for bridle, and the gliding flight of aeroplanes whose propeller sounds like the flapping of a flag and the applause of enthusiastic crowds.

It is in Italy that we are issuing this manifesto of ruinous and incendiary violence, by which we today are founding Futurism, because we want to deliver Italy from its gangrene of professors, archaeologists, tourist guides and antiquaries.

Italy has been too long the great second-hand market. We want to get rid of the innumerable museums which cover it with innumerable cemeteries.

Museums, cemeteries! Truly identical in their sinister juxtaposition of bodies that do not know each other. Public dormitories where you sleep side by side for ever with beings you hate or do not know. Reciprocal ferocity of the painters and sculptors who murder each other in the same museum with blows of line and color. To make a visit once a year, as one goes to see the graves of our dead once a year, that we could allow! We can even imagine placing flowers once a year at the feet of the Gioconda! But to take our sadness, our fragile courage and our anxiety to the museum every day, that we cannot admit! Do you want to poison yourselves? Do you want to rot?

What can you find in an old picture except the painful contortions of the artist trying to break uncrossable barriers which obstruct the full expression of his dream?

To admire an old picture is to pour our sensibility into a funeral urn instead of casting it forward with violent spurts of creation and action. Do you want to waste the best part of your strength in a useless admiration of the past, from which you will emerge exhausted, diminished, trampled on?

Indeed daily visits to museums, libraries and academies (those cemeteries of wasted effort, calvaries of crucified dreams, registers of false starts!) is for artists what prolonged supervision by the parents is for intelligent young men, drunk with their own talent and ambition.

For the dying, for invalids and for prisoners it may be all right. It is, perhaps, some sort of balm for their wounds, the admirable past, at a moment when the future is denied them. But we will have none of it, we, the young, strong and living Futurists!

Let the good incendiaries with charred fingers come! Here they are! Heap up the fire to the shelves of the libraries! Divert the canals to flood the cellars of the museums! Let the glorious canvases swim ashore! Take the picks and hammers! Undermine the foundation of venerable towns!

The oldest among us are not yet thirty years old: we have therefore at least ten years to accomplish our task. When we are forty let younger and stronger men than we throw us in the waste paper basket like useless manuscripts! They will come against us from afar, leaping on the light cadence of their first poems, clutching the air with their predatory fingers and sniffing at the gates of the academies the good scent of our decaying spirits, already promised to the catacombs of the libraries.

But we shall not be there. They will find us at last one winter's night in the depths of the country in a sad hangar echoing with the notes of the monotonous rain, crouched near our trembling aeroplanes, warming our hands at the wretched fire which our books of today will make when they flame gaily beneath the glittering flight of their pictures.

They will crowd around us, panting with anguish and disappointment, and exasperated by our proud indefatigable courage, will hurl themselves forward to kill us, with all the more hatred as their hearts will be drunk with love and admiration for us. And strong healthy Injustice will shine radiantly from their eyes. For art can only be violence, cruelty, injustice.

The oldest among us are not yet thirty, and yet we have already wasted treasures, treasures of strength, love, courage and keen will, hastily, deliriously, without thinking, with all our might, till we are out of breath.

Look at us! We are not out of breath, our hearts are not in the least tired. For they are nourished by fire, hatred and speed! Does this surprise you? it is because you do not even remember being alive! Standing on the world's summit, we launch once more our challenge to the stars!

Your objections? All right! I know them! Of course! We know just what our beautiful false intelligence affirms: `We are only the sum and the prolongation of our ancestors,' it says. Perhaps! All right! What does it matter? But we will not listen! Take care not to repeat those infamous words! Instead, lift up your head!

Standing on the world's summit we launch once again our insolent challenge to the stars!

The magic instant

2009-06-24T05:58:00.000-07:00

by Paulo Coelho

http://www.warriorofthelight.com/engl/edi201_instante.shtml

We have to take risks. We can only truly understand the miracle of life when we let the unexpected manifest itself.

Every day – together with the sun – God gives us a moment in which it is possible to change everything that makes us unhappy. Every day we try to pretend that we don’t realize that moment, that it doesn’t exist, that today is just the same as yesterday and will be the same as tomorrow. But if you pay attention, you can discover the magic instant. It may be hiding at the moment when we put the key in the door in the morning, in the silence right after dinner, in the thousand and one things that all seem the same to us. This moment exists – a moment when all the strength of the stars passes through us and lets us work miracles.

Happiness is at times a blessing – but usually it’s a conquest. The magic instant helps us to change, drives us forward to seek our dreams. We shall suffer and go through quite a few difficult moments and face many a disappointment – but this is all transitory and inevitable, and eventually we shall feel proud of the marks left behind by the obstacles. In the future we will be able to look back with pride and faith.

Poor are those who are afraid of running risks. Because maybe they are never disappointed, never disillusioned, never suffer like those who have a dream to pursue. But when they look back – for we always look back – they will hear their heart saying: “What did you do with the miracles that God sowed for your days? What did you do with the talent that your Master entrusted to you? You buried it deep in a grave because you were afraid to lose it. So this is your inheritance: the certainty that you have wasted your life.”

Poor are those who hear these words. For then they will believe in miracles, but the magic instants of life will have already passed.

We must listen to the child that we once were, and who still lives within us. This child understands about magic instants. We can muffle his sobbing, but we can’t hush his voice.

If we aren’t reborn, if we don’t see life again with the innocence and enthusiasm of childhood, then there is no more sense to living.

There are many ways to commit suicide. Those who try to kill their body offend God’s law. Those who try to kill their soul also offend God’s law, although their crime is less visible to the eyes of man.

Let us be heedful of what the child within us has to say. Let’s not feel ashamed of it. Let’s not allow it to feel afraid, because it’s lonely and is scarcely ever heard.

Let’s allow the child within us to take the reins of our existence a little. This child says that one day is different from another.

Let’s make the child feel loved again. Let’s please this child – even if it means acting in a way that we’re not used to, even if it seems foolish in the eyes of others.

Remember that the wisdom of men is madness before God. If we listen to the child we bear in our soul, our eyes will shine once more. If we don’t lose contact with this child, we won’t lose contact with life.

Let’s live all the magic instants of 2009!

Love

There is always someone in the world waiting for someone else, whether in the middle of the desert or in the heart of some big city. And when these two people’s paths cross and their eyes meet, the whole of the past and the whole of the future lose all importance, and there only exists that moment and that incredible certainty that everything under the Sun was written by the very same Hand. The Hand that awakens Love and creates a sister soul for everyone who works, rests and seeks treasures under the Sun. Were it not for this, the dreams of the human race would make no sense.

What You Don't Know About Gaza

2009-01-08T19:58:00.000-08:00

The New York Times , January 8, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/opinion/08khalidi.html

------------------------------
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
By RASHID KHALIDI

NEARLY everything you've been led to believe about Gaza is wrong. Below are a few essential points that seem to be missing from the conversation, much of which has taken place in the press, about Israel's attack on the Gaza Strip.

THE GAZANS. Most of the people living in Gaza are not there by choice. The majority of the 1.5 million people crammed into the roughly 140 square miles of the Gaza Strip belong to families that came from towns and villages outside Gaza like Ashkelon and Beersheba. They were driven to Gaza by the Israeli Army in 1948.

THE OCCUPATION. The Gazans have lived under Israeli occupation since the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel is still widely considered to be an occupying power, even though it removed its troops and settlers from the strip in 2005. Israel still controls access to the area, imports and exports, and the movement of people in and out. Israel has control over Gaza's air space and sea coast, and its forces enter the area at will. As the occupying power, Israel has the responsibility under the Fourth Geneva Convention to see to the welfare of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip.

THE BLOCKADE. Israel's blockade of the strip, with the support of the United States and the European Union, has grown increasingly stringent since Hamas won the Palestinian Legislative Council elections in January 2006. Fuel, electricity, imports, exports and the movement of people in and out of the Strip have been slowly choked off, leading to life-threatening problems of sanitation, health, water supply and transportation.

The blockade has subjected many to unemployment, penury and malnutrition. This amounts to the collective punishment with the tacit support of the United States of a civilian population for exercising its democratic rights.

THE CEASE-FIRE. Lifting the blockade, along with a cessation of rocket fire, was one of the key terms of the June cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. This accord led to a reduction in rockets fired from Gaza from hundreds in May and June to a total of less than 20 in the subsequent four months (according to Israeli government figures). The cease-fire broke down when Israeli forces launched major air and ground attacks in early November; six Hamas operatives were reported killed.

WAR CRIMES. The targeting of civilians, whether by Hamas or by Israel, is potentially a war crime. Every human life is precious. But the numbers speak for themselves: Nearly 700 Palestinians, most of them civilians, have been killed since the conflict broke out at the end of last year. In contrast, there have been around a dozen Israelis killed, many of them soldiers. Negotiation is a much more effective way to deal with rockets and other forms of violence. This might have been able to happen had Israel fulfilled the terms of the June cease-fire and lifted its blockade of the Gaza Strip.

This war on the people of Gaza isn't really about rockets. Nor is it about "restoring Israel's deterrence," as the Israeli press might have you believe. Far more revealing are the words of Moshe Yaalon, then the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, in 2002: "The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people."

Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies at Columbia, is the author of the forthcoming "Sowing Crisis: The Cold War and American Dominance in the Middle East."

Inventory of normality

2009-01-07T02:36:00.001-08:00

Paulo Coelho

I decided to conduct a survey among my friends about what society considers to be normal behavior. What follows is a list I have made of some of the absurd situations we face in day-to-day life, just because society sees them as normal:

1] Anything that makes us forget our true identity and our dreams and makes us only work to produce and reproduce.

2] Making rules for a war (the Geneva Convention).

3] Spending years at university and then not being able to find a job.

4] Working from nine in the morning to five in the afternoon at something that does not give us the least pleasure, so that we can retire after 30 years.

5] Retiring only to discover that we have no more energy to enjoy life, and then dying of boredom after a few years.

6] Using Botox.

7] Trying to be financially successful instead of seeking happiness.

8] Ridiculing those who seek happiness instead of money by calling them “people with no ambition”.

9] Comparing objects like cars, houses and clothes, and defining life according to these comparisons instead of really trying to find out the true reason for being alive.

10] Not talking to strangers. Saying nasty things about our neighbors.

11] Thinking that parents are always right.

12] Getting married, having children and staying together even though the love has gone, claiming that it’s for the sake of the children (who do not seem to be listening to the constant arguments).

12ª] Criticizing everybody who tries to be different.

14] Waking up with a hysterical alarm-clock at the bedside.

15] Believing absolutely everything that is printed.

16] Wearing a piece of colored cloth wrapped around the neck for no apparent reason and known by the pompous name “necktie”.

17] Never asking direct questions, even though the other person understands what you want to know.

18] Keeping a smile on your face when you really want to cry. And feeling sorry for those who show their own feelings.

19] Thinking that art is worth a fortune, or else that it is worth absolutely nothing.

20] Always despising what was easily gained, because the “necessary sacrifice” – and therefore also the required qualities – are missing.

21] Following fashion, even though it all looks ridiculous and uncomfortable.

22] Being convinced that all the famous people have tons of money saved up.

23] Investing a lot in exterior beauty and paying little attention to interior beauty.

24] Using all possible means to show that even though you are a normal person, you are infinitely superior to other human beings.

25] In any kind of public transport, never looking straight into the eyes of the other passengers, as this may be taken for attempting to seduce them.

26] When you enter an elevator, looking straight at the door and pretending you are the only person inside, however crowded it may be.

27] Never laughing out loud in a restaurant, no matter how funny the story is.

28] In the Northern hemisphere, always wearing the clothes that match the season of the year: short sleeves in springtime (however cold it may be) and a woolen jacket in the fall (no matter how warm it is).

29] In the Southern hemisphere, decorating the Christmas tree with cotton wool, even though winter has nothing to do with the birth of Christ.

30] As you grow older, thinking you are the wisest man in the world, even though not always do you have enough life experience to know what is wrong.

31] Going to a charity event and thinking that in this way you have collaborated enough to put an end to all the social inequalities in the world.

32] Eating three times a day, even if you’re not hungry.

33] Believing that the others are always better at everything: they are better-looking, more resourceful, richer and more intelligent. Since it’s very risky to venture beyond your own limits, it’s better to do nothing.

34] Using the car as a way to feel powerful and in control of the world.

35] Using foul language in traffic.

36] Thinking that everything your child does wrong is the fault of the company he or she is keeping.

37] Marrying the first person who offers you a position in society. Love can wait.

38] Always saying “I tried”, even though you haven’t tried at all.

39] Putting off doing the most interesting things in life until you no longer have the strength to do them.

40] Avoiding depression with massive daily doses of television programs.

41] Believing that it is possible to be sure of everything you have won.

42] Thinking that women don’t like football and that men don’t like interior decoration.

43] Blaming the government for everything bad that happens.

44] Being convinced that being a good, decent and respectful person means that the others will find you weak, vulnerable and easy to manipulate.

45] Being convinced that aggressiveness and discourtesy in treating others are signs of a powerful personality.

46] Being afraid of fibroscopy (men) and childbirth (women).

47] And finally, thinking that your religion is the sole proprietor of the absolute truth, the most important, the best, and that the other human beings in this immense planet who believe in any other manifestation of God are condemned to the fires of hell.

www.warriorofthelight.com

What Complexity Science Teaches Us About Social Change

2008-11-12T18:55:00.000-08:00

by Virginia Lacayo

From 1992 to 2004, I worked at a Nicaraguan nongovernmental organization called Puntos de Encuentro, which means "meeting points" or "common grounds," a feminist nonprofit organization that believes in the role of communication, research, and education in fostering social change. Puntos advocates an innovative approach to designing communication strategies to promote social change, believing that "while societies have to change, they have to decide for themselves how to change." Rather than seeking to change individual behaviour, it seeks to influence the social context in which individuals act and in which discussion about different aspects of daily life, both public and private, occurs.

To this end, Puntos uses its weekly television social soap series Sexto Sentido (Sixth Sense) as a launching pad for a multimedia, multilevel communication for social change strategy called Somos Diferentes, Somos Iguales"”We're Different. We're Equal. The award-winning strategy combines entertainment-education outcomes, youth leadership training, alliances between partners and strengthening on-the-ground social movements to promote change in Nicaraguan society.

In spite of its wide recognition as an innovative, risk-taking NGO, Puntos has been struggling to frame theoretically and justify its outreach strategy. This is because, while Puntos is experimenting with alternative approaches to promote social change through its communication interventions, it still has to contend with traditional log frames, planning models, impact indicators and research methods based on behaviour change communication theories, which respond to the standard criteria scholars and granters have established to legitimise project outcomes. Seldom do such methods and indicators reveal the multilevel mechanisms through which social change occurs.

Contradictions arise when organizations such as Puntos approach social change as a nonlinear, "messy," complex problem, while most donors, social scientists, and practitioners approach it as a predictable, linear process. A minority of practitioners and scholars, who share a more holistic and complex definition of social change as a process, increasingly criticize the notion of conceptualising social change as an event that can be achieved by strategic behaviour change communication inputs. However, barring some exceptions, these criticisms have not translated into revamped field-based interventions.

In the development enterprise, even those grant makers and leaders who may intrinsically believe that social change is a long-term, complex process silently collude to support theories, indicators, methodologies, and policies favouring a linear, step-by-step, cause-effect approach. The hegemony of behaviour change theories and steps to change models persists. Meanwhile, organizations that use communication strategies deal with the pressure of sustainability and the need to demonstrate"”with legitimised standard indicators"”their "success" to compete for funds necessary for their work.

New theories and methodologies that respond to the notion of social change as a complex, nonlinear, contradictory, emergent and self-organizing process are necessary.

How I Came Across Complexity Science

Hoping to find some of the answers I was looking for, I left Puntos de Encuentro in 2004 to pursue my master's degree in Communication and Development Studies at Ohio University. I am now enrolled in the university's Ph.D. program in mass communication.

At OU, my path crossed with Professor Arvind Singhal, who himself was questioning the relevance and applicability of traditional social science methods in understanding the complexities of social change. Highly intrigued by the complexity science framework, he had become a passionate advocate for its usefulness in providing alternative explanations of how social change occurred. He introduced me to the complexity literature and some of its key practitioners. I saw that complexity science is increasingly used as a framework to analyse complex interactions between various actors in systems, such as stock markets, human bodies, forest ecosystems, manufacturing businesses, immune systems, termite colonies, and hospitals. I was so intrigued by the insight this new science could provide that I read about the topic voraciously.

I started to understand better the role of relationships, connection and interactions. I began to understand the concepts of emerging orders, self-organizing, nonlinearity. I began to see the importance of pattern recognition, the difference between the whole and the mere sum of the parts, the value of outliers and diversity, and how small inputs can lead to big changes and so on.

Even though these concepts were familiar to me, the wholeness of them gave me eyes to see Puntos and its work from a different perspective.

What Is Complexity Science, And How Can It Help?

Complexity science is not a single theory. It is a combination of various theories and concepts from a variety of disciplines--biology, anthropology, economy, sociology, management and others"”that studies complex adaptive systems (CAS).

All three terms in the name CAS are significant in the definition of a CAS: Complex implies diversity, many connections among a wide variety of elements. Adaptive suggests the capacity to alter or change, the ability to learn from experience. A system is a set of connected or interdependent things. From this definition, it is possible to approach organizations, communities and societies as complex adaptive systems.

Complexity science seeks to understand how complex adaptive systems work the patterns of relationships within them, how they are sustained, how they self-organize and how outcomes emerge.

In this sense, complexity science addresses aspects of living systems that are neglected or understated in traditional social change approaches. Complexity science provides insights to understand better how complex social systems work and change. It invites us to examine the unpredictable, disorderly and unstable aspects of organizations and societies.

So instead of describing how systems should behave, complexity science focuses the analysis on the interdependencies and interrelationships among their elements to describe how systems actually behave.

How Complexity Science Speaks About Social Change

According to complexity theorists, all complex adaptive systems, such as organizations or communities, are governed by a few basic principles and share a number of associated proprieties. Understanding these principles could provide clues to design and implement interventions that evoke the natural quality of living systems to change and re-create themselves.

Let me share a couple of examples.

Complexity Idea No. 1: The Whole Is Greater Than The Sum Of Its Parts

Complexity science argues that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Most of us know this already, but each of us interprets and applies this in a different manner. For Puntos, this meant to develop its communication strategy Somos Diferentes, Somos Iguales by chunking, that is, experimenting to get pieces that work and then linking the pieces together, while being aware of the unpredictable, emergent behaviours and outcomes that new interconnections brought. Puntos realized through these experiments that combining media and methodologies for an ongoing period of time would produce more cost-effective outcomes, and would be more aligned with its conception of a messy process of social change.

Puntos understood that interpersonal and organizing activities at the local level were essential to promote individual-level changes and organizational capacities of communities. But, but at the more macro level, the mass media played an important role to shape public opinion, creating a supporting environment for structural changes to occur. A multimedia, multi-method strategy allowed Puntos to have both individual and social change catalysts operating simultaneously and over time.

Puntos's strength, in this sense, lies in the synergies of the integrated whole"”more than the sum of its isolated parts.

Complexity Idea No. 2: Order Is Emergent and Self-Organizing

Another example of a complexity principle applied to Puntos's work is the case of the distribution network of La Boletina, the organization's national feminist magazine that shares news and promotes dialogue within Nicaragua's growing women's movement.

La Boletina's circulation has gradually increased from an initial print-run of 500 copies in 1991 to the present 26,000 copies, making it the largest circulation magazine in Nicaragua. This growth can easily be explained: La Boletina is free of charge, and it is distributed by hundred of volunteers who travel long distances in buses and canoes to Managua to pick up packages of the magazine. They hand-carry them to towns and villages all over the country and distribute the newspaper to local groups. These groups may then distribute the magazine to smaller groups in their communities.

The distribution network of La Boletina is a unique phenomenon of self-organization. It works on the principle of solidarity and is sustained by mutually supportive relationships among women's groups. Puntos didn't plan the distribution strategy, and has no direct control over it. The system emerged on its own.

This absence of centralized control in the distribution of La Boletina provides a lot of freedom for emergence, but it also has, ironically, jeopardized its own existence.

The lack of control by Puntos over the delivery and use of La Boletina makes it hard to demonstrate its impact, the indicators established by donors. Donors have pressured Puntos to increase its level of control over the magazine by, for instance, charging a price. It has been difficult for Puntos to justify to its donors how charging a price might actually "kill" the most important distinctiveness of La Boletina: its volunteer,-self-organized distribution network and the collective ownership of the magazine by women's groups.

Complexity science, on the other hand, values this lack of centralized control as an essential quality of healthy systems. The most illuminating paradox of all is that in complex adaptive systems order is emergent and self-organizing. In a healthy, complex adaptive system, control is distributed rather than centralized, meaning that the outcomes emerge from a process of self-organization rather than being assigned and controlled externally by a centralized body. Order emerges from the interactions among the individuals. It results as a function of the patterns of interrelationships between the agents, and it is characterized by unpredictability. It is not able to predict precisely how the interrelationships between the parts will evolve.

Complexity Idea No. 3: The System Changes When It Chooses To Be Disturbed

Another principle of complex adaptive systems, which is that the system changes when it chooses to be disturbed by the information it receives, is appealing. The system will choose to be disturbed when the information adds new meaning to what exists. In other words, the system becomes different because it understands the world differently. It is not just the intensity or frequency of the message that gets our attention; but mostly how meaningful the message is to us personally.

The key word here is "choice." The system "chooses" to be disturbed by something it considers meaningful. People do not want to be bossed; they want information so they can, when they can, make their own choices and decisions.

That is where Puntos's strategy is fundamentally different from most other communication for behavioural change initiatives.

First, instead of following the general advice "keep it short and simple," Puntos believes in making it "long and complicated." This allows Puntos to show how social issues are closely interrelated with each other"”and how people often engage in contradictory behaviours.

Second, Puntos believes that people have the right to decide what they want, so rather than presenting behaviours as "good," e.g., modelling them as "socially desirable" or advancing them because they are endorsed by international donors and population control organizations, Puntos promotes the right of each individual to make informed decisions and take responsibility for these choices. Puntos does this by showing a variety of alternatives to analyse and deal with different realities and issues. Puntos also believes that "appropriate behaviour" may vary from person-to-person. It is complex and should be decided upon by the people affected by the situation, so they can take responsibility for the decisions they make.

Complexity Idea No. 4: Free Flow Of Diverse Information Is Essential For The System To Evolve

Meaningful information can be presented in various forms to convey a meaning for the system/receptor, and the more diverse the sources, the better. Complexity science values both diversity and participation.

Diversity means not only having different voices on an issue, but it also means addressing issues generally considered taboo. Participation means creating an environment in which everyone can feel comfortable sharing opinions and feelings. It is not only what information is being shared, but also who is sharing it. The wider the variety of people who share ideas, the greater the opportunity for new associations to form and new patterns of meanings to emerge.

Through its own mass media and interpersonal communication activities, Puntos aims to promote dialogue and debate among different people and groups. The purpose is not to create consensus around a topic but to explore, and be exposed to, different points of view in a climate of respect and tolerance while strengthening and legitimising minority voices.

Showing and dealing with complex and contradictory behaviours and issues, instead of stereotypical ones, doesn't make for a short-and-clear message, e.g., bad guys lose, and good guys win. But it allows audiences to reflect more deeply about their attitudes, behaviours, and options. It shows that people aren't bad or good, but often both, which is consistent with the complexity view: Life is cluttered, full of paradoxes and seldom is either/or. Puntos believes in this complexity.

Complexity Idea No. 5: Planning the Unpredictable

While organizations like Puntos can dream, based on a complexity approach to social change, their operative planning usually follows a complicated, linear, step-by-step approach required by their donors and by the expectations of their partners. These planning methods require that an organization plan its mission and goals in terms of actions, activities, outputs, outcomes and measurable results.

But does social reality work that way? First, not all social processes are linear, meaning that not every action has a direct and single effect. Second, there are many unpredictable events that can influence one's strategy, and so it should be flexible enough to adapt. Third, by detailing how expected outcomes will be measured, the assumption is that they are the only possible outcomes"”ergo, one is predisposed to them"”and focuses on measuring them exclusively, perhaps overlooking other important factors. In a world that asks for measurable outcomes, it is easier to go with the flow and not resist the dominant currents. But when the measure of success is defined in quantitative terms, what matters more is how much was done, and not the quality of the processes and the relationships.

Although some planners would argue that a log frame is a guiding tool not a straight jacket, the way the boxes are organized is linear, connecting each one to the other by arrows that show the cause-effect relationship between one and the next... .

This doesn't mean that social change organizations must not plan; it means they should consider changing the way they plan. Interventions in complex adaptive systems require careful consideration and planning but of a kind different from a mechanistic system. It is more important to understand local conditions and to be aware of the uncertainty and feedback that accompanies any intervention than to predict the number and type of the outcomes expected.

Complexity science recognizes the difficulty of planning everything in detail, especially when working within an unpredictable and constantly changing environment. It suggests that the best way to plan is by establishing minimum specifications and a general sense of direction, that is, to describe the mission the organization is pursuing and a few basic principles on how the organization should get there. Allowing the flexibility of multiple approaches by trying several small experiments, reflecting carefully on what happens and gradually shifting time and attention toward those things that seem to be working the best. Once the minimum specifications have been set, the organizational leadership should then allow appropriate autonomy for individuals to self-organize and adapt as time goes by to a continually changing context.

In a perfect world, Puntos and its allies"”organizations and donors"”should get together routinely, with a shared vision about the complex nature of social change, and to agree on the main strategies, or minimum specifications, to achieve common goals. Then, let each one trust the process and plan its activities and indicators accordingly.

Puntos is still far from realizing that perfect world. In fact, this idea of minimum specifications is frightening. In a world that expects activism rather than reflection, and assured outcomes rather than experiments, it is hard to suggest such an evolving approach. Yet, we do know that planning harder, and in advance, will not do any better.

Complexity Idea No. 6: Complex Adaptive Systems Are History And Context Dependent

Evaluations and impact assessment are another challenge for organizations like Puntos. The generally positive results demonstrated by impact evaluations of edutainment strategies around the world have created expectations of regularity and predictability about social change. This positivist approach leads us to think that there are "effective" ways to change societies. Many organizations, especially international aid organizations and foundations, use concepts as "best practices" to re-enforce the idea that successful experiences in one setting can be replicated in different settings. This notion of replication privileges the importance of "outside experts," and it re-enforces beliefs that local organizations and communities need them to find the "right" solutions.

As much as success stories may attract new converts to social communication strategies, the pressure to "succeed" in traditional terms may also prevent innovation within the field, not only in terms of project design and implementation but in terms of evaluation. The required predefinition of the evaluation methods and indicators by donors left little room for opportunities and unexpected changes that arise during the implementation process"¦.

Complex Adaptive Systems: Are History And Context Dependent?

Complex systems learn new strategies from experience, and they are shaped and influenced by where they have been.

While it is important to recognize what does work to promote social change and use it as an inspiration for other interventions, it is risky to scale it up and/or replicate it in a different context. Even in the same locality, a single intervention would unlikely have the same results twice because the environment and the community are constantly changing.

Wholeness matters. As complex adaptive systems, societies "“ made up of thinking, feeling, and believing people -- are for the most part unpredictable and uncontrollable. They do not respond to general laws. Yet, while social change is complex and incoherent, it is not at all unintelligible.

Planning and evaluation are important to social change, but we need to open our minds to new ways to understand how social systems evolve. So instead of looking for the formulae for social change, it may be more useful to understand and focus more on the processes that lead to effective interventions.

In Closing

The issues discussed here are not new. Indeed, some of the "answers" proposed by complexity science are not new. But as some complexity theorists state: "In many contexts, these 'answers' were not explainable by theory." They were the intuitive responses known by many but appeared illogical, or at least idiosyncratic, when viewed through traditional scientific theories. Complexity science provides the language, the metaphors, the conceptual frameworks, the models and the theories that help make the idiosyncrasies nonidiosyncratic and the illogical logical. It also provides a rigorous approach to study some of the key dimensions of organizational life.

There is still much more to learn from, and understand about, complex adaptive systems and complexity science. In addition, there is much more to understand about social change. Complexity science is still in development. Debates about complexity-based indicators and research and evaluation methods are urgently needed if we are to be able to provide communication for social change strategies and interventions with better instruments.

However, complexity science applied to social change strategies, such as Puntos's, can open our minds and help us look for different ways to do things; to ask different questions; to get different answers; to try different strategies; and to understand better what does work and what doesn't in each context. Most importantly, complexity science helps us understand how and why social change happens.

Even if this essay only sparks new questions, that would seem to me a good place to start.

[Important references for this essay were: Plexus Institute and Margaret Wheatley's Finding Our Way: Leadership for Uncertain Times. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Inc. 2005.]

Afterword

In Fall 2004, when I first met Virginia Lacayo at OU, I was immediately struck by her intelligence, her wide repertoire of activist experiences in Nicaragua, and her gentle but irrepressible "irreverence." Not shy of asking why?" or, more importantly, "why not?", Virginia challenged my thinking over the next two years in ways that few had done. In late 2005, I was honoured when she asked me to work with her on her master's project.

For the most part, social scientists and practitioners are trained erroneously in believing that social change phenomena, much like "raising a child," can be predicted, controlled, and achieved in linear steps"”and with a high degree of certainty. This problematic prevailing mindset"”if we do this to people, they will behave in this way"”is a result of the overwhelming dominance of Newtonian thinking that spilled over to social science and was reified over decades without much questioning. To question this prevailing paradigm meant turning upside down the Holy Grail and inviting derision and condescension about "not being scientific enough." The notion that the thoughts and actions of human beings could be predicted and measured in the same way as the movement of heavenly bodies seemed to me as being downright faulty.

The social change enterprise, in my opinion, was badly in need of a framework that could explain the certainty and uncertainty associated with outcomes, as also the agreement and disagreement about how those outcomes could be achieved. What we needed was a framework that could explain why small inputs in a social system could result in surprisingly big outcomes; and why often big, expensive interventions yielded small, dismal outcomes. We also needed a framework that could account for the simultaneous order and disorder in a system, as well as the co-existence of paradoxes and contradictions. As Virginia Lacayo has shown, complexity science provides that framework.

Arvind Singhal, Ohio University: singhal@ohio.edu

For Lacayo's entire master's thesis: Visit either OU's Department of Communication and Development Studies Web site: http://www.ohio.edu/commdev/Resources.cfm, or Puntos's Web site at http://www.puntos.org.ni/sidoc/nuestras_publicaciones.php#englishtitles.
Or you may write her directly at: lacayo@mac.com

Bold Strokes

2008-10-27T21:03:00.001-07:00

Oct 16th 2008
From The Economist, print edition

A strong economic stylist wins the Nobel prize

WHEN Paul Krugman won the Nobel prize in economics on October 13th, the news was greeted with nostalgia as well as congratulation by some of his fellow economists. Since 1999 Mr Krugman has written a twice-weekly column for the New York Times, in which he has devoted himself to attacking the Bush administration and all of its works. The nostalgists feel these jeremiads have distracted him from the cutting-edge research that secured his reputation. The polemicist, they feel, has buried the theorist.

And yet the old Krugman is still recognisable in the new. Indeed, the arts of the columnist are not so far removed from Mr Krugman’s style as an economist. In his most celebrated academic papers, Mr Krugman paints with bold strokes, striving to render his insights as starkly as possible. Like a good columnist, he cuts to the quick of a problem, stripping it of clutter and encumbering nuance. The result is a revealing caricature: what economists call “models”.

Mr Krugman won the prize for his models of international trade and economic geography. Both belong to the same grand project he confidently launched just a year after earning his doctorate: “Before my 25th birthday,” he has written, “I basically knew what I was going to do with my professional life.” In 1978 he realised that a model of “monopolistic competition”, published a year earlier by Avinash Dixit and Joseph Stiglitz, could help him introduce economies of scale into trade theory and beyond.

Economies of scale had long posed awkward problems for theorists. If bigger firms face lower costs, then in principle one firm should supply the entire market, thereby enjoying the lowest costs of all. But in the Dixit-Stiglitz model, this monopolising logic is offset by a countervailing force: consumers’ taste for variety. People prefer to spread their custom over different versions of the same good. The market is therefore carved up among competing firms, each offering a product bearing its own distinctive stamp.

The model is highly stylised. Nonetheless it gave Mr Krugman, as he put it, “a tool to open cleanly what had previously been regarded as a can of worms”.

Mr Krugman used this tool to save economics from an abiding empirical embarrassment. According to one of the discipline’s founding doctrines, countries gain from specialisation and exchange, concentrating on what they do best and importing the rest. The theory explains why the Portuguese might sell wine in exchange for English cloth. But it cannot explain why similar countries, blessed with similar ratios of capital, labour and land, should so vigorously trade similar goods back and forth. This is not a small blind spot. According to the World Trade Organisation, 52% of Germany’s exports to France are things France also produces and exports to Germany. But the Dixit-Stiglitz model, with its subtly differentiated firms competing for variety-loving consumers, lent itself to explaining why Germans might import Renaults,
even as the French imported Volkswagens.

Mr Krugman’s model showed that when trade barriers fall, firms gain access to bigger markets, allowing them to expand production and reap economies of scale. But openness also exposes them to competition from rival foreign firms, paring their margins. Some firms may go out of business. But between the domestic survivors and the foreign entrants, consumers still have more goods to choose from. Thus the gains from trade arise not from specialisation, but from scale economies, fiercer competition and the cornucopia of choice that globalisation provides.

Scale economies also allowed Mr Krugman to give economics for the first time a sense of space. In a 1991 article, he notes that night-time satellite photos of Europe reveal the distinctive contours of economic activity: bright lights cluster around metropolitan centres, shining particularly brightly around the triangle of Brussels, Amsterdam and Dortmund.

Before Mr Krugman, economists found these images difficult to square with the rest of their body of theory. They were accustomed to assuming that firms face constant returns to scale. But if that were true, then every peasant could build a small smelter or assembly line in his backyard. There would be no need for an economy to divide into a farm belt and an industrial belt.

Geography lessons

In Mr Krugman’s model, by contrast, big factories benefit from lower costs of production. Manufacturing firms might therefore cluster near to a large market, leaving behind a sparsely populated hinterland, in order to make the most of scale economies and minimise the cost of transporting goods to their customers.

Earlier theorists had instead assumed that firms herd together to benefit from some kind of “spillover”. Perhaps firms pick up tricks of the trade and other know-how from their neighbours. However plausible, these explanations were nonetheless unsatisfying. Because economists could not measure spillovers or delimit their scope (“How far does a technological spillover spill?” Mr Krugman wondered), they could invoke them to explain just about anything.

Mr Krugman’s models instead identified a less elusive benefit of proximity. He pointed out that a firm’s decision to locate in a district is a gift to other firms in the area, because in attracting new workers it also brings new customers. Unlike a technological spillover, this gift would in principle leave a paper trail, showing up in local firms’ sales figures.

In neither contribution did Mr Krugman claim great originality for his ideas or great realism. His achievement was to formalise insights that many people had previously had informally. Ideas that had fluttered in and out of people’s grasp for decades, he pinned down like a butterfly on display. Sometimes a good economist, like a good columnist, succeeds not by making a point before everyone else, but by making it better than anyone else.

Copyright © 2008 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

Demokrasi dan Disilusi

2008-10-27T20:24:00.000-07:00

Oleh: Goenawan Mohamad
(Orasi ilmiah disampaikan dalam rangka Nurcholish Madjid Memorial Lecture II, di Auditorium Nurcholish Madjid, Universitas Paramadina, 23 Oktober 2008.)

17 Oktober 1953: di pagi hari itu, sekitar 5000 orang muncul di jalanan Jakarta. Pada pukul 8, mereka sudah berhimpun di luar gedung Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat. Tak jelas siapa yang memimpin dan organisasi apa yang mengerahkan mereka, tapi yang mereka tuntut diutarakan dengan tegas: “Bubarkan Parlemen”. Kata sebuah poster, “Parlemen untuk Demokrasi, bukan Demokrasi untuk Parlemen”.

Tak lama kemudian mereka memasuki gedung perwakilan rakyat itu, menghancurkan beberapa kursi dan merusak kantin yang biasanya diperuntukkan bagi para legislator.

Dari sini, rombongan demonstran bergerak ke jalan lagi. Peserta makin bertambah besar. Akhirnya mereka, mencapai 30 ribu orang banyaknya, sampai ke Istana Negara. Mereka ingin menghadap Presiden. Bung Karno, yang mengetahui apa yang dituntut para demonstran itu, akhirnya muncul. Dalam pidato singkat ia mengatakan: ia tak akan membubarkan Parlemen. Ia tak ingin jadi diktator. Ia hanya berjanji pemilihan umum akan diselenggarakan segera.

Ringkas kata, Bung Karno menolak. Tapi rekaman ucapannya menunjukkan bahwa ia juga punya ketidaksukaan yang sama kepada “demokrasi liberal” yang dianggapnya sebagai cangkokan “Barat” itu. Di tahun 1958, ia membubarkan dewan perwakilan pilihan rakyat dan mengubah Indonesia dengan menerapkan “demokrasi terpimpin”.

Sistem ini kemudian berakhir di tahun 1966, ketika “Orde Baru” memperkenalkan format politik yang disebutnya “demokrasi Pancasila” – yang sebenarnya merupakan varian baru bagi “demokrasi terpimpin”. Boleh diatakan, dalam “Orde Baru”, sebagian dari yang dikehendaki para penuntut pada tanggal 17 Oktober itu dipenuhi. Kita tahu, seperti dicatat oleh Herbert Feith dalam The Decline of Constitutional Democracy in Indonesia, bahwa para perwira Angkatan Darat berada di belakang aksi hari itu. Sementara Bung Karno berpidato, militer memasang dua buah tank, beberapa panser, empat batang kanon yang ditujukan ke Istana: penegasan agar Presiden membubarkan Parlemen dan melikuidasi demokrasi liberal. Kita kemudian tahu, dalam “demokrasi Pancasila” yang ditegakkan Angkatan Darat, DPR memang dipilih secara reguler, tapi pada akhirnya, konstruksi sang penguasa – dalam hal ini Suharto – yang menentukan. Berangsung-angsur, kekuasaan berkembang dari sifat “birokratik-otoriter” menjadi otokratik. Suharto mengulangi posisi Bung Karno sebagai “Pemimpin Besar Revolusi”, dengan gelar yang berbeda.

Di tahun 1998, otokrasi Suharto itu rubuh. Indonesia mendapatkan “demokrasi liberal”-nya kembali. Satu dasawarsa kemudian, kita masih tampak percaya kepada demokrasi ini – jika itu berarti pemilihan umum yang regular, partisipasi masyarakat pemilih lewat partai, pembentukan undang-undang melalui para legislator di parlemen, pengawasan kinerja kabinet dari sebuah lembaga negara yang dipilih rakyat. Tapi akan bertahankah kepercayaan itu?

Kita bisa menduga – melihat betapa korupnya para anggota DPR sekarang, melihat tak jelasnya lagi alasan hidup partai-partai, kecuali untuk mendapatkan kursi – Indonesia sedang memasuki sebuah masa, ketika rakyat – dengan hak penuh untuk memilih dan tak memilih – akan mencemooh, bahkan mencurigai, para pemegang peran dama demokrasi parlementer yang ada.

Saya tak akan meramalkan bahwa “Peristiwa 17 Oktober” baru akan terjadi segera. Tapi saya kira siapapun bisa melihat, kita akan hidup dengan harapan-harapan yang retak kepada demokrasi liberal. Dan tak akan mengherankan bila kita akan segera mendengar kecaman seeprti yang pernah diutarakan Novelis, Pemenang Nobel, Saramago: “Pemiihan umum telah jadi representasi komedi absurd, yang memalukan”.

Dalam pembicaraan saya hari ini, saya akan mencoba menunjukkan, bahwa disilusi seperti itu memang tak akan terelakkan. Persoalannya kemudian, sejauh mana dan dalam bentuk apa demokrasi bisa dipertahankan.

Demokrasi – sebagaimana kediktaturan – menjaga dirinya dari khaos. Ia jadi bentuk yang harus praktis dan terkelola. Ia dibangun sebagai sistem dan prosedur.

Tapi sebagai sebuah format, ia tak dapat sepenuhnya menangkap apa yang tak praktis dan yang tak tertata. Salah satu jasa telaah kebudayaan dan teori politik mutakhir ialah pengakuan terhadap pentingnya apa yang turah, yang luput tak tertangkap oleh hukum dan bahasa, yang oleh Lacan disebut sebagai le Riel, (dalam versi Inggris, the Real), dan yang saya coba terjemahkan di sini sebagai “Sang Antah”.

Dengan itu sebenarnya ditunjukkan satu kekhilafan utama dalam pemikiran politik yang mengasumsikan kemampuan “representasi”. Pengertian “representasi” dimulai dari ilusi bahasa, bahwa satu hal dapat ditirukan persis dalam bentuk lain, misalnya dalam kata atau perwakilan. Ilusi mimetik ini menganggap, semua hal, termasuk yang ada dalam dunia kehidupan, akan dapat direpresentasikan. Seakan-akan tak ada Sang Antah.

Namun baik oleh teori “demokrasi radikal” yang diperkenalkan Laclau dan Mouffe dengan menggunakan pandangan Gramsci, maupun oleh pemikiran politik dengan militansi ala Mao dalam pemikian Alain Badiou, kita ditunjukkan bahwa sebuah tata masyarakat, sebuah tubuh politik, adalah sebentuk scene yang tak pernah komplit. Senantiasa ada yang obscene dalam dirinya, bagian dari Sang Antah, yang dicoba diingkari. Tapi yang obscene – yang tak tertampung dan tak dapat diwakili oleh tubuh politik yang ada – justru menunjukkan bahwa scene itu, atau tata masyarakat yang kita saksikan itu, tak terjadi secara alamiah. Menurut Laclau dan Mouffe, tata masyarakat itu lahir dari hubungan antagonistis. Ia merupakan hasil perjuangan hegemonik. Itu sebabnya suatu tubuh politik yang tampak stabil mau tak mau dihantui oleh pertentangan – yang membuatnya hanya kwasi-stabil.

Dari pandangan seperti itu demokrasi, sebagai sebuah format, memang terdorong hanya merawat tubuh politik yang kwasi-stabil itu. Sebagai amibatnya, ia cenderung mengubah antagonisme dan perjuangan hegemonik itu jadi majal: demokrasi acapkali menghentikan proses politik dengan mendasarkan diri pada sebuah suara terbanyak atau sebuah konsensus. Dengan itu apa yang dianggap menyimpang, apa yang obscene, disingkirkan. Maka ia tampak sebagai sesuatu yang tak hendak membuka diri pada alternatif-alternatif baru.

Contoh yang segera dapat dilihat adalah Jepang; di sana, kekuasaan Partai Liberal Demorasi (LDP) berlangsung hampir tak berhenti-hentinya. Hal yang sama dapat dikatakan tentang demokrasi Amerika. Hari-hari ini, justru di sebuah masa ketika suara untuk perubahan yang dibawakan Obama terdengar nyaring, sebetulnya tak tampak dahsyatnya “perubahan” yang disuarakannya.

Pernah saya katakan, demokrasi adalah sistem degan rem tersendiri – juga ketika keadaan buruk dan harus dijebol. Pemilihan umum, mekanismenya yang utama, adalah mesin yang mengikuti statistik. Tiap pemungutan suara terkurung dalam “kurve lonceng”: sebagian besar orang tak menghendaki perubahan yang “ekstrim”. Statistik menunjukkan ada semacam tendensi bersama untuk tak memilih hal yang mengguncang-guncang. Statistik itu status quo.

Dalam haribaan “kurve lonceng”, Obama tak akan bersedia mengubah politik Amerika dengan yang baru yang menggebrak. Akan sulit kita menemukan perbedaan pandangannya tentang Palestina dari posisi Bush. Ia, yang harus mencari dukungan lobi Israel di Amerika, tak akan nekad bilang akan mengajak Hamas ke meja perundingan. Ia tak akan berani menampik sepenuhnya hak orang Amerika memiliki senjata api pribadi, meskipun korban kekerasan di negeri itu tak kunjung reda. Ia tak akan bertekad mengubah sikap orang Amerika yang cenderung memandang perang sebagai kegagahan patriotik, bukan kekejaman.

Seraya bersaing ketat dengan McCain, Obvama – yang memproklamasikan diri sebagai pemersatu Amerika, negarawan yang akan menyembuhkan negeri yang terbelah antara “biru” dan “merah” – akan tampil sebagai si pembangun konsensus.

Tapi konsensus tak akan mudah jadi wadah bagi perubahan yang berani. Di Spanyol di tahun 1982, misalnya, ketika kediktaturan Franco sedang digantikan dengan demokrasi yang gandrung perubahan. Felipe Gonzáles Márquez, waktu itu 40 tahun, memikat seluruh negeri. Partai Sosialisnya menawarkan lambang kepalan tangan yang yakin dan mawar merah yang segar. Semboyannya: Por El Cambio. Ia menang. Ia bahkan memimpin Spanyol sampai empat masa jabatan. Tapi berangsur-angsur, partai yang berangkat dari semangat kelas buruh yang radikal itu kian dekat dengan kalangan uang dan modal. Di bawah kepemimpinan Gonzáles, Spanyol jadi anggota NATO dan mendukung Amerika dalam Perang Teluk 1991.

Sebagai tanda bagaimana demokrasi tak menginginkan yang luar biasa, Partai Sosialis menang berturut-turut. Mungkin itu indikasi bahwa “perubahan” pada akhirnya harus dibatasi oleh sinkronisasi pengalaman orang ramai. Di haribaan “kurve lonceng”, kehidupan politik yang melahirkannya kehilangan greget yang subyektif. Keberanian disimpan dalam laci.

III

Tapi mungkinkah sebah masyarakat bisa berhenti dan proses politiknya tak tersentuh oleh waktu?

Pertanyaan retoris ini penting. Di dalamnya tersirat adanya harapan — di suatu masa masa ketika utopianisme Marxis digugat, tapi ketika pada saat yang sama pragmatisme ala Richard Rorty tampak tak memberikan daya bagi perubahan yang berarti.

Tapi untuk itu, memang diperlukan penyegaran kembali tentang apa arti “politik” sebenarnya.

Sebuah buku yang dengan amat baik memaparkan pemikiran politik kontemporer, Kembalinya Politik (Jakarta, 2008), menguraikan “dua muka yang terpisah” dalam pengertian “politik”:

Yang pertama adalah sisi di mana politik terjadi sebegitu saja dalam rutinitas kelembagaan dan perilaku aktor-aktornya…Yang kedua adalah politik yang diharapkan, yang tersimpan secara potensial, tidak teraktualisasi: politik sebagaimana diidamkan, yang tertekan di bawah instansi ketaksadaran.

Dalam pengantarnya, Robertus Robet dan Ronny Agustinus menunjukkan kemungkinan – atau malah kenyataan — ketika demokrasi “telah membunuh politik” dan “menggantikannya dengan konsensus.” Dengan kata lain, “politik” yang di-“bunuh” itu adalah politik sebagai proses perjuangan, bukan politik sebagai saling tukar kekuasaan dan pengaruh sebagaimana yang terjadi melalui pemilihan umum dan negosiasi legislatif dewasa ini di Indonesia. “Politik” yang seperti itu sebenarnya hanya mengukuhkan tubuh sosial yang seakan-akan sepenuhnya direpresentasikan Parlemen. “Politik” yang seperti itu berilusi bahwa kita bisa mengabaikan Sang Antah. “Politik” yang seperti itu adalah bagian yang bersembunyi dari apa yang disebut Rancière la police: struktur yang diam-diam mengatur dan menegakkan tubuh itu.

Di sini sebuah pemaparan selintas tentang teori Rancière agaknya diperlukan.

La police itu (mungkin ada hubungan kata ini dengan “polis” sebagai negeri dan “polisi” sebagai penjaga ketertiban) bersifat oligarkis. Tubuh sosial mengandung ketimpangan yang tak terelakkan; selamanya ada yang kuat dan ada yang lemah, yang menguasai dan dikuasai.

Tapi la police itu tetap saja tak bisa membentuk sebuah satuan sosial yang komplit. Di dalam hal ini, pemikiran Rancière juga menunjukkan bahwa satuan itu kwasi-stabil sebenarnya. Sebab bahkan la police tak akan bisa mengabaikan, bahwa yang kuat hanya kuat jika ia diakui demikian oleh yang lemah — meskipun dengan mengeluh dan marah. Dengan kata lain, si kuat diam-diam mengasumsikan adanya posisi & potensi si lemah untuk memberi pengakuan. Bagi Rancière, itu berarti nun di dasar yang tak hendak diingat, ada kesetaraan antara kedua pihak.

Di situ kita menemukan bagaimana sebuah negeri, polis, hidup: ada la logique du tort. Ada sesuatu yang salah dan sengkarut tapi dengan begitu berlangsunglah sejarah sosial. Di dalam “logika” itu, ketegangan terjadi, sebab hierarki yang membentuk masyarakat justru mungkin karena mengakui kesetaraan. Ketegangan dalam salah dan sengkarut itulah yang melahirkan konflik, guncangan pada konsensus, dan polemik yang tak henti-hentinya. Ranciere mengakui, selalu ada sebuah arkhe, sebuah dasar untuk membenarkan timpangnya distribusi tempat dan bagian dalam masyarakat, tapi ia menunjukkan bahwa arkhe iitu selamanya bersifat sewenang-wenang.

Dari itu terbit la politique: sebuah pergulatan. Ia bukan seperti aksi komunikasi ala Habermas: di arena itu tak ada tujuan untuk bersepakat; di medan itu yang hadir bukanlah sekedar usul dan argumen yang berseberangan, tapi tubuh dan jiwa, “perbauran dua dunia”, “di mana ada subyek dan obyek yang tampak, ada yang tidak.”

Agaknya yang tak tampak itulah yang menyebabkan la politique, atau politik sebagai perjuangan, mendapatkan makna sosial. Sebab yang menggerakkan adalah mereka yang bukan apa-apa, yang tak punya hakikat dan asal usul untuk menang.

Walhasil, selalu akan ada ketegangan antara la police dan la politique. Sebuah tubuh sosial akan bergerak, tak mandeg, dalam ketegangan itu. Di sini Rancière memperkenalkan istilah lain, le politique,. untuk menyebut proses mediasi antara kekuatan yang menjaga demokrasi sebagai format dan politik sebagai perjuangan ke arah kesetaraan.

Berbeda dari Badiou, Rancière – yang menyebut keadaan demokrasi liberal sekarang sebagai “pasca- demokrasi” — masih menaruh kepercayaan akan peran demokrasi parlementer dan kemampuan perundang-undangan dalam perjuangan ke keadilan.

Tapi Ranciere bukanlah orang yang menganggap, bahwa demokrasi parlementer dengan sendirinya adil. “Politik” sebagai perjuangan, “politik” sebagai la politique, itu sesuatu yang tak secara rutin terjadi. Bahkan jarang terjadi. Demikian pula, tanpa menyebut saat demokratik sebagai “kejadian” (l’événement) yang luar biasa, Rancière menganggap dalam sistem demokrasi yang ada, saat demokratik sejati tak selamanya didapatkan.

Dengan memakai pemikiran Rancière, saya berharap dapat menunjukkan bahwa disilusi terhadap demokrasi liberal adakah sesuatu yang sah dan harus dinyatakan.

Tuntutan akan kesetaraan – dan dalam pengertian yang lebih luas: keadilan – adalah tuntutan yang tak akan habis-habisnya. Ia lahir dari apa yang tak hendak dilihat oleh sistem yang ada. Ia lahir dari yang obscene, dari yang turah dari representasi, ia adalah gaung Sang Antah yang tak tertampung.

Tapi haruskah kita menghancurkan demokrasi, karena menganggap bahwa demokrasi semata-mata format, bukan sebuah proses pergulatan, bukan arena la politique? Jalan itu ada: “nihilisme aktif” dalam pengertian Simon Critchley, ketika ia menguraikan pendiriannya tentang “ethika komintmen” dan “politik perlawanan” dalam Infinitely Demanding (Verso, 2008). Nihilisme aktif inilah yang dilakukan misalnya oleh teror Al Qaedah – yang pada gilirannya juga tak menumbangkan demokrasi liberal, bahkan memperkuatnya: makin kukuhnya aparat keamanan Negara merupakan peneguhan dari la police.

Satu-satunya jalan yan masih terbuka adalah selalu dengan setia mengembalikan politik sebagai perjuangan. Jalan yang ditempuh tak bisa dirumuskan sebelumnya; selalu diperlukan keluwesan untuk memilih metode, baik melalui perundang-undangan atau justru melawan perundang-undangan, baik melalui partai ataupun melawan partai.

Artinya, tiap kali kita membiarkan diri untuk didesak oleh panggilan akan keadilan yang tak pernah akan membisu.

***

Bill Gates on Corporate Philanthropy--Posner

2008-09-25T18:00:00.001-07:00

From: http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2008/02/bill_gates_on_c.html

I became acquainted with Bill Gates when some years ago I mediated (unsuccessfully) the Justice Department's antitrust suit against Microsoft. I was reassured to discover that the world's wealthiest person is extremely intelligent and surprisingly unpretentious. But I am disappointed by the recent speech on "creative capitalism" that he gave at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month.

Almost half the world's population is extremely poor, subsisting on less than $2 a day; a billion are thought to subsist on less than $1 a day. Most of the very poor live in sub-Saharan Africa and in southern Asia. Gates argues that the key to alleviating their poverty is "creative capitalism," whereby private firms in the United States and other wealthy countries seek both profits and "recognition" (praise) in serving the needs of the poor, for example by developing technologies designed specifically for their benefit. C. K. Prahalad, a business school professor admired by Gates, notes that Microsoft is "experimenting in India with a program called FlexGo, where you prepay for a fully loaded PC. When the payment runs out, the PC shuts down, and you prepay again to restart it. It's a pay-as-you-go model for people with volatile wages who need, in effect, to finance the purchase."

If there are good business opportunities in poor countries, however, it does not require Gates's urging for businesses to seek to exploit them. So the only meat in his concept of creative capitalism is his proposal that businesses accept subnormal monetary returns in exchange for getting a good reputation as do gooders. But if a reputation for good works has cash value, then, once again, there is no need for Gates to urge businesses to serve the poor; self-interest will be an adequate motivator. If it is true as he says in his speech that "recognition enhances a company's reputation and appeals to customers; above all, it attracts good people to the organization," then creative capitalism pays because it enables a firm to charge higher prices to its customers and pay lower quality-adjusted wages to its employees. Whether this is true of a given firm's customers and employees is something that the firm is better able to gauge than an outsider, even so distinguished a one as Bill Gates.

If on the other hand reputation does not have cash value, or enough cash value to offset the reduction in financial returns that would result from conducting one's business in such a manner as to obtain a reputation for altruism, then the motivation for creative capitalism would have to be businessmen’s feeling good about helping the disadvantaged. But which businessmen--corporate managers or investors? Do shareholders--the corporation's owners--feel good when corporate management picks objects of charity, unless the charitable giving feeds the bottom line (as when a firm makes charitable donations to activities and institutions in the places in which it has its plants or offices)? Unless shareholders are eager to see their corporations give massive amounts to charities that are chosen not by the shareholders but by management and that do not contribute to corporate profits, it is hard to see how urging businesses to be disinterestedly charitable can have a significant effect. A business that fails to maximize profits places itself at a competitive disadvantage relative to businesses that do maximize profits. Only if charity contributes to profits is it a plausible investment for an investor-owned firm.

There is a hint in Gates's speech that profit maximization is the real goal, and the question for "recognition" a veneer. When he talks up "business models that can make computing more accessible and more affordable," it sounds as if he may be trying to develop new markets for Microsoft. That is also the implication in Prahalad's statement that I quoted. Gates talks about "markets that are already there," that is, in poor countries, "but are untapped." In other words, there are business opportunities in poor countries, and business opportunities require imagination rather than altruism to exploit.

A curious omission in Gates's speech is a theory of why so many people are desperately poor. When he says that "diseases like malaria that kill over a million people a year get far less attention than drugs to help with baldness," he does not pause to inquire why that is so. It is so, first of all, because people in wealthy countries do not suffer from malaria, and, second, because cheap but highly effective methods of combating malaria, such as mosquito netting and indoor spraying of DDT (which would have few negative environmental effects, unlike outdoor spraying), are somehow not provided, but for reasons political and cultural rather than financial. We know that a nation doesn't have to be rich in natural resources to be prosperous. The essential ingredient of economic growth is human capital, and it depends primarily on the existence of a political system that prevents violence, enforces property rights, provides a minimum level of public goods, and minimizes governmental interference in the economy. Without such institutions, economic growth will be stunted; altruistic capitalists will not cure their absence.

Gates has discovered the Adam Smith of The Theory of Moral Sentiments, where Smith argued that people are not purely self-interested, but instead are actuated, to a degree anyway, by altruism. But modern studies of altruism find it concentrated within the family and trace it back to the "selfish gene"—helping someone who shares one's genes may increase the spread of those genes in subsequent generations, and if so there will be natural selection for a degree of altruism. And so as the relationship between people attenuates because of distance, race, and other factors, the degree of altruism declines. That is one reason that Gates's argument that "recognition enhances a company's reputation and appeals to customers; above all, it attracts good people to the organization" falls short. Few customers will pay more, and few skilled workers will accept lower wages, to benefit poor people in distant lands.

Finally, I take issue with Gates's assumption that alleviating world poverty is an unalloyed social good. He calls himself an optimist, but some might describe him as a Pangloss, when he says that "the world is getting better" and will be better still if there are no more poor people. If Gates said that prosperity, longevity, and other good things have increased in most of the world, he would be right. But there is no basis for predicting that these trends will continue, given such threats to peace and prosperity as international terrorism, political instability, nuclear proliferation, and global warming. And if creative capitalism does succeed in lifting billions of people out of poverty, the problem of global warming will become even graver than it is because the world demand for fossil fuels will soar.

Making Capitalism More Creative

2008-09-25T17:55:00.000-07:00

By Bill Gates

Time, Thursday, Jul. 31, 2008

Capitalism has improved the lives of billions of people — something that's easy to forget at a time of great economic uncertainty. But it has left out billions more. They have great needs, but they can't express those needs in ways that matter to markets. So they are stuck in poverty, suffer from preventable diseases and never have a chance to make the most of their lives. Governments and nonprofit groups have an irreplaceable role in helping them, but it will take too long if they try to do it alone. It is mainly corporations that have the skills to make technological innovations work for the poor. To make the most of those skills, we need a more creative capitalism: an attempt to stretch the reach of market forces so that more companies can benefit from doing work that makes more people better off. We need new ways to bring far more people into the system — capitalism — that has done so much good in the world.

There's much still to be done, but the good news is that creative capitalism is already with us. Some corporations have identified brand-new markets among the poor for life-changing technologies like cell phones. Others — sometimes with a nudge from activists — have seen how they can do good and do well at the same time. To take a real-world example, a few years ago I was sitting in a bar with Bono, and frankly, I thought he was a little nuts. It was late, we'd had a few drinks, and Bono was all fired up over a scheme to get companies to help tackle global poverty and disease. He kept dialing the private numbers of top executives and thrusting his cell phone at me to hear their sleepy yet enthusiastic replies. As crazy as it seemed that night, Bono's persistence soon gave birth to the (RED) campaign. Today companies like Gap, Hallmark and Dell sell (RED)-branded products and donate a portion of their profits to fight AIDS. (Microsoft recently signed up too.) It's a great thing: the companies make a difference while adding to their bottom line, consumers get to show their support for a good cause, and — most important — lives are saved. In the past year and a half, (RED) has generated $100 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, helping put nearly 80,000 people in poor countries on lifesaving drugs and helping more than 1.6 million get tested for HIV. That's creative capitalism at work.

Creative capitalism isn't some big new economic theory. And it isn't a knock on capitalism itself. It is a way to answer a vital question: How can we most effectively spread the benefits of capitalism and the huge improvements in quality of life it can provide to people who have been left out?

The World Is Getting Better

It might seem strange to talk about creative capitalism when we're paying more than $4 for a gallon of gas and people are having trouble paying their mortgages. There's no doubt that today's economic troubles are real; people feel them deeply, and they deserve immediate attention. Creative capitalism isn't an answer to the relatively short-term ups and downs of the economic cycle. It's a response to the longer-term fact that too many people are missing out on a historic, century-long improvement in the quality of life. In many nations, life expectancy has grown dramatically in the past 100 years. More people vote in elections, express their views and enjoy economic freedom than ever before. Even with all the problems we face today, we are at a high point of human well-being. The world is getting a lot better.

The problem is, it's not getting better fast enough, and it's not getting better for everyone. One billion people live on less than a dollar a day. They don't have enough nutritious food, clean water or electricity. The amazing innovations that have made many lives so much better — like vaccines and microchips — have largely passed them by. This is where governments and nonprofits come in. As I see it, there are two great forces of human nature: self-interest and caring for others. Capitalism harnesses self-interest in a helpful and sustainable way but only on behalf of those who can pay. Government aid and philanthropy channel our caring for those who can't pay. And the world will make lasting progress on the big inequities that remain — problems like AIDS, poverty and education — only if governments and nonprofits do their part by giving more aid and more effective aid. But the improvements will happen faster and last longer if we can channel market forces, including innovation that's tailored to the needs of the poorest, to complement what governments and nonprofits do. We need a system that draws in innovators and businesses in a far better way than we do today.

Naturally, if companies are going to get more involved, they need to earn some kind of return. This is the heart of creative capitalism. It's not just about doing more corporate philanthropy or asking companies to be more virtuous. It's about giving them a real incentive to apply their expertise in new ways, making it possible to earn a return while serving the people who have been left out. This can happen in two ways: companies can find these opportunities on their own, or governments and nonprofits can help create such opportunities where they presently don't exist.

What's Been Missed

As C.K. Prahalad shows in his book The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, there are markets all over the world that businesses have missed. One study found that the poorest two-thirds of the world's population has some $5 trillion in purchasing power. A key reason market forces are slow to make an impact in developing countries is that we don't spend enough time studying the needs of those markets. I should know: I saw it happen at Microsoft. For many years, Microsoft has used corporate philanthropy to bring technology to people who can't get it otherwise, donating more than $3 billion in cash and software to try to bridge the digital divide. But our real expertise is in writing software that solves problems, and recently we've realized that we weren't bringing enough of that expertise to problems in the developing world. So now we're looking at inequity as a business problem as well as something to be addressed through philanthropy. We're working on projects like a visual interface that will enable illiterate or semiliterate people to use a PC instantly, with minimal training. Another project of ours lets an entire classroom full of students use a single computer; we've developed software that lets each student use her own mouse to control a specially colored cursor so that as many as 50 kids can use one computer at the same time. This is a big advance for schools where there aren't enough computers to go around, and it serves a market we hadn't examined before.

Cell phones are another example. They're now a booming market in the developing world, but historically, companies vastly underestimated their potential. In 2000, when Vodafone bought a large stake in a Kenyan cell-phone company, it figured that the market in Kenya would max out at 400,000 users. Today that company, Safaricom, has more than 10 million. The company has done it by finding creative ways to serve low-income Kenyans. Its customers are charged by the second rather than by the minute, for example, which keeps down the cost. Safaricom is making a profit, and it's making a difference. Farmers use their cell phones to find the best prices in nearby markets. A number of innovative uses for cell phones are emerging. Already many Kenyans use them to store cash (via a kind of electronic money) and transfer funds. If you have to carry money over long distances — say, from the market back to your home — this kind of innovation makes a huge difference. You're less tempting to rob if you're not holding any cash.

This is how people can benefit when businesses find opportunities that have been missed. But since I started talking about creative capitalism earlier this year, I've heard from some skeptics who doubt that there are any new markets. They say, "If these opportunities really existed, someone would have found them by now." I disagree. Their argument assumes that businesses have already studied every possible market for their products. Their attitude reminds me of the old joke about an economist who's walking down the street with a friend. The economist steps over a $10 bill that's lying on the ground. His friend asks him why he didn't take the money. "It couldn't possibly be there," he explains. "If it were, somebody would've picked it up!" Some companies make the same mistake. They think all the $10 bills have already been picked up. It would be a shame if we missed such opportunities, and it would make a huge difference if, instead, researchers and strategists at corporations met regularly with experts on the needs of the poor and talked about new applications for their best ideas.

Beyond finding new markets and developing new products, companies sometimes can benefit by providing the poor with heavily discounted access to products. Industries like software and pharmaceuticals, for example, have very low production costs, so you can come out ahead by selling your product for a bigger profit in rich markets and for a smaller profit, or at cost, in poor ones. Businesses in other industries can't do this tiered pricing, but they can benefit from the public recognition and enhanced reputation that come from serving those who can't pay. The companies involved in the (RED) campaign draw in new customers who want to be associated with a good cause. That might be the tipping point that leads people to pick one product over another.

There's another crucial benefit that accrues to businesses that do good work. They will find it easier to recruit and retain great employees. Young people today — all over the world — want to work for organizations that they can feel good about. Show them that a company is applying its expertise to help the poorest, and they will repay that commitment with their own dedication.

Creating New Incentives

Even so, no matter how hard businesses look or how creatively they think, there are some problems in the world that aren't amenable to solution by existing market incentives. Malaria is a great example: the people who most need new drugs or a vaccine are the least able to pay, so the drugs and vaccines never get made. In these cases, governments and nonprofits can create the incentives. This is the second way in which creative capitalism can take wing. Incentives can be as straightforward as giving public praise to the companies that are doing work that serves the poor. This summer, a Dutch nonprofit called the Access to Medicine Foundation started publishing a report card that shows which pharmaceutical companies are doing the most to make sure that medicines are made for — and reach — people in developing countries. When I talk to executives from pharmaceutical companies, they tell me that they want to do more for neglected diseases — but they at least need to get credit for it. This report card does exactly that.

Publicity is very valuable, but sometimes it's still not enough to persuade companies to get involved. Even the best p.r. may not pay the bill for 10 years of research into a new drug. That's why it's so important for governments to create more financial incentives. Under a U.S. law enacted last year, for example, any drug company that develops a new treatment for a neglected disease like malaria can get a priority review from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for another product it has made. If you develop a new drug for malaria, your profitable cholesterol drug could go on the market as much as a year earlier. Such a priority review could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It's a fantastic way for governments to go beyond the aid they already give and channel market forces so they improve even more lives.

Of course, governments in developing countries have to do a lot to foster capitalism themselves. They must pass laws and make regulations that let markets flourish, bringing the benefits of economic growth to more people. In fact, that's another argument I've heard against creative capitalism: "We don't need to make capitalism more creative. We just need governments to stop interfering with it." There is something to this. Many countries could spark more business investment — both within their borders and from the outside — if they did more to guarantee property rights, cut red tape and so on. But these changes come slowly. In the meantime, we can't wait. As a businessman, I've seen that companies can tap new markets right now, even if conditions aren't ideal. And as a philanthropist, I've found that our caring for others compels us to help people right now. The longer we wait, the more people suffer needlessly.

The Next Step

In june, I moved out of my day-to-day role at Microsoft to spend more time on the work of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. I'll be talking with political leaders about how their governments can increase aid for the poor, make it more effective and bring in new partners through creative capitalism. I'll also talk with CEOs about what their companies can do. One idea is to dedicate a percentage of their top innovators' time to issues that affect the people who have been left behind. This kind of contribution takes the brainpower that makes life better for the richest and dedicates some of it to improving the lives of everyone else. Some pharmaceutical companies, like Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, are already doing this. The Japanese company Sumitomo Chemical shared some of its technology with a Tanzanian textile company, helping it produce millions of bed nets, which are crucial tools in the fight to eradicate malaria. Other companies are doing the same in food, cell phones and banking.

In other words, creative capitalism is already under way. But we can do much more. Governments can create more incentives like the FDA voucher. We can expand the report-card idea beyond the pharmaceutical industry and make sure the rankings get publicity so companies get credit for doing good work. Consumers can reward companies that do their part by buying their products. Employees can ask how their employers are contributing. If more companies follow the lead of the most creative organizations in their industry, they will make a huge impact on some of the world's worst problems.

More than 30 years ago, Paul Allen and I started Microsoft because we wanted to be part of a movement to put a computer on every desk and in every home. Ten years ago, Melinda and I started our foundation because we want to be part of a different movement — this time, to help create a world where no one has to live on a dollar a day or die from a disease we know how to prevent. Creative capitalism can help make it happen. I hope more people will join the cause.

Consumed by Success

2006-08-30T23:06:00.000-07:00

Money—instead of God—became the motivating force in my life.
-by Athena Dean

I was using my gifts to encourage people to make money rather than inspire them to a closer walk with Jesus.
The envelope with its blue and gold lettering was in my hand. With my heart pounding in anticipation, I waved it at my husband, Chuck.
"How much do you think it is this month?" I asked.
He gazed up into the air as if sighting an object far out of reach. "Hmmm … I'll bet it's $18,000!"
As I slowly pulled my paycheck out of the envelope, I saw the figure: $21,000 for the month!
Now, I thought as I looked around contentedly, we're finally cashing in on all our hard work!
Our entire family of six was going on a week-long Caribbean cruise. We'd just moved into a brand-new 3,500-square- foot house with all new furniture and a 180-degree view of Puget Sound . It felt so good.
Yet just that morning, I had read in Mark 8:36: "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?" My eyes may have registered the words on the page, but they hadn't made it to my heart. For months my religious routine had been on automatic pilot—a quick prayer and a few minutes glancing at a psalm. I couldn't remember the last time I'd heard God's voice.
This financial dream-come-true had begun in August, 1991, when a woman at church "felt led" to give me a bottle of herbs to help me lose weight without diet or exercise. She let me know that if I liked the product and wanted to it, she'd help me. Since I was in full-time ministry with Chuck, who was executive director of Point Man International, a ministry for Vietnam veterans, she offered to pay for me to sign up as a distributor in her multi-level marketing business.
I tried the product and lost weight effortlessly. I was sold! I didn't pray about it, I didn't ask God if I should get involved, it just seemed right. After five years in the ministry with limited funds, I was ready to make some money.
I began looking around at church, scouting out the type of person who'd do well in multi-level marketing (MLM)—a business based on a network of people (your "downline") who join to sell the company's products and recruit new distributors. Then I noticed someone else struggling with a weight problem. Before long, everyone in church was a prospective distributor or consumer. I loved going to retreats and Bible studies because someone would always ask me what I did, and that would open the door for me to sell or recruit them.
I began running ads for the product on a local Christian radio station. I figured my credibility in ministry would attract honest, hard-working Christians into my business. My ads planted the idea that working in my business would allow you to get out of debt, send your children to Christian schools, or even fund ministry projects or missionaries. Filled with zeal to help others become "financially independent, " I wanted to make a ton of money so I could support Chuck in full-time Christian service. We worked feverishly, rushing our kids from school to babysitters to home, believing the sacrifice would eventually be worth it.
Within three months, my income was up to $2,500 per month. I never questioned the integrity of those running the company. When indications started to crop up that the founder was involved in New Age practices and was in his fourth marriage, I chose to look the other way.
By the end of my first year, we weathered three major management turnovers and numerous months when no one got their checks. Many people left the organization, but I had a vested interest because I'd earned over $50,000 that first year.
In 1993, I began a megablitz of radio ads on local Christian stations as well as many across the country. My income went from $3,500 to $9,500 a month within four months. From there it continued to climb by $2-3,000 every month. Others in my downline saw their income doubling and tripling.
Then I had a bright idea. Why not open up a product distribution center? One director offered to put up some money as an investment. Twelve of us formed a corporation, then sold stock to selected Christian directors in my downline. I leased office space and freely spent money on furniture, fixtures, signs, and sales aids. With the growth rate we were experiencing, we felt it would be only a short time before we would all see an incredible profit from our investment.
That first month we did over $100,000 in business; the second month we did $175,000. But I noticed troubling signals from the home office. They began making changes that directly affected our sales. Then, after a local newspaper did an expose on our herbal product, business faltered.
We continued to operate as though money was pouring in, but sales fluctuated drastically. Soon the company decided to make a major change in the compensation plan that decreased the pay of our workers by 50 percent. How could I promote the integrity of this company after it had become obvious they were unethical? To keep the ball rolling, I found another product for my organization to represent, and spent the next six months trying to build the same track record with the new company. Not all our shareholders agreed with the change, however, and when we quietly moved to terminate our contract with the herbal company and dissolve the corporation, everyone took a huge financial loss.
It was devastating to watch the deterioration of this group of believers. Friends were now enemies. Conversations that used to be filled with joy, prayer, and love were chillingly polite. We'd come together as Christians, but our overriding motive was the desire to make money. When the money was gone, many of the relationships were also.
In June of 1994, Chuck attended a weekend veterans' conference. I'm convinced God wanted me alone for a whole weekend so he could put his finger on sin in my life. He needed my full attention so he could begin to convict me on my heart motives.
For the first time in years, I felt an overwhelming urge to pray. As I did, a wave of guilt washed over me. God began to show me I'd been using my abilities to motivate people for the wrong ends. I was encouraging people to make money rather than inspiring them to a closer walk with Jesus.
I was scheduled to attend a leadership training session for the new multilevel marketing company with which I was working. I knew the Lord didn't want me involved, but I couldn't get out of the commitment because the company had paid my way.
On Sunday morning, each leader was to stand up and practice his or her motivational speech in front of the audience. Feeling disconnected, I listened as former pastor stood up and "shared his heart": "This is the most incredible opportunity you'll ever have a chance to be part of," he said. "This is a chance for you to make your dreams come true! It will change your whole life. I want to be able to tell my grandchildren I made a difference in this world. With this company, I'll be able to say that with conviction and honesty. And you can, too! Don't wait! You don't want to be left behind!"
If I hadn't known any better, I'd have thought he was preaching to the faithful. And he was preaching, but it was the world's fame, fortune, success. After that, I felt sick. I shrank down in my chair and stayed in the back row, letting one of the other leaders from our group do the speech instead of me. Running through my head was the prayer, God, forgive me for being so deceived!
I told my business associates I was finished. I knew I could no longer promote this "road to success." No matter what my financial condition, I never again wanted anything in my life that was not God's perfect will.
Today, Chuck and I work in Christian publishing five days a week, six to eight hours a day from our home. We're available when needed to stop and focus on our four kids, now teenagers and young adults. We're able to volunteer in different ministry projects at our local church, and every month God brings in just enough work to pay the bills.
When I was involved in multi-level marketing, relationships eventually became important only if they had the potential to make me money. I actually began to believe sharing my product was more important than sharing the Lord. It took the place of evangelism in my life! I went to church with business on my mind and encouraged thousands of others to do the same.
The truth is, the dream of multi-level marketing is big money, and the only way to make big money is to eat it, sleep it, and breathe it. You must filter out anything that gets in your way of success: people, marriage, family, ministry, activities, godly counsel, even the Holy Spirit's convicting power.
I allowed my business to draw me away from my family. Our daughter, Roby, now twenty-five, told me recently how as a sophomore in high school she'd run for class officer and had given this incredible speech at the opening assembly. I thought, I missed it. Where was I when she was growing up? Despite promises I'd made to slow down and spend more time with my kids, I never had. No matter how much money I made, I was still consumed by making more.
God continues to work in my life, but the lessons I'm learning aren't always easy. I still struggle with my relationships with my children, but my marriage is stronger than ever as I now share Chuck's burning desire to see people set free by the power of God. I'm leading a more balanced life, one that values relationships and God's will above all else. For years I was consumed with money, prestige, and recognition. I ended up with broken relationships, a fractured family life, and spiritual drought. Now I've chosen to be consumed by God's Spirit and his will. There's no question in my mind I've finally made the right choice.
Adapted from Consumed by Success by Athena Dean, Copyright 1996. Used by permission of WinePress Publishing. (1-800-917-BOOK) .

<span style="font-style:italic;">Copyright © 1997 by Christianity Today International/Today's Christian Woman Magazine. January/February 1997, Vol. 19, No. 1, Page 30

Today I Will Make a Difference

2005-03-16T20:23:00.000-08:00

an article by: Max Lucado

Today I will make a difference. I will begin by controlling my thoughts. A person is the product of his thoughts. I want to be happy and hopeful. Therefore, I will have thoughts that are happy and hopeful.

I refuse to be victimized by my circumstances. I will not let petty inconveniences such as stoplights, long lines, and traffic jams be my masters. I will avoid negativism and gossip. Optimism will be my companion, and victory will be my hallmark. Today I will make a difference.

I will be grateful for the twenty-four hours that are before me. Time is a precious commodity. I refuse to allow what little time I have to be contaminated by self-pity, anxiety, or boredom.

I will face this day with the joy of a child and the courage of a giant. I will drink each minute as though it is my last. When tomorrow comes, today will be gone forever. While it is here, I will use it for loving and giving. Today I will make a difference.

I will not let past failures haunt me. Even though my life is scarred with mistakes, I refuse to rummage through my trash heap of failures. I will admit them. I will correct them. I will press on. Victoriously. No failure is fatal. It's OK to stumble... . I will get up. It's OK to fail... I will rise again. Today I will make a difference.

I will spend time with those I love. My spouse, my children, my family. A man can own the world but be poor for the lack of love. A man can own nothing and yet be wealthy in relationships. Today I will spend at least five minutes with the significant people in my world. Five quality minutes of talking or hugging or thanking or listening. Five undiluted minutes with my mate, children, and friends.

Today I will make a difference.

Even though my life is scarred with mistakes, I refuse to rummage through my trash heap of failure. I will admit them. I will correct them. I will press on.

God's interview with Larry King about the tsunami...

2005-01-12T20:57:00.000-08:00

got from a message in bulletin board of my friendster

Larry King:
So, how are things?

God:
Good, all things considered I am excited about the new season of The Bachelor... Did you see the season premiere last night?

Larry King:
No, I only watch my own show.

God:
I know, I was just checking

Larry King:
So, lets get down to it, the tsunami, what's the story?

God:
Well, what do you want to know?

Larry King:
To start with, the world seems to think You have some explaining to do Do You care at all about what goes on down here?

God:
Larry, I guarantee you that My Son and I have wept harder over this than you can fathom. My question for you is, Do you HUMANS care at all what is going on down there. As I look into your hearts, I realize that as many of you are disturbed about the tsunami because it proves your own helplessness, as you are because you are truly compassionate people.

Larry, do realize that for every week that passes on this planet, close to 300,000 people die of starvation? That is twice as many as died in the tsunami, BUT IT HAPPENS EVERY WEEK! Where is your outcry for them? Where is the news coverage? Where are the telethons with the movie stars?

The reality is, most of you only care when something invades your sense of security.

Larry King:
Sounds like you are dodging the question and pointing the finger. The question still remains, Why? Why would you do this?

God:
Why do you think I did this?

Larry King:
Well, it seems that every pastor who gets some airtime says that God was trying to get our attention, or that God was punishing us, some
even say that God chose to let it happen. Isnt this kind of death and destruction a little dramatic for teaching mankind a lesson? Doesnt that kind of punishment seem unfair, I mean, what did those
Indonesian kids ever do to you? Are you powerless to prevent these things? Come on, give us the real story?

God:
Yeah, those pastors can get annoying. They run their mouths without really thinking or praying about it. I think if they opened the Bible a little more, instead of just quoting it in their best sellers or throwing it at people, they might start pointing as many people to me as they do away from me!

Larry King:
So what are they missing? I want the truth.

God (with a snicker and an amazing Jack Nicholson impression):
You cant handle the truth

Larry King:
Sure, I can. What do you have to say for yourself?

God:
Well, lets start with the Trying to get your attention theory. I am amazed that you folks only consider this theory when the bad stuff happens. Do you think that there is a second that goes by that I am not trying to get your attention? Do you not see that everything I have done, from the stars in the sky, to the cry of a newborn baby, to the life of My Own Son, is an attempt to get your attention?

Larry King:
So, are you saying that the tsunami WAS or WAS NOT a deliberate attempt to get our attention?

God:
Was not.. Do you not remember My Son saying, It is a wicked and perverse generation that asks for a sign?.

Larry King:
I vaguely remember what are You trying to say?

God:
My Son showed you more miraculous and inexplicable signs than this tsunami Imagine Him walking on top of that tsunami, or commanding it to stop, or bringing back to life someone who died because of it, four days later.

Larry King:
Wow that would be some sign! Think He would do any of that on my show?

God:
Point is, mankind tends to either be entertained by signs or explain them away, but very rarely do signs convict any of your hearts. I am not going to kill 150,000 innocent people just to make a point
that most of you will ignore.

Larry King:
Granted. So, was it a form of punishment then?

God:
Self knows you deserve it! But no.

Larry King:
But isnt that what You do, punish the wicked and things like that?

God:
First of all Larry, the only thing that defines wickedness when it really comes down to it, is a choice to not choose Me. And that is a choice that even my most passionate children struggle with on a daily basis. That was kind of the whole point of My Son, to give you a hope, a vehicle, something to acknowledge your desire to be in a relationship with Me, even though you continue to blow it.

Larry King:
So then, are you punishing those who dont acknowledge Jesus?

God:
No, not yet.

Larry King:
So, why then do people die tragically?

God:
Larry, how old are you?

Larry King:
78.

God:
Larry...

Larry King:
88

God:
LARRY....!!!

Larry King:
Alright, alright, I am 114.

God:
Thank you.
Larry, ...are you excited to die?

Larry King:
No, not really.

God:
But why? Havent you lived a great life? You have had more success than most will ever even dream of. You have had almost as many wives as Solomon. Youve got enough money to cryogenically freeze yourself for a couple of millennia. I would guess that you would even say that you have no major regrets, right?

Larry King:
Yeah, so?

God:
Well, as I hear most people talk about it, they just want to live a good, full, life before they die. They say this, as if the sting of death is taken away by having lived well. But the reality is, death hurts our hearts whenever it comes. Death is always tragic. Whether you die at 1 or 100, most people would always choose for a longer life. Its part of what makes you human.

Larry King:
Okay, agreed. Continue

God:
Point is, in this day and age, I do not use death to punish the overly wicked. The sad fact is, death is part of the deal, part of life. Adam & Eve brought it on mankind. Their willing choice separated them, and everyone after them, from the tree of life. Even then, I didnt punish them as much as I just followed through on my promise. Kind of one of the tough parts about being God having to stick to your word and all.

Life is 100% fatal, Larry. That is the way it is. My goal for your first-time around is not to take away death, but for you to learn to love me, because I choose to comfort you through it. Yea, though you
walk through the valley of the shadow of death, you will fear no evil, for I AM with you NOT, you will fear no evil, because I take you out of the valley.

Larry King:
So youre saying you werent trying to make a point or deliver judgment?

God:
Think about it Larry. Pretty much every time I did that in the OLD TESTAMENT, I also gave you a prophet. I gave you someone who could clearly speak to the hearts of men about why this happened? Have you seen one yet? Have you seen one with any of the tragedies you can remember? I am not trying to make a point or punish people.

Larry King:
What about all the little kids who died, who never had an opportunity to make an educated choice about you?

God:
Dont worry about them. I am a fair and just God, Larry.

Larry King:
What does that mean?

God:
If I tried to explain it to you, your greasy hair would catch on fire and your head would explode. My judgment and grace are beyond your conceiving.

Larry King:
So, last question before we go to our break. If You are the all-powerful God, and could stop this, why didn't You?

God:
It is all about free choice Larry.

Larry King:
How so?

God:
This life is a crucible do you know what a crucible is used for, Larry?

Larry King:
It's a book, right?

God:
Ummm anyway, a crucible is something used to heat things up and refine them, so that their purity can be discovered. I have allowed life to be like that. Truth is Larry, I dont care about judgement, or miracles, or signs, all I care about is you, and winning your heart.

Larry King:(smiling bashfully)
Thanks.

God:
Larry, you have been married so many times that only scientific notation can express it. Did all those women enter into it of their own free will?

Larry King:(chuckling)
You cant prove otherwise.

God:
Would you have wanted any of them to be forced into marrying you?

Larry King:
No.

God:
Every wonder if any of these amazingly gorgeous, significantly younger women you were marrying were doing it just for the money?

Larry King:
Wives 5 12.

God:
Bummer, huh?

Larry King:
Yep.

God:
I dont want to wonder, Larry. I want to know that those who choose Me, choose Me in sickness and health. In poor and in plenty. The minute I begin tinkering with the way the world is, youd either
forget Me, or love Me for the wrong reasons.

Am I powerless? No, I am more powerful than you can conceive. Do you know how much will-power it takes to watch those you love make a mess of their lives, and reject Me in the process?

Tsunamis, tornadoes, heart attacks, birth defects, cancer from second-hand smoke, murder, whatever, are all products of a fallen world. That's all there is to it. I dont make it happen, but I
desperately want to help you pick up the pieces.

I want a relationship with you. But, before I spend an eternity with you, I want to know that you want Me too. That is what this life, with all its good and bad is. It;s a chance for you to give me an
authentic Yes or No.

Larry King:
Can I say, maybe?

God:
Maybe life is shorter than you think Larry.

--------------------------------------------------------

Copyright T.Pylus and the Jesus Lovin Church of
MySpace. We are happy to let you re-use and re-
post at no cost, but request that you notify us first
via MySpace or by emailing us at
tpylus@hotmail.com, and keep the copyright info
intact.

<<:: back to UjungJariku

Experiencing God When You Get a "Raw Deal"

2004-06-16T21:05:00.000-07:00

From Crosswalk
by: Chip Ingram

When I was 21 years old, after months of struggle between head and heart, between will and emotions, I chose to allow Christ to be Lord of my life. That decision meant breaking off a relationship with a girl whom I loved very deeply and had assumed would one day be my wife. We had dated for over two years. We were both believers, we both loved God, and we both loved each other more than anything or anyone we had ever known. But the dream in her heart for our future was to live across the street from her mom and dad. As an only child, she was very close to her parents and felt a deep responsibility to them as they approached their twilight years.

She was everything I ever dreamed a wife would be, but I knew deep in my heart that God wanted me to be willing to go wherever He called me, whenever He called. As much as I loved her, I knew she was not part of God's will for my life. At that point in my journey with Christ, breaking up with her was the greatest sacrifice and the most excruciatingly painful decision He had asked me to make.

I knew in my mind that saying good-bye to her was right. But in my heart, I was a basket case for the rest of the year. I remember crying out to God to change her heart. I didn't date anyone else. I didn't want to. I secretly prayed and fasted and hoped God was simply testing my loyalty - that just as Abraham received Isaac back after being willing to let him go, God would one day give her back to me. I was sure God would reward my faith and faithfulness. Instead, God did the unthinkable.

I played basketball in college. One particular night, after another loss, I was emotionally down, physically fatigued, and spiritually frustrated. As I made my way up the stairs from our locker room to the exit, I looked up to see something I hadn't seen in months. There at the top of the stairs was "my girl." She was standing in our spot next to the railing, leaning against the glass by the exit. My heart started racing. I couldn't believe it. I thought God had answered my prayer and I started planning how we'd get a bite to eat and talk about the future just like old times. But as I got closer and my eyes met hers, I knew something was different. There was no warm smile, no step toward me, no arm around my waist. Only an uncomfortable, "Hi, Chip."

Suddenly, I realized she wasn't there waiting for me. She was waiting for someone else. Before I could fully grasp what was happening, another player on the team bounded up the stairs and grabbed her hand. I watched in stony silence as she put her arm in his and they walked off across the campus into the night.

I could not believe my eyes. I felt rage, betrayal, and complete disillusionment welling up from the depths of my soul. I asked God, "How could You let this happen to me after the great sacrifice I made for You? And how could You let her get hooked up with him?" I knew this player's intentions with girls. I had heard all about his former conquests. I knew how he mocked my faith in God.

As I walked across campus, I was rethinking whether this God I had come to know was worth following. I was questioning if I wanted to continue in a relationship with a God who rewarded great sacrifice and commitment with such injustice and pain. I was questioning the character and trustworthiness of God. I remember mumbling certain phrases to myself as I made that lonely walk to my dorm room. "I feel like an animal. I am so angry. Why do the people who don't walk with God get all the good stuff? And why, instead of getting what's good, do I get what's lousy? Why is life so unfair? Why, God, did You let this happen?"

I didn't grow up reading the Bible. I opened it for the first time when I was 18. As a new Christian at the age of 21, I had begun reading it regularly and trying to learn to hear God's voice through the pages. But I was totally unprepared for what I was about to experience.

When I got back to my dorm room, I opened my Bible to where I had been reading in the book of Psalms. I determined to give God three or four psalms to speak to me. If He didn't speak to me and help me make sense of this raw deal, I was going to quit the Christian life. If the commitment and sacrifice for God I gave equaled the raw deal I got, then Christianity wasn't worth it. I wouldn't worship a God who worked like that. (As a Christian who has matured and walked with God for many years now, I know this isn't the best way to go about hearing God speak through His Word.)

The first two psalms I read did nothing for me. But giving God His "third chance," I turned to Psalm 73 and had an encounter that has forever marked my life. I had no idea that the God of the universe could interact through His Word in such a personal and powerful way with a mere human being. As I read the psalm aloud, the Spirit of God brought thoughts and pictures to my mind of what had occurred that night and the words I'd said while walking across campus. Then He answered in His Word the very questions I had so angrily asked Him.

Reading Psalm 73 was like reading my biography. The psalmist had my same problem. The wicked he described acted just like my teammate, and talked about God in the same way. My efforts to remain pure also seemed in vain. And I had worried in the same way bout how my quitting the faith would have impacted some of God's children - those I met with in Bible study, five of whom I had led to Christ.

As the psalmist began to get a little of God's perspective, so did I. I thought of all God had done for me. As my anger and hurt began to subside, I realized with the psalmist that God is my only real security in life. The Holy Spirit seemed to be dictating the psalm to me to help me in a way I had never imagined possible. God had heard my agony, and He spoke clearly. He reminded me of His sovereign power and His sovereign love. He gave me hope.

After studying Psalm 73 extensively, I see four major life lessons that flow from this psalm. There are four things God wants us to do in order to work through the raw deals we've experienced.

Life Lesson #1: Pour Out Your Heart To God

Asaph, the writer of this psalm, illustrated the first principle by pouring out his heart. Even godly people struggle with doubts and confusion when God's truth and their experience don't match. Life doesn't always make sense. At times, God's truth (God is good) and our experience (life stinks) don't mesh.

Asaph was one of three directors of King David's choir and a key Old Testament worship leader. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, he wrote a number of psalms we still read today. When God's truth and his life experience didn't mesh, this mature man of God poured out his heart to the Lord. His experience is preserved for us in Psalm 73.

Job did exactly the same thing. The most righteous man on earth lost His ssessions, his children, and his health. He said, "God, I am angry! I don't understand what is happening or why it is happening!" He poured out his heart as he wrestled with the conflict between God's goodness and sovereignty and the tragic loss he experienced. What I love about this story is God never gets angry with him for honestly sharing his frustration and anger. God can handle our accusations, our overwhelming fear, and our blazing anger. We must remain reverent, but we are free to pour out our hearts to God.

God wants us to bring our anger, hurts, and doubts to Him. When we do, He enables us to reach the point Job did of being able to acknowledge that the interplay of God's goodness and His sovereignty is a mystery. We can't always make logical sense of the tough things we go through. But we can know the One who is in charge of it all and tell Him honestly how we feel.

In fact, God calls us to argue our case before Him. He so longs for a relationship with us that He invites us to tell Him anything and everything we're thinking and feeling. In all of my life I'd never been that angry with God, and that's when He met me like never before. To my amazement, He met me with compassion.

Life Lesson #2: Carefully Consider Your Choices

One of the most important decisions we will ever make is how we respond to life's raw deals. Few things are as difficult to deal with emotionally and spiritually as injustice. And when we're victims of injustice, we're greatly tempted to walk away from our faith. Asaph was angry, but he realized his actions might weaken other people's faith in the Lord. It's a fact of life that we never do anything in isolation. Our actions always affect the network of people around us.

It's so easy to act irrationally when we are mad and hurting. Some of the dumbest things we may ever do will be because of anger and bitterness when someone has wronged us. Reeling from injustice, we say and do things we wish we hadn't. So I implore you, as you emotionally relive a raw deal, get before God and carefully consider the implications of how your response will affect those around you. If you are still affected by old wounds, God's Word to you today is that it is never too late to find healing for the pain a raw deal has caused. We deal with injustice in one way or another, and that results in outbursts of anger or silent resolution to distance yourself from God and other people, both options have their impact on you as well as on the people in your life.

Life Lesson #3: Get the Big Picture

The psalmist teaches us that it's only when we look at life from an eternal perspective that we realize what's really important and what's not. How do we get that perspective? I believe the key is found in verse 17 when the psalmist says that he "entered the sanctuary of God." Asaph had been ready to give up on his relationship with God (see v.2). He thought he had kept his heart pure in vain (see v.13). But as Asaph worshiped, his perspective shifted from the short-term and temporal to the long-term and eternal. The passage doesn't tell us whether he was worshiping alone or with fellow believers. But the result of the worship was he saw life from the perspective of eternity and that made all the difference in how he would handle the raw deal.

Acknowledging that life looks very good for the wicked now, Asaph proclaimed that no one who violates God's laws, His power, or His authority goes without paying the price at some point (see vv. 18-20). Comparing the destiny of the wicked to the destiny of the righteous prompted a reevaluation in his heart as it did in mine.

Asaph talks about how he was grieving and bitter (see vv 21-22) and then there is a shift in the psalm - "Yet I am always with you" (v. 23). Like the psalmist, we need to realize that, when a raw deal comes our way, we have God. We may not have a job anymore. We may not have a house or an inheritance or a relationship.

But we can proclaim to the Lord, "I have You, and You hold me by Your right hand. You guide me. You promise to be my portion. You are always with me, and You love me regardless of the circumstances in which I find myself." (see vv 23-24, 26).

When we worship as Asaph did, we gain an eternal perspective of what is real wealth and what is not. That same eternal perspective helps us endure the lost relationship, the lost money, the gossip, the betrayal, and the painful disappointments. The eternal perspective keeps the raw deal from destroying our lives. That raw deal does not have the power to destroy us unless we turn bitter, get vengeful, or let it eat us up.

We do live in a fallen world where bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. But even though our world is fallen, it is subject to its Maker. God is in control. God allows raw deals, but He promises to work them ultimately for our good (see Romans 8:28).

Life Lesson #4: Reaffirm Your Relationship with God

As we walk through Psalm 73, a clear pattern begins to emerge. Asaph starts dealing with the emotional upheaval in his heart by first pouring out his heart to God. Then he moves from his emotions to a logical evaluation of the situation. He was tempted to desert his relationship with God, but instead he carefully considered the impact the decision would have on others. Next, Asaph gets the big, eternal picture – this is a raw deal for now, but God holds eternity in His hands.

The psalmist moves from processing his difficult situation to acting in response to it. Asaph realized that ultimately God's presence is the only sure source of security and joy, both now and forever. Asaph chooses to continue to follow the Lord based on one specific attribute of God - His sovereignty. In light of God's goodness and sovereignty, Asaph surrenders his life afresh not only to the person of God, but also to His purposes.

Asaph also believes the day will come when he will be vindicated. He shares, "I will tell of all Your deeds" (v. 28). Are you ready to let go of your desire for vengeance and tell God that you trust Him to even the score in His way and in His time? God will give you a story to share about the good things coming out of your raw deal if you are willing to hang in there. Focus on God's goodness and trust His sovereignty. Keep in mind that God is your only true security. His presence can be a source of joy and sustaining power, even in the midst of great pain.

Excerpted from the study guide, I Am with You Always, by Chip Ingram. Used with permission. Copyright 2003, by Chip Ingram. All rights reserved.

For more great articles and resources to help you grow in your faith,
visit: here

Back to UjungJariKu

o) Intermezzo: TIPS AGAR BUGAR DI KANTOR

2004-06-09T01:18:00.000-07:00

----

Tidak jarang kita merasa lemah dan tidak bersemangat padahal ada begitu banyak pekerjaan kantor yang harus diselesaikan. Berikut kami sajikan tips yang dapat Anda coba untuk menemukan kebugaran jiwa dan tubuh sepanjang hari kerja yang padat.

- Mulailah hari Anda dengan pikiran positif
-----------------------------------------
Awali kehidupan Anda dengan doa dan ucapan syukur bahwa Anda masih diberi kesempatan untuk menjalani hari ini. Bersiaplah untuk memberikan sesuatu yang terbaik untuk Tuhan dan sesama. Setelah itu, ada baiknya Anda setel musik ceria kegemaran Anda. Lalu, go, go, go, siap bekerja.

- Lakukan olahraga ringan
------------------------
Segarkan tubuh Anda dengan melakukan olahraga ringan. Biarkan tubuh Anda bergerak dan berkeringat namun jangan sampai Anda lelah karena kebanyakan berolahraga.

- Jangan lupa sarapan secukupnya
------------------------------
Sarapan akan menghindarkan Anda dari jajan di jam kerja, sehingga membantu Anda menjaga berat tubuh, menguatkan daya pikir dan mempertahankan semangat kerja. Namun demikian, yang penting adalah jenis makanan yang Anda makan haruslah lengkap, terutama protein yang bisa mempertahankan kadar gula darah sepanjang hari. Bila perlu tambahkan susu. Agar Anda berselera, susun menu yang bervariasi.

- Atur kegiatan hari Anda sebaik-baiknya
--------------------------------------
Sebelum Anda bekerja, aturlah rencana kerja Anda hari ini. Susunsebaik-baiknya sesuai dengan skala prioritas pencapaian tugas. Aturlah tugas-tugas Anda sedemikian rupa agar Anda tidak mudah kelelahan di pagi hari. Selain itu belajarlah untuk mendelegasikan tugas Anda.

- Jaga terus kesegaran tubuh Anda
-------------------------------
Jangan terus-menerus duduk diam di belakang meja. Lakukan gerakan-gerakan ringan untuk melancarkan peredaran darah dan aliran oksigen ke seluruh tubuh. Minum air putih segar banyak-banyak untuk menjaga kebugaran tubuh.

- Istirahat itu penting
---------------------
Lakukan relaksasi dan peregangan untuk tubuh Anda, tarik nafas dalam-dalam, pejamkan mata Anda sejenak, di sela-sela pekerjaan Anda. Jangan sia-siakan waktu rehat makan siang, tetapi jangan makan terlalu kenyang sebab hal ini akan membuat Anda mengantuk. Makanlah banyak sayur dan buah segar dan jangan tergoda untuk mengonsumsi makanan ringan kecuali bila Anda benar-benar membutuhkannya.

- Temukan kegembiraan dalam setiap keadaan
----------------------------------------
Jangan jauhkan humor dari pekerjaan Anda. Seberat-beratnya persoalan pasti ada jalan keluarnya. Serius tapi rileks.

- Selesaikan pekerjaan kantor di kantor
-------------------------------------
Tuntaskan pekerjaan kantor di kantor. Ini mendorong Anda untuk bekerja produktif.

- Cukupkan kebutuhan tidur Anda
-----------------------------
Aturlah jam tidur dan bangun Anda dengan teratur. Hal ini akan membantu Anda untuk menjaga kebugaran di esok hari.

- Perbanyak bersyukur
-------------------
Buka hari Anda dengan bersyukur, tutup juga hari Anda dengan ucapan syukur. Jaga terus pikiran positif Anda. Jauhkan kecemasan karena terlalu banyak harapan dan angan-angan. Nikmati apa yang dianugerahkan pada Anda selama ini.

Diedit dari sumber:
==> Agar Bugar di Kantor

========================================================== Back to UjungJariKu

Menyelamatkan dan Hidup Kembali

2004-06-08T03:00:00.000-07:00

Italia :
Di Balik Cerita Pendonor Sumsum Tulang Belakang dan Pelaku Pemerkosaan 2002 akhir tahun 2002

Di suatu Koran Itali, muncullah berita pencarian orang yang istimewa :

17 Mei 1992 di parkiran mobil ke 5 Wayeli (nama kota) , seorang wanita kulit putih diperkosa oleh seorang kulit hitam. Tak lama kemudian,sang wanita melahirkan seorang bayi perempuan berkulit hitam. Ia dan suaminya tiba-tiba saja menanggung tanggung jawab untuk memelihara anak ini. Sayangnya,sang bayi kini menderita leukemia (kanker darah). Dan ia memerlukan transfer sumsum tulang belakang segera. Ayah kandungnyamerupakan satu-satunya penyambung harapan hidupnya. Berharap agar pelaku pada waktu itu saat melihat berita ini, bersedia menghubungi Dr. Adely di RS Elisabeth.

Berita pencarian orang ini membuat seluruh masyarakat gempar. Setiap orang membicarakannya. Masalahnya adalah apakah orang hitam ini berani muncul. Padahal jelas ia akan menghadapi kesulitan besar. Jika ia berani muncul, ia akan menghadapi masalah hukum, dan ada kemungkinan merusak kehidupan rumah tangganya sendiri. Jika ia tetap bersikeras untuk diam, ia sekali lagi membuat dosa yang tak terampuni. Kisah ini akan berakhir bagaimanakah?

Seorang anak perempuan yang menderita leukimia ternyata menyimpan suatu kisah yang memalukan di suatu perkampungan Itali. Martha, 35 thn, adalah wanita yang menjadi pembicaraan semua orang. Ia dan suaminya Peterson adalah warga kulit putih, tetapi diantara kedua anaknya, ternyata terdapat satu yang berkulit hitam. Hal ini menarik perhatian setiap orang di sekitar mereka untuk bertanya, Martha hanya tersenyum kecil berkata pada mereka bahwa nenek berkulit hitam, dan kakeknya berkulit putih, maka anaknya Monika mendapat kemungkinan seperti ini. Musim gugur 2002, Monika yang berkulit hitam terus menerus mengalami demam tinggi.

Terakhir, Dr.Adely memvonis Monika menderita leukimia. Harapan satu-satunya hanyalah mencari pedonor sumsum tulang belakang yang paling cocok untuknya. Dokter menjelaskan lebih lanjut :"Diantara mereka yang ada hubungan darah dengan Monika merupakan cara yang paling mudah untuk menemukan pedonor tercocok. Harap seluruh anggota keluarga kalian berkumpul untuk menjalani pemeriksaan sumsum tulang belakang."

Raut wajah Martha berubah, tapi tetap saja seluruh keluarga menjalani pemeriksaan. Hasilnya tak satupun yang cocok. Dokter memberitahu mereka, dalam kasus seperti Monika ini, mencari pedonor yang cocok sangatlah kecil kemungkinannya. Sekarang hanya ada satu cara yang paling manjur, yaitu Martha dan suaminya kembali mengandung anak lagi. Dan mendonorkan darah anak untuk Monika. Mendengar usul ini Martha tiba-tiba menjadi panik, dan berkata tanpa suara :"Tuhan..kenapa menjadi begini?" Ia menatap suaminya, sinar matanya dipenuhi ketakutan dan putus asa. Peterson mengerutkan keningnya berpikir.Dr. Adely berusaha menjelaskan pada mereka, saat ini banyak orang yang menggunakan cara ini untuk menolong nyawa para penderita leukimia, lagipula cara ini terhadap bayi yang baru dilahirkan sama sekali tak ada pengaruhnya. Hal ini hanya didengarkan oleh pasangan suami istri tersebut, dan termenung begitu lama. Terakhir mereka hanya berkata: "Biarkan kami memikirkannya kembali."

Malam kedua, Dr. Adely tengah bergiliran tugas, tiba-tiba pintu ruang kerjanya terbuka, pasangan suami-istri tersebut. Martha menggigit bibirnya keras, suaminya Peterson, menggenggam tangannya, dan berkata serius pada dokter :"Kami ada suatu hal yang perlu memberitahumu. Tapi harap Anda berjanji untuk menjaga kerahasiaan ini, karena ini merupakan rahasia kami suami-istri selama beberapa tahun." Dr.Adely menganggukkan kepalanya.

Itu adalah 10 tahun lalu, bulan 5 1992. Waktu itu anak kami yang pertama, Eleana telah berusia 2 tahun. Martha bekerja di sebuah restoran fast food.Setiap hari pukul 10 malam baru pulang kerja. Malam itu, turun hujan lebat. Saat Martha pulang kerja, seluruh jalanan telah tiada orang satupun. Saat melalui suatu parkiran yang tak terpakai lagi. Martha mendengan suara langkah kaki, dengan ketakutan memutar kepala untuk melihat, seorang remaja berkulit hitam tengah berdiri di belakang tubuhnya. Orang tersebut menggunakan sepotong kayu, memukulnya hingga pingsan, dan memperkosanya. Saat Martha sadar, dan pulang ke rumah dengan tergesa-gesa, waktu telah menunjukkan pukul 1 malam. Waktu itu aku bagaikan gila keluar rumah mencari orang hitam itu untuk membuat perhitungan. Tapi telah tak ada bayangan orang satupun.Malam itu kami hanya dapat memeluk kepala masing-masing menahan kepedihan. Sepertinya seluruh langit runtuh.

Bicara sampai sini, Peterson telah dibanjiri air mata, Ia melanjutkan kembali :"Tak lama kemudian Martha mendapati dirinya hamil. Kami merasa sangat ketakutan, kuatir bila anak yang dikandungnya merupakan milik orang hitam tersebut. Martha berencana untuk menggugurkannya, tapi aku masih mengharapkan keberuntungan, mungkin anak yang dikandungnya adalah bayi kami.Begitulah, kami ketakutan menunggu beberapa bulan. Maret 1993, Martha melahirkan bayi perempuan, dan ia berkulit hitam. Kami begitu putus asa, pernah terpikir untuk mengirim sang anak ke panti asuhan. Tapi mendengar suara tangisnya, kami sungguh tak tega. Terlebih lagi bagaimanapun Martha telah mengandungnya, ia juga merupakan sebuah nyawa. Aku dan Martha merupakan warga Kristen yang taat, pada akhirnya kami memutuskan untuk memeliharanya, dan memberinya nama Monika."

Mata Dr.Adely juga digenangi air mata, pada akhirnya ia memahami kenapa bagi kedua suami istri tersebut kembali mengandung anak merupakan hal yang sangat mengkuatirkan. Ia berpikir sambil mengangguk-anggukkan kepala berkata :"Memang jika demikian, kalian melahirkan 10 anak sekalipun akan sulit untuk mendapatkan donor yang cocok untuk Monika!" Beberapa lama kemudian, ia memandang Martha dan berkata: "Kelihatannya, kalian harus mencari ayah kandung Monika. Barangkali sumsum tulangnya, atau sumsum tulang belakang anaknya ada yang cocok untuk Monika.Tetapi, apakah kalian bersedia membiarkan ia kembali muncul dalam kehidupan kalian." Martha berkata :"Demi anak, aku bersedia berlapang dada memaafkannya. Bila ia bersedia muncul menyelamatkannya. Aku tak akan memperkarakannya. Dr.Adely merasa terkejut akan kedalaman cinta sang ibu.

Berita pencarian yang istimewa ini mengakibatkan banjir pedonor sumsum tulang belakang. Terlebih lagi lewat waktu begitu lama, mau mencari sang pemerkosa dimana Martha dan Peterson mempertimbangkannya baik-baik, sebelum akhirnya memutuskan memuat berita pencarian ini di koran dengan menggunakan nama samaran. November 2002, di koran Wayeli termuat berita pencarian ini, seperti yang digambarkan sebelumnya. Berita ini memohon sang pelaku pemerkosaan waktu itu berani muncul, demi untuk menolong sebuah nyawa seorang anak perempuan penderita leukimia.

Begitu berita ini keluar, tanggapan masyarakat begitu menggemparkan. Kotak suratdan telepon Dr. Adely bagaikan meledak saja, kebanjiran suratmasuk dan telepon, orang-orang terus bertanya siapakah wanita ini Mereka ingin bertemu dengannya, berharap dapat memberikan bantuan padanya.

Tetapi Martha menolak semua perhatian mereka, ia tak ingin mengungkapkan identitas sebenarnya, lebih tak ingin lagi identitas Monika sebagai anak hasil pemerkosaan terungkap. Saat ini juga seluruh media penuh dengan diskusi tentang bagaimana cerita ini berakhir.(suratkabar Roma) Komentar dengantopik : "Orang hitam itu akan munculkah?"

Jika orang hitam ini berani muncul, akan bagaimanakah masyarakat kita sekarang menilainya. Akankah menggunakan hukum yang berlaku untuk menghakiminya. Haruskah ia menerima hukuman dan cacian untuk masa lalunya, ataukah ia harus menerima pujian karena keberaniannya hari ini ? (Surat kabar Wayeli) manulis topik "Bila Anda orang berkulit hitam itu, apa tindakan yang Anda lakukan?" sebagai bahan diskusi. Dan menarik berbagai pendapat akan sulitnya berada di dua pilihan ini. Bagian penjara setempat terus berupaya membantu Martha, memberikan laporan terpidana hukuman pada tahun 1992 pada RS. Dikarenakan jumlah orang berkulit hitam di kota ini hanya sedikit, maka dalam 10 tahun terakhir ini juga hanya sedikit jumlah terhukum berkulit hitam.

Mereka berkata pada Martha :"Sekalipun beberapa orang bukanlah terhukum karena tindak perkosaan, tapi mungkin beberapa juga menemui hal seperti ini." Beberapa orang ini juga sebagian telah keluar penjara, sebagian lainnya masih berada di dalam penjara. Martha dan Peterson menghubungi beberapa orang ini, begitu banyak terpidana waktu itu yang bersungguh-sungguh dan antusias untuk memberikan petunjuk.Tapi sayangnya, mereka semua bukanlah orang hitam yang memperkosanya waktu itu.

Tak lama kemudian, kisah Martha menyebar ke seluruh rumah tahanan, tak sedikit terpidana yang tergerak karena kasih ibu ini, tak peduli mereka berkulit hitam maupun berkulit putih, mereka semua bersukarela mendaftar untuk menjalani pemeriksaan sumsum tulang belakang, berharap dapat mendonorkannya untuk Monika. Tapi tak satupun pedonor yang memenuhi kriteria di antara mereka.Berita pencarian ini mengharukan banyak orang, tak sedikit orang yang bersukarela untuk menjalani pemeriksaan sumsum tulang belakang, untuk mengetahui apakah dirinya memenuhi kriteria. Para sukarelawan semakin lama semakin bertambah, di Wayeli timbullah wabah untuk mendonorkan sumsum tulang belakang. Hal yang mengejutkan adalah kesediaan para sukarelawan ini menyelamatkan banyak penderita leukimia lainnya, sayangnya Monika tak termasuk diantara mereka yang beruntung.

Martha dan Peterson menantikan dengan panik kemunculan si kulit hitam. Akhirnya dua bulan telah lewat, orang ini tak muncul-muncul juga. Dengan tidak tenang, mereka mulai berpikir, mungkin orang hitam itu sudah telah meninggalkan dunia ini. Mungkin ia telah meninggalkan jauh-jauh kampung halamannya. Sudah sejak lama tak berada di Itali. Mungkin ia tak bersedia merusak kehidupannya sendiri, tak ingin muncul Tapi tak peduli bagaimanapun, asalkan Monika hidup sehari lagi, mereka tak rela untuk melepaskan harapan untuk mencari orang hitam itu.

Disaat sebuah jiwa merana tak menentu, harapan selalu disaat keputusasaan melanda kembali muncul.Saat itu berita pencarian juga muncul di Napulese, memporakporandakan perasaan seorang pengelola toko minuman keras berusia 30 tahun.Iaseorang kulit hitam, bernama Ajili. 17 Mei 1992 waktu itu, ia memiliki lembaran terkelam merupakan mimpi terburuknya di malam berhujan itu. Ia adalah sang peran utama dalam kisah ini. Tak seorangpun menyangka, Ajili yang sangat kaya raya itu, pernah bekerja sebagai pencuci piring panggilan.Dikarenakan orang tuanya telah meninggal sejak iamasih muda, ia yang tak pernah mengenyam dunia pendidikan terpaksa bekerja sejak dini.

Ia yang begitu pandai dan cekatan, berharap dirinya sendiri bekerja dengan giat demi mendapatkan sedikit uang dan penghargaan dari orang lain. Tapi sialnya, bosnya merupakan seorang rasialis, yang selalu mendiskriminasikannya. Tak peduli segiat apapun dirinya, selalu memukul dan memakinya.

17 Mei 1992, merupakan ulang tahunnya ke 20, iaberencana untuk pulang kerja lebih awal merayakan hari ulang tahunnya. Siapa menyangka, ditengah kesibukan iamemecahkan sebuah piring. Sang bos menahan kepalanya, memaksanya untuk menelan pecahan piring. Ajili begitu marah dan memukul sang bos, lalu berlari keluar meninggalkan restoran. Ditengah kemarahannya ia bertekad untuk membalas dendam pada si kulit putih. Malam berhujan lebat, tiada seorangpun lewat, dan di parkiran iabertemu Martha. Untuk membalaskan dendamnya akibat pendiskriminasian, ia pun memperkosa sang wanita yang tak berdosa ini. Tapi selesai melakukannya, Ajili mulai panik dan ketakutan. Malam itu juga ia menggunakan uang ulang tahunnya untuk membeli tiket KA menuju Napulese, meninggalkan kota ini.

Di Napulese, ia bertemu keberuntungannya.Ajili mendapatkan pekerjaan dengan lancar di restoran milik orang Amerika. Kedua pasangan Amerika ini sangatlah mengagumi kemampuannya, dan menikahkannya dengan anak perempuan mereka, Lina, dan pada akhirnya juga mempercayainya untuk mengelola toko mereka. Beberapa tahun ini, iayang begitu tangkas, tak hanya memajukan bisnis toko minuman keras ini, ia juga memiliki 3 anak yang lucu. Dimata pekerja lainnya dan seluruh anggota keluarga, Ajili merupakan bos yang baik, suami yang baik, ayah yang baik.

Tapi hati nuraninya tetap membuatnya tak melupakan dosa yang pernah diperbuatnya. Ia selalu memohon ampun pada Tuhan dan berharap Tuhan melindungi wanita yang pernah diperkosanya, berharap ia selalu hidup damai dan tentram. Tapi ia menyimpan rahasianya rapat-rapat, tak memberitahu seorangpun. Pagi hari itu, Ajili berkali-kali membolak-balik koran, ia terus mempertimbangkan kemungkinan dirinyalah pelaku yang dimaksud.

Sedikitpun ia tak pernah membayangkan bahwa wanita malang itu mengandung anaknya, bahkan menanggung tanggung jawab untuk memelihara dan menjaga anak yang awalnya bukanlah miliknya. Hari itu, Ajili beberapa kali mencoba menghubungi nomor telepon Dr.Adely. Tapi setiap kali, belum sempat menekan habis tombol telepon, ia telah menutupnya kembali. Hatinya terus bertentangan, bila ia bersedia mengakui semuanya, setiap orang kelak akan mengetahui sisi terburuknya ini, anak-anaknya tak akan lagi mencintainya, ia akan kehilangan keluarganya yang bahagia dan istrinya yang cantik. Juga akan kehilangan penghormatan masyarakat disekitarnya. Semua yang ia dapatkan dengan ditukar kerja kerasnya bertahun-tahun.

Malam itu, saat makan bersama, seluruh keluarga mendiskusikan kasus Martha. Sang istri, Lina berkata :"Aku sangat mengagumi Martha. Bila aku diposisinya, aku tak akan memiliki keberanian untuk memelihara anak hasil perkosaan hingga dewasa. Aku lebih mengagumi lagi suami Martha, ia sungguh pria yang patut dihormati, tak disangka ia dapat menerima anak yang demikian." Ajili termenung mendengarkan pendapat istrinya, dan tiba-tiba mengajukan pertanyaan : "Kalau begitu, bagaimana kau memandang pelaku pemerkosaan itu?" "Sedikitpun aku tak akan memaafkannya !!! Waktu itu ia sudah membuat kesalahan, kali ini juga hanya dapat meringkuk menyelingkupi dirinya sendiri, ia benar-benar begitu rendah, begitu egois, begitu pengecut !Ia benar-benar seorang pengecut!" demikian istrinya menjawab dengan dipenuhi api kemarahan.

Ajili mendengarkan saja, tak berani mengatakan kenyataan pada istrinya. Malam itu, anaknya yang baru berusia 5 tahun begitu rewel tak bersedia tidur, untuk pertama kalinya Ajili kehilangan kesabaran dan menamparnya. Sang anak sambil menangis berkata: "Kau ayah yang jahat, aku tak mau peduli kamu lagi. Aku tak ingin kau menjadi ayahku." Hati Ajili bagai terpukul keras mendengarnya, iapun memeluk erat-erat sang anak dan berkata :"Maaf, ayah tak akan memukulmu lagi. Ayah yang salah, maafkan papa ya" Sampai sini, Ajili pun tiba-tiba menangis. Sang anak terkejut dibuatnya, dan buru-buru berkata padanya untuk menenangkan ayahnya :"Baiklah, kumaafkan. Guru TK ku bilang, anak yang baik adalah anak yang mau memperbaiki kesalahannya."

Malam itu, Ajili tak dapat terlelap, merasa dirinya bagaikan terbakar dalam neraka. Dimatanya selalu terbayang kejadian malam berhujan deras itu, dan bayangan sang wanita. Ia sepertinya dapat mendengarkan jerit tangis wanita itu. Tak henti-hentinya ia bertanya pada dirinya sendiri :"Aku ini sebenarnya orang baik, atau orang jahat" Mendengar bunyi napas istrinya yang teratur, iapun kehilangan seluruh keberaniannya untuk berdiri.

Hari kedua, ia hampir tak tahan lagi rasanya. Istrinya mulai merasakan adanya ketidak beresan pada dirinya, memberikan perhatian padanya dengan menanyakan apakah ada masalah. Dan ia mencari alasan tak enak badan untuk meloloskan dirinya. Pagi hari di jam kerja, sang karyawan menyapanya ramah :"Selamat pagi, manager!" Mendengar itu, wajahnya tiba-tiba menjadi pucat pasi, dalam hati dipenuhi perasaan tak menentu dan rasa malu. Ia merasa dirinya hampir menjadi gila saja rasanya. Setelah berhari-hari memeriksa hati nuraninya, Ajili tak dapat lagi terus diam saja, iapun menelepon Dr.Adely. Ia berusaha sekuat tenaga menjaga suaranya supaya tetap tenang :"Aku ingin mengetahui keadaan anak malangitu." Dr. Adely memberitahunya, keadaan sang anak sangat parah. Dr.Adely menambahkan kalimat terakhirnya berkata :"Entah apa ia dapat menunggu hari kemunculan ayah kandungnya." Kalimat terakhir ini menyentuh hati Ajili yang paling dalam, suatu perasaan hangat sebagai sang ayah mengalir keluar, bagaimanapun anak itu juga merupakan darah dagingnya sendiri. Iapun membulatkan tekad untuk menolong Monika.

Ia telah melakukan kesalahan sekali, tak boleh kembali membiarkan dirinya meneruskan kesalahan ini. Malam hari itu juga, iapun mengobarkan keberaniannya sendiri untuk memberitahu sang istri tentang segala rahasianya. Terakhir ia berkata :"Sangatlah mungkin bahwa aku adalah ayah Monika ! Aku harus menyelamatkannya !?Lina sangat terkejut, marah dan terluka, mendengar semuanya, ia berteriak marah :"Kau PEMBOHONG!" Malam itu juga ia membawa ketiga anak mereka, dan lari pulang ke rumah ayah ibunya. Ketika ia memberitahu mereka tentang kisah Ajili, kemarahan kedua suami-istri tersebut dengan segera mereda.

Mereka adalah dua orang tua yang penuh pengalaman hidup, mereka menasehatinya: "Memang benar, kita patut marah terhadap segala tingkah laku Ajili di masa lalu. Tapi pernahkah kamu memikirkan, ia dapat mengulurkan dirinya untuk muncul, perlu berapa banyak keberanian besar. Hal ini membuktikan bahwa hati nuraninya belum sepenuhnya terkubur. Apakah kau mengharapkan seorang suami yang pernah melakukan kesalahan tapi kini bersedia memperbaiki dirinya Ataukah seorang suami yang selamanya menyimpan kebusukan ini didalamnya?" Mendengar ini Lina terpekur beberapa lama.

Pagi-pagi di hari keuda, ia langsung kembali ke sisi Ajili, menatap mata sang suami yang dipenuhi penderitaan, Lina menetapkan hatinya berkata:"Ajili, pergilah menemui Dr. Adely ! Aku akan menemanimu !"

3 Februari 2003, suami istri Ajili, menghubungi Dr. Adely.8 Februari, pasangan tersebut tiba di RS Elisabeth, demi untuk pemeriksaan DNA Ajili. Hasilnya Ajili benar-benar adalah ayah Monika. Ketika Martha mengetahui bahwa orang hitam pemerkosanya itu pada akhirnya berani memunculkan dirinya, iapun tak dapat menahan air matanya. Sepuluh tahun ini ia terus memendam dendam kesumat terhadap Ajili, namun saat ini ia hanya dipenuhi perasaan terharu.

Segalanya berlangsung dalam keheningan.Demi untuk melindungi pasangan Ajili dan pasangan Martha, pihak RS tidak mengungkapkan dengan jelas identitas mereka semua pada media, dan juga tak bersedia mengungkapkan keadaan sebenarnya, mereka hanya memberitahu media bahwa ayah kandung Monika telah ditemukan. Berita ini mengejutkan seluruh pemerhati berita ini. Mereka terus-menerus menelepon, menulis surat pada Dr. Adely, memohon untuk dapat menyampaikan kemarahan mereka pada orang hitam ini, sekaligus penghormatan mereka padanya. Mereka berpendapat :"Barangkali ia pernah melakukan tindak pidana, namun saat ini ia seorang pahlawan !"

10 Februari, kedua pasangan Martha dan suami memohon untuk dapat bertemu muka langsung dengan Ajili. Awalnya Ajili tak berani untuk menemui mereka, namun pada permohonan ketiga Martha, ia pun menyetujui hal ini. 18 Februari, dalam ruang tertutup dan dirahasiakan di RS, Martha bertemu langsung dengan Ajili. Ajili baru saja memangkas rambutnya, saat ia melihat Marth, langkah kakinya terasa sangatlah berat, raut wajahnya memucat. Martha dan suaminya melangkah maju, dan mereka bersama-sama saling menjabat tangan masing-masing, sesaat ketiga orang tersebut diam tanpa suara menahan kepedihan, sebelum akhirnya air mata mereka bersama-sama mengalir. Beberapa waktu kemudian, dengan suara serak Ajili berkata :"Maaf...mohon maafkan aku! Kalimat ini telah terpendam dalam hatiku selama 10 tahun.Hari ini akhirnya aku mendapat kesempatan untuk mengatakannya langsung kepadamu." Martha menjawab :"Terima kasih Kau dapat muncul. Semoga Tuhan memberkati, sehingga sumsum tulang belakangmu dapat menolong putriku."

19 Februari, dokter melakukan pemeriksaan sumsum tulang belakang Ajili. Untungnya, sumsum tulang belakangnya sangat cocok bagi Monika !Sang dokter berkata dengan antusias :"Ini suatu keajaiban!"

22 Februari 2003, sekian lama harapan masyarakat luas akhirnya terkabulkan.Monika menerima sumsum tulang belakang Ajili, dan pada akhirnya Monika telah melewati masa kritis.Satu minggu kemudian, Monika boleh keluar RS dengan sehat walafiat.

Martha dan suami memaafkan Ajili sepenuhnya, dan secara khusus mengundang Ajili dan Dr. Adely datang kerumah mereka untuk merayakannya. Tapi hari itu Ajili tidak hadir, ia memohon Dr. Adely membawa suratnya bagi mereka. Dalam suratnya ia menyatakan penyesalan dan rasa malunya berkata :"Aku tak ingin kembali mengganggu kehidupan tenang kalian. Aku berharap Monika berbahagia selalu hidup dan tumbuh dewasa bersama kalian. Bila kalian menghadapi kesulitan bagaimanapun, harap hubungi aku, aku akan berusaha sekuat tenaga untuk membantu kalian! Saat ini juga, aku sangat berterima kasih pada Monika, dari dalam lubuk hatiku terdalam, dialah yang memberiku kesempatan untuk menebus dosa. Dialah yang membuatku dapat memiliki kehidupan yang benar-benar bahagia di saparoh usiaku selanjutnya. Ini adalah hadiah yang ia berikan padaku!"

-------------------------
Back to UjungJariKu