Charlotte Iserbyt: Societies Secrets
Monday, November 4, 2013
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Peace Process Is Doomed To Fail While Israel Stalls For Time
By Jonathan Cook, ICH, October 31, 2013
Whatever happened to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process? You could be forgiven for thinking everyone packed up shop a while ago and forgot to inform you. There’s been barely a peep about it since the revival of talks was greeted with great fanfare back in July.
The negotiations, which have been conducted in a fog of secrecy, flitted briefly back on the radar last week when the US secretary of state, John Kerry, met Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for what the media called an “unusually long”, seven-hour meeting in Rome.
Much of the conversation was held in private, with not even officials present, but, according to reports, discussions concentrated on the revived peace process. Mr Kerry, concerned about the lack of tangible progress, is believed to have tried to pin Mr Netanyahu down on his vision of where the nine-month negotiations should lead.
Mr Kerry’s intervention follows weeks of mounting Palestinian frustration, culminating in rumours that the talks are on the verge of collapse. After a meeting with Mr Kerry in Paris, an Arab League official, Nasif Hata, added to the desultory atmosphere, saying there were “no positive indications of progress”.
Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, on a tour of European capitals last week in search of diplomatic support, tried to scotch suggestions that the talks were at a “dead end”. They were “difficult”, he admitted, and after nearly three months of meetings the two sides were still “at the beginning of the road”.
But privately his officials have expressed exasperation at Israel’s inflexibility and the miserliness of its opening positions. Earlier this month the Al Hayat newspaper reported that Israel had refused to discuss the key issue of borders, instead focusing exclusively on its own security concerns.
None of this is surprising. At Israel’s insistence, the talks have been entirely shielded from public view. Privacy, Israel argued, would ease the pressure on the two parties and give them greater room to be forthcoming and creative.
The reality, however, is that the lack of scrutiny has allowed Israel to drag its feet. Israel’s lead negotiator, Tzipi Livni, has already warned that the talks’ timetable is likely to overrun.
Similarly, US envoy Martin Indyk was supposed to be Mr Kerry’s eyes and ears in the talks. Instead he spent the first two months locked out of the proceedings, apparently again at Israel’s instigation.
Secrecy, Israel hopes, will give it the cover it expects to need when—as seems certain—the talks end inconclusively, or the Palestinians storm out. Widespread ignorance about developments can be exploited to cast the Palestinians as the treacherous party, as occurred following the collapse of the Camp David talks in 2000.
Whatever Mr Netanyahu told Mr Kerry in private last week, few believe the Israeli prime minister is really ready to seek peace. Earlier this month he set out in public his vision for the talks, in a follow-up to his famous speech in 2009, when, faced with a newly installed US president, Barack Obama, he agreed to a two-state solution.
This time, speaking from the same podium, he sounded in no mood for conciliation. “Unless the Palestinians recognise the Jewish state and give up on the right of return there will not be peace,” he said. He denied the “occupation and settlements” were causes of the conflict, and insisted on Israel’s need for “extremely strong security arrangements”.
It is this kind of uncompromising talk that has discredited the negotiations with those outside the White House.
Last week Yuval Diskin, a recent head of the Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic intelligence service, warned that there was no realistic prospect that “the Israeli public will accept a peace agreement”. Israelis’ distrust of the negotiations is fuelled by the constant opposition of government ministers.
In a further show of dissension, they have backed a bill that would require a two-thirds parliamentary majority before Israel can even broach at the talks the key issue of dividing Jerusalem. If passed, the legislation would turn the negotiations into a dead letter.
On the other side, Hamas has grown emboldened. Ismail Haniyeh, the prime minister in Gaza, has called on Palestinians to renew a “popular uprising”, just as a 1.5km tunnel Hamas had built into Israel was exposed.
In the West Bank, a spate of attacks and killings of Israelis over the past few weeks—after a year without the loss of a single Israeli life from the conflict in 2012—has provoked wild speculation about whether a Palestinian uprising is imminent. A Palestinian driving a bulldozer who went on a rampage through a military base near Jerusalem only reinforced the impression.
Conveniently, Mr Netanyahu has exploited widespread opposition to the next round of Palestinian prisoner releases, due yesterday—the carrot to keep the Palestinians at the negotiating table—to justify plans for yet more settlement building.
All indications are that these talks, like their predecessors, are doomed to fail. The question is whether the Palestinians have the nerve to unmask the charade. If not, Israel will use the peace process as cover while its settlements devour yet more of the Palestinian state-in-waiting.
Jonathan Cook is a journalist based in Nazareth.
Whatever happened to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process? You could be forgiven for thinking everyone packed up shop a while ago and forgot to inform you. There’s been barely a peep about it since the revival of talks was greeted with great fanfare back in July.
The negotiations, which have been conducted in a fog of secrecy, flitted briefly back on the radar last week when the US secretary of state, John Kerry, met Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for what the media called an “unusually long”, seven-hour meeting in Rome.
Much of the conversation was held in private, with not even officials present, but, according to reports, discussions concentrated on the revived peace process. Mr Kerry, concerned about the lack of tangible progress, is believed to have tried to pin Mr Netanyahu down on his vision of where the nine-month negotiations should lead.
Mr Kerry’s intervention follows weeks of mounting Palestinian frustration, culminating in rumours that the talks are on the verge of collapse. After a meeting with Mr Kerry in Paris, an Arab League official, Nasif Hata, added to the desultory atmosphere, saying there were “no positive indications of progress”.
Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, on a tour of European capitals last week in search of diplomatic support, tried to scotch suggestions that the talks were at a “dead end”. They were “difficult”, he admitted, and after nearly three months of meetings the two sides were still “at the beginning of the road”.
But privately his officials have expressed exasperation at Israel’s inflexibility and the miserliness of its opening positions. Earlier this month the Al Hayat newspaper reported that Israel had refused to discuss the key issue of borders, instead focusing exclusively on its own security concerns.
None of this is surprising. At Israel’s insistence, the talks have been entirely shielded from public view. Privacy, Israel argued, would ease the pressure on the two parties and give them greater room to be forthcoming and creative.
The reality, however, is that the lack of scrutiny has allowed Israel to drag its feet. Israel’s lead negotiator, Tzipi Livni, has already warned that the talks’ timetable is likely to overrun.
Similarly, US envoy Martin Indyk was supposed to be Mr Kerry’s eyes and ears in the talks. Instead he spent the first two months locked out of the proceedings, apparently again at Israel’s instigation.
Secrecy, Israel hopes, will give it the cover it expects to need when—as seems certain—the talks end inconclusively, or the Palestinians storm out. Widespread ignorance about developments can be exploited to cast the Palestinians as the treacherous party, as occurred following the collapse of the Camp David talks in 2000.
Whatever Mr Netanyahu told Mr Kerry in private last week, few believe the Israeli prime minister is really ready to seek peace. Earlier this month he set out in public his vision for the talks, in a follow-up to his famous speech in 2009, when, faced with a newly installed US president, Barack Obama, he agreed to a two-state solution.
This time, speaking from the same podium, he sounded in no mood for conciliation. “Unless the Palestinians recognise the Jewish state and give up on the right of return there will not be peace,” he said. He denied the “occupation and settlements” were causes of the conflict, and insisted on Israel’s need for “extremely strong security arrangements”.
It is this kind of uncompromising talk that has discredited the negotiations with those outside the White House.
Last week Yuval Diskin, a recent head of the Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic intelligence service, warned that there was no realistic prospect that “the Israeli public will accept a peace agreement”. Israelis’ distrust of the negotiations is fuelled by the constant opposition of government ministers.
In a further show of dissension, they have backed a bill that would require a two-thirds parliamentary majority before Israel can even broach at the talks the key issue of dividing Jerusalem. If passed, the legislation would turn the negotiations into a dead letter.
On the other side, Hamas has grown emboldened. Ismail Haniyeh, the prime minister in Gaza, has called on Palestinians to renew a “popular uprising”, just as a 1.5km tunnel Hamas had built into Israel was exposed.
In the West Bank, a spate of attacks and killings of Israelis over the past few weeks—after a year without the loss of a single Israeli life from the conflict in 2012—has provoked wild speculation about whether a Palestinian uprising is imminent. A Palestinian driving a bulldozer who went on a rampage through a military base near Jerusalem only reinforced the impression.
Conveniently, Mr Netanyahu has exploited widespread opposition to the next round of Palestinian prisoner releases, due yesterday—the carrot to keep the Palestinians at the negotiating table—to justify plans for yet more settlement building.
All indications are that these talks, like their predecessors, are doomed to fail. The question is whether the Palestinians have the nerve to unmask the charade. If not, Israel will use the peace process as cover while its settlements devour yet more of the Palestinian state-in-waiting.
Jonathan Cook is a journalist based in Nazareth.
Putin at No. 1: Russian media crows, and complains, about Forbes ranking
By Fred Weir, CS Monitor, October 31, 2013
Moscow—Vladimir Putin is the world’s most powerful person in 2013, according to Forbes magazine, which has taken it upon itself to compile a controversial “most powerful” list every year since 2009.
This year it has 72 names of people who “matter the most,” including 17 heads of state, 27 business kingpins, assorted politicians and bureaucrats, one drug trafficker, one pope and—with a bit of overlap—28 billionaires.
In a breezy explanation of its methodology, the magazine says that top editors consider the extent of a candidate’s power over people, financial resources, influence in multiple spheres, and whether the person’s authority is effectively wielded.
For three of first four years of the list’s existence US President Barack Obama was the anointed No. 1. And rightly so. By almost any calculus, whether GDP, diplomatic heft, or military might, the leader of the United States ought to be pretty much guaranteed that slot every single time. But, perhaps just to mix it up, the editors of Forbes gave the top honor to Chinese President Hu Jintao in 2010.
Russians are already clinking their tea glasses in celebration, seeing in this fairly prominent global ranking a validation not only of Russia’s inexorable rise on the world stage, but also of US decline.
The Kremlin-funded English-language TV network, RT, managed to make all those points while still decrying the lamentable double-standards employed by Forbes editors.
"Apparently, Putin’s first place on Forbes couldn’t appear without ready-made clichés in the description and accompanying articles, with terms like ‘autocratic leader,’ ‘ex-KGB strongman,’ and ‘dictator’ littered everywhere. His counterpart Obama, on the other hand, has been depicted as ‘the handcuffed head of the most dominant country,’ but still the ‘leader of the free world,’" RT complained.
Citing its reasons for promoting Mr. Putin to the top of the list this year, while Mr. Obama fell back to second place, Forbes said that “Putin has solidified his control over Russia and anyone watching the chess match over Syria has a clear idea of the shift in the power towards Putin on the global stage. The ex-KGB strongman—who controls a nuclear-tipped army, a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and some of the world’s largest oil and gas reserves—is allowed to serve another six-year term, which could keep him in office until 2024.”
The most important factor was Syria, where a Russian proposal to put Syrian chemical weapons under international control appears to have shifted the focus from military strikes to diplomacy after Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad was accused of using poison gas against civilians.
In September, Putin penned an influential commentary in the New York Times, appealing to Americans to see the logic of Russia’s position on Syria and forgo their own misguided tendency to see the US as “exceptional.” That brought a testy cold war-style response from US Senator John McCain, who published his anti-Putin polemic in one of the modern successors to the former Soviet Communist Party newspaper Pravda.
Putin’s ability to stand up to the US over the issue of fugitive ex-National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, to whom Russia granted a year’s refuge despite stiff US objections last August, was another factor in Putin’s rise to the top, the magazine said.
"Even if this rating is subjective, it’s another sign that Russia’s prestige is rising," says Olga Kryshtanovskaya, one of Russia’s top political sociologists.
"I don’t think this changes anything inside Russia. People who hated Putin will go on doing so, those who are loyal to him will be proud of this [new sign of recognition]. But it’s an acknowledgement of the fact that, thanks to Russia, bloodshed in Syria was prevented," she says. "This is a very important fact."
Moscow—Vladimir Putin is the world’s most powerful person in 2013, according to Forbes magazine, which has taken it upon itself to compile a controversial “most powerful” list every year since 2009.
This year it has 72 names of people who “matter the most,” including 17 heads of state, 27 business kingpins, assorted politicians and bureaucrats, one drug trafficker, one pope and—with a bit of overlap—28 billionaires.
In a breezy explanation of its methodology, the magazine says that top editors consider the extent of a candidate’s power over people, financial resources, influence in multiple spheres, and whether the person’s authority is effectively wielded.
For three of first four years of the list’s existence US President Barack Obama was the anointed No. 1. And rightly so. By almost any calculus, whether GDP, diplomatic heft, or military might, the leader of the United States ought to be pretty much guaranteed that slot every single time. But, perhaps just to mix it up, the editors of Forbes gave the top honor to Chinese President Hu Jintao in 2010.
Russians are already clinking their tea glasses in celebration, seeing in this fairly prominent global ranking a validation not only of Russia’s inexorable rise on the world stage, but also of US decline.
The Kremlin-funded English-language TV network, RT, managed to make all those points while still decrying the lamentable double-standards employed by Forbes editors.
"Apparently, Putin’s first place on Forbes couldn’t appear without ready-made clichés in the description and accompanying articles, with terms like ‘autocratic leader,’ ‘ex-KGB strongman,’ and ‘dictator’ littered everywhere. His counterpart Obama, on the other hand, has been depicted as ‘the handcuffed head of the most dominant country,’ but still the ‘leader of the free world,’" RT complained.
Citing its reasons for promoting Mr. Putin to the top of the list this year, while Mr. Obama fell back to second place, Forbes said that “Putin has solidified his control over Russia and anyone watching the chess match over Syria has a clear idea of the shift in the power towards Putin on the global stage. The ex-KGB strongman—who controls a nuclear-tipped army, a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and some of the world’s largest oil and gas reserves—is allowed to serve another six-year term, which could keep him in office until 2024.”
The most important factor was Syria, where a Russian proposal to put Syrian chemical weapons under international control appears to have shifted the focus from military strikes to diplomacy after Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad was accused of using poison gas against civilians.
In September, Putin penned an influential commentary in the New York Times, appealing to Americans to see the logic of Russia’s position on Syria and forgo their own misguided tendency to see the US as “exceptional.” That brought a testy cold war-style response from US Senator John McCain, who published his anti-Putin polemic in one of the modern successors to the former Soviet Communist Party newspaper Pravda.
Putin’s ability to stand up to the US over the issue of fugitive ex-National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, to whom Russia granted a year’s refuge despite stiff US objections last August, was another factor in Putin’s rise to the top, the magazine said.
"Even if this rating is subjective, it’s another sign that Russia’s prestige is rising," says Olga Kryshtanovskaya, one of Russia’s top political sociologists.
"I don’t think this changes anything inside Russia. People who hated Putin will go on doing so, those who are loyal to him will be proud of this [new sign of recognition]. But it’s an acknowledgement of the fact that, thanks to Russia, bloodshed in Syria was prevented," she says. "This is a very important fact."
NSA revelations boost corporate paranoia about state surveillance
By Chris Bryant in Frankfurt, Financial Times, October 31, 2013
On a mild day in late August a German police helicopter buzzed low over the US consulate in Frankfurt, the financial capital of Germany.
On the instruction of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, its mission was to photograph the rooftop of the US outpost, which is located less than 5km from the European Central Bank and Bundesbank.
German media say the BfV hoped to identify the presence of listening antennas and the action prompted an exchange between the US and the German foreign ministry in Berlin.
James Clapper, US Director of National Intelligence, insisted again in September that the US does not use foreign intelligence capabilities “to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies on behalf of…US companies to enhance their international competitiveness or increase their bottom line”.
But ever since Edward Snowden, the contractor turned whistleblower, began releasing his treasure trove of US surveillance secrets, European governments and business leaders are no longer sure whether to take the director at his word.
Reports that the US National Security Agency spied on Brazilian oil company Petrobras and gained access to data held by US cloud providers including Google and Yahoo have ratcheted corporate paranoia about state surveillance to new highs.
The final straw came when it was revealed that Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone had been bugged, possibly for about a decade. If Europe’s most powerful person can be targeted, then surely business leaders are also potential targets.
German companies believe the US now poses almost as big a risk as China when it comes to industrial espionage and data theft, according to a survey published in July by EY, the consultancy.
The reach and technical sophistication of US spy agencies exposed by the Snowden revelations have come as a shock to some companies who previously thought the biggest surveillance risk was posed by China.
A big shift is occurring in cloud computing where European executives have become more aware that data stored in the US is subject to that jurisdiction and therefore potentially vulnerable.
According to a survey carried out by the Cloud Security Alliance, a trade body, some 10 per cent of non-US members cancelled plans to use a US-based cloud provider after revelations about the US Prism data mining programme.
Jim Snabe, co-chief executive at SAP, says: “We see a new question from customers that didn’t come up a year ago—which is where is my data stored and can you guarantee that it stays physically in that jurisdiction.”
Many German executives argue that the latest reports are simply confirmation of what they already knew: that powerful states want to steal their most prized secrets and these data must therefore be guarded at all costs.
For large companies, the message has long since been drummed home that picking up a free USB stick at a trade fair, or leaving a laptop unguarded in a hotel room are unwise, to say the least.
Ulrich Hackenberg, board member at carmaker Audi, says it has been standard practice for years for mobile phones to be collected before board meetings so they cannot be used as remote listening devices.
Germany’s BfV advises executives to consider using simple prepaid mobiles when on foreign trips because of the risk that smart phones are compromised. The prepaid mobiles are then thrown away afterwards.
However, there is concern that small and medium-sized companies remain vulnerable to hacking and surveillance. In Germany, many of these companies are global market leaders in their particular niche.
"Small and medium sized companies often lack the experience, personnel and financial resources to protect corporate secrets effectively against unauthorised access," the BfV warns in a report.
The US warns its own companies about economic espionage by other countries. The US National Intelligence Estimate in February named France alongside Russia and Israel in a second tier of offenders who engage in hacking for economic intelligence, behind China, according to The Washington Post.
A board member at a German blue-chip company concurred that when it comes to economic espionage, “the French are the worst”.
Bernard Squarcini, former head of the French internal intelligence agency DCRI, was quoted in an interview this month as saying: “The services know perfectly well that all countries, even as they co-operate in the antiterrorist fight, spy on their allies. The Americans spy on us on the commercial and industrial level as we spy on them too, because it is in the national interest to defend our businesses. Nobody is fooled.”
On a mild day in late August a German police helicopter buzzed low over the US consulate in Frankfurt, the financial capital of Germany.
On the instruction of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, its mission was to photograph the rooftop of the US outpost, which is located less than 5km from the European Central Bank and Bundesbank.
German media say the BfV hoped to identify the presence of listening antennas and the action prompted an exchange between the US and the German foreign ministry in Berlin.
James Clapper, US Director of National Intelligence, insisted again in September that the US does not use foreign intelligence capabilities “to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies on behalf of…US companies to enhance their international competitiveness or increase their bottom line”.
But ever since Edward Snowden, the contractor turned whistleblower, began releasing his treasure trove of US surveillance secrets, European governments and business leaders are no longer sure whether to take the director at his word.
Reports that the US National Security Agency spied on Brazilian oil company Petrobras and gained access to data held by US cloud providers including Google and Yahoo have ratcheted corporate paranoia about state surveillance to new highs.
The final straw came when it was revealed that Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone had been bugged, possibly for about a decade. If Europe’s most powerful person can be targeted, then surely business leaders are also potential targets.
German companies believe the US now poses almost as big a risk as China when it comes to industrial espionage and data theft, according to a survey published in July by EY, the consultancy.
The reach and technical sophistication of US spy agencies exposed by the Snowden revelations have come as a shock to some companies who previously thought the biggest surveillance risk was posed by China.
A big shift is occurring in cloud computing where European executives have become more aware that data stored in the US is subject to that jurisdiction and therefore potentially vulnerable.
According to a survey carried out by the Cloud Security Alliance, a trade body, some 10 per cent of non-US members cancelled plans to use a US-based cloud provider after revelations about the US Prism data mining programme.
Jim Snabe, co-chief executive at SAP, says: “We see a new question from customers that didn’t come up a year ago—which is where is my data stored and can you guarantee that it stays physically in that jurisdiction.”
Many German executives argue that the latest reports are simply confirmation of what they already knew: that powerful states want to steal their most prized secrets and these data must therefore be guarded at all costs.
For large companies, the message has long since been drummed home that picking up a free USB stick at a trade fair, or leaving a laptop unguarded in a hotel room are unwise, to say the least.
Ulrich Hackenberg, board member at carmaker Audi, says it has been standard practice for years for mobile phones to be collected before board meetings so they cannot be used as remote listening devices.
Germany’s BfV advises executives to consider using simple prepaid mobiles when on foreign trips because of the risk that smart phones are compromised. The prepaid mobiles are then thrown away afterwards.
However, there is concern that small and medium-sized companies remain vulnerable to hacking and surveillance. In Germany, many of these companies are global market leaders in their particular niche.
"Small and medium sized companies often lack the experience, personnel and financial resources to protect corporate secrets effectively against unauthorised access," the BfV warns in a report.
The US warns its own companies about economic espionage by other countries. The US National Intelligence Estimate in February named France alongside Russia and Israel in a second tier of offenders who engage in hacking for economic intelligence, behind China, according to The Washington Post.
A board member at a German blue-chip company concurred that when it comes to economic espionage, “the French are the worst”.
Bernard Squarcini, former head of the French internal intelligence agency DCRI, was quoted in an interview this month as saying: “The services know perfectly well that all countries, even as they co-operate in the antiterrorist fight, spy on their allies. The Americans spy on us on the commercial and industrial level as we spy on them too, because it is in the national interest to defend our businesses. Nobody is fooled.”
Friday, November 1, 2013
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Modern Etiquette: When Striking Up Conversation, It's Not About You
Mary M. Mitchell, Reuters, October 28, 2013
LONDON—Colleagues and friends ask me all the time, “What do I say to people when I meet them for the first time?”
Behind the question lies the real uncertainty: “What can I say to engage them, so they think I’m interesting to talk to, so that they like me?” Notice all the “I’s” in those sentences. That’s a big clue.
If you want to be truly interesting to your conversational partners, be interested in them. If you really think about it, the people you consider artful conversationalists are most likely wonderful listeners.
They know how to take their egos out of what is being said, how to be present, and how to be genuinely interested in the other person.
Most of us feel awkward making conversation, because, while we’re supposed to be paying attention to the other person, we’re actually thinking about what to say next.
And at the same time, we are giving ourselves a lot of negative self-talk that might sound like, “I haven’t a clue what to say here. She/he must think I’m really stupid.”
Imagine that you could focus a movie camera on yourself. You can take this to the bank—when that lens is trained on you, you’re bound to be a conversational dud.
On the other hand, turn that camera onto the other person and watch what happens. The gift of your time and attention showered on him or her will make the other person blossom, I guarantee it.
As that person relaxes and opens up, your own self-confidence gets a big boost. It never fails.
Small talk is a safety net. Superficially, it has a bad reputation, yet consider this: those first few moments provide us with valuable information about the other person through their body language, enthusiasm, and choice of words.
Small talk is like a gentle dance on a first date—no commitments yet, only the possibility of a relationship. And in that first gentle dance there are no threatening, invasive gestures or words.
Make no mistake, small talk is crucial, because that’s when we determine whether we want to take the relationship further.
It’s worth practicing small talk. My dad used to force us to practice at dinner every night. I hated it. Now I am grateful for the experience. Our families are great research laboratories.
Listening, truly listening, is the key that opens doors to the treasures of any relationship. Most of us say much more with what we don’t articulate, and a real listener will understand.
Think about it: what do winning sports teams do? They practice. A lot.
A listener hears. When we listen, the gift of our attention bestows value on the person who is speaking. It’s a gift. It’s the ultimate win-win.
It’s so easy to get it backwards, spending all one’s time and energy thinking about what we’re going to say.
A student once asked noted Harvard scholar Charles Copeland, “Why are there no courses in conversation? Is there anything I can do to learn the art of conversation?”
"Of course there is," answered Copeland, "and if you’ll just listen, I’ll tell you what it is."
There ensued a long and uncomfortable silence which the student finally interrupted with, “Well, I’m listening.” “You see,” Copeland said triumphantly, “you’re learning already.”
Listening takes discipline and practice. Especially listening to one person at a time.
Think about how demeaning it is when, mid-sentence, we see the other person’s attention wander, distracted by someone else’s voice or presence.
Then there’s the challenge of being completely uninterested in what someone is saying. As my mentor Letitia Baldrige put it, “Politeness decrees that you must listen to be kind; intelligence decrees that you must listen to learn.”
Here are some ways to get a conversation going: Ask an easy-to-answer question about something in your surroundings, such as, “On the way here, I noticed four different coffee shops at one intersection. That’s a lot of caffeine per square foot.”
Or, “Isn’t this a glorious day? Autumns in this part of the country are just the best. Are you from the area?”
The person might say yes, and then you can ask what he likes most about it.
If the answer is, “No, I’m from Ohio,” you can ask “What was it like growing up in the Midwest? What brought you here?”
Once you’ve gotten a signal that the other person wants to talk, say something like, “What do you like to do when you’re not working?”
Above all, be yourself. If you are naturally reserved, don’t try to be an extrovert. When you focus on the other person, authentically and genuinely, your personal style will win the day.
Mary M. Mitchell has written several books on the subject of etiquette, now in 11 languages, most recently “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Modern Manners Fast Track” and “Woofs to the Wise”.
LONDON—Colleagues and friends ask me all the time, “What do I say to people when I meet them for the first time?”
Behind the question lies the real uncertainty: “What can I say to engage them, so they think I’m interesting to talk to, so that they like me?” Notice all the “I’s” in those sentences. That’s a big clue.
If you want to be truly interesting to your conversational partners, be interested in them. If you really think about it, the people you consider artful conversationalists are most likely wonderful listeners.
They know how to take their egos out of what is being said, how to be present, and how to be genuinely interested in the other person.
Most of us feel awkward making conversation, because, while we’re supposed to be paying attention to the other person, we’re actually thinking about what to say next.
And at the same time, we are giving ourselves a lot of negative self-talk that might sound like, “I haven’t a clue what to say here. She/he must think I’m really stupid.”
Imagine that you could focus a movie camera on yourself. You can take this to the bank—when that lens is trained on you, you’re bound to be a conversational dud.
On the other hand, turn that camera onto the other person and watch what happens. The gift of your time and attention showered on him or her will make the other person blossom, I guarantee it.
As that person relaxes and opens up, your own self-confidence gets a big boost. It never fails.
Small talk is a safety net. Superficially, it has a bad reputation, yet consider this: those first few moments provide us with valuable information about the other person through their body language, enthusiasm, and choice of words.
Small talk is like a gentle dance on a first date—no commitments yet, only the possibility of a relationship. And in that first gentle dance there are no threatening, invasive gestures or words.
Make no mistake, small talk is crucial, because that’s when we determine whether we want to take the relationship further.
It’s worth practicing small talk. My dad used to force us to practice at dinner every night. I hated it. Now I am grateful for the experience. Our families are great research laboratories.
Listening, truly listening, is the key that opens doors to the treasures of any relationship. Most of us say much more with what we don’t articulate, and a real listener will understand.
Think about it: what do winning sports teams do? They practice. A lot.
A listener hears. When we listen, the gift of our attention bestows value on the person who is speaking. It’s a gift. It’s the ultimate win-win.
It’s so easy to get it backwards, spending all one’s time and energy thinking about what we’re going to say.
A student once asked noted Harvard scholar Charles Copeland, “Why are there no courses in conversation? Is there anything I can do to learn the art of conversation?”
"Of course there is," answered Copeland, "and if you’ll just listen, I’ll tell you what it is."
There ensued a long and uncomfortable silence which the student finally interrupted with, “Well, I’m listening.” “You see,” Copeland said triumphantly, “you’re learning already.”
Listening takes discipline and practice. Especially listening to one person at a time.
Think about how demeaning it is when, mid-sentence, we see the other person’s attention wander, distracted by someone else’s voice or presence.
Then there’s the challenge of being completely uninterested in what someone is saying. As my mentor Letitia Baldrige put it, “Politeness decrees that you must listen to be kind; intelligence decrees that you must listen to learn.”
Here are some ways to get a conversation going: Ask an easy-to-answer question about something in your surroundings, such as, “On the way here, I noticed four different coffee shops at one intersection. That’s a lot of caffeine per square foot.”
Or, “Isn’t this a glorious day? Autumns in this part of the country are just the best. Are you from the area?”
The person might say yes, and then you can ask what he likes most about it.
If the answer is, “No, I’m from Ohio,” you can ask “What was it like growing up in the Midwest? What brought you here?”
Once you’ve gotten a signal that the other person wants to talk, say something like, “What do you like to do when you’re not working?”
Above all, be yourself. If you are naturally reserved, don’t try to be an extrovert. When you focus on the other person, authentically and genuinely, your personal style will win the day.
Mary M. Mitchell has written several books on the subject of etiquette, now in 11 languages, most recently “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Modern Manners Fast Track” and “Woofs to the Wise”.
Dig Deep!
By Philip Martin
This morning, during my devotional time, I came across these words in Streams in the Desert by Mrs. Charles Cowman: “For behold, I am for you, and I will turn unto you, and ye shall be tilled and sown.”1 At first when I read that verse I thought it was a translation of the Bible other than the King James Version (KJV) that I am familiar with, so I checked to make sure that it was the KJV. And sure enough, there it was, exactly as it was printed in the book.
Many times when I’m reading the Word and something jumps out and catches my attention, I start dissecting it and breaking it down, or maybe a better expression would be I “chew the cud” to get all I can out of it.
I saw that this verse really contained four independent yet interconnected thoughts.
“For behold, I am for you”
The first thing I need to know and be reminded of continually is that God is “for me.” He’s not working against me. Like the concept of Romans 8:28: “We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”
Maria Fountaine has written:
In order to come through our many trials, difficulties, battles, and temptations victoriously, it is imperative that we make this promise in Romans 8:28 a vital part of our life.
If we don’t send the events of our daily lives through the filter of Romans 8:28, if we don’t constantly view our disappointments, hurts, tests, illnesses, opposition, battles, etc., through the perspective that Romans 8:28 gives us, we will sadly miss many valuable lessons the Lord is trying to teach us. And we will rob ourselves of the peace that comes from absolute trust in this precious promise and principle.
If we learn the simple equation, “Trials equal good,” our lives will be richer, our lessons greater, and our minds more tranquil, and we will more easily recognize the Lord's hand in the events of our lives. It makes all the difference in the world whether we look at a flood of problems, trials, battles and tribulations just waiting to see the worst happen, or if we look at them with the excitement and challenge that comes from waiting to discover all the good we know the Lord will bring out of them.—Maria Fontaine2
This is the first step, the attitude we need to possess.
“I will turn unto you”
Once I have that trust in God’s love and I know that He is “for me,” and I know that all things really do work together for good, God is going to “turn unto me.” Another way of saying this is that He’s going to look at me and give me His attention, as if to say, “Now that you know I’m on your side, I can start working with you. You’re someone I can trust and use and invest in.”
At this point the pace starts to pick up. So, now we know that He is for us, He has our attention and is turned to us. What’s He going to do?
“Ye shall be tilled”
I shall be what? Tilled. Plowed. Cultivated. Cut open, dug into, and turned upside down. Basically what God is saying here is that because He is on my side He’s going to cause a major upheaval in my life. Wow! “Wait a minute. Because You love me and have my attention and I know You’re on my side, You’re going to turn my world upside down and inside out?” Yes! Exactly! Because we have that confidence in Him, we will know and trust that it is for our good.
Mrs. Cowman beautifully expresses it this way: “The ploughman is a proof that He thinks you are of value and worth cultivating, and He does not waste His ploughing on the barren sand… God does not use the plough and harrow without intention!”
In his book, A Gardener Looks at the Fruits of the Spirit, in the chapter entitled, “Productive People; Good Ground,” Philip Keller says:
Although we are not naturally “good ground,” none of us is too tough for God, the Good Gardener, to tackle. In spite of our perverseness, pride, and pollution, He can transform us from a wasteland to a well-watered garden. We should want it that way. It does not come easily. It does not happen in a single day. The digging, the clearing, the cultivation may seem to us to be devastating; the disciplining of our souls may seem severe. Yet afterwards it produces the peaceable fruits of His own planting.[3]
Too many of us as Christians are content to remain wild wasteland. We much prefer to stay untouched by God’s good hand. In fact, we are frightened of having our little lives turned over by the deep work of His convicting Spirit. We don’t want the shearing, cutting, powerful thrust of His Word to lay us open to the sunlight of His own presence. We prefer to remain weedy ground and stony soil—or pathetic pathway people.
We delude ourselves into thinking that out of our old unchanged characters and dispositions somehow a good crop is coming forth. It simply cannot be. You simply do not gather grapes from a thistle patch nor figs from wild brambles. And the good gardener does not even come there looking for fruit. It is strictly a no-crop condition. It is a total loss to both us and God.
In a good garden there are no spots still littered with stones. There are no odd corners cluttered and choked with weeds. There are no beaten paths where nothing at all can grow. All the ground has to be tilled. All the soil must finally be fitted for fruitfulness.
It will take time to do this. But it must be done. The Spirit of God is very persistent. The Good Gardener must have full management. Christ comes to take over every area made arable.
Mrs. Cowman concludes her section with, “He will not plough continually, but only for a time, and for a definite purpose.”
“Ye shall be … sown”
Now what, Lord? Mrs. Cowman goes on to say: “God does not use the plough and harrow without intention. Where God ploughs, He intends to sow. His ploughing is proof He is for, and not against us! The husbandman is never so near the land as when he is ploughing it.” The very time we are tempted to think He has forsaken us because our world is falling apart around our ears, He is actually working closest with us, and we have to trust His love in those times.
Philip Keller puts it this way:
The extent to which a piece of good ground has received and responded to good sowing is eventually demonstrated by how little soil shows. The entire area planted will be taken over, covered and smothered in a luxuriance of green growth. The onlooker will see, not the soil, but the bountiful produce on it. So with our lives, if in truth we have received the good Word, and the very life of Christ flourishes, it is the fruitage of His character, the fragrance of His conduct that will be evident to those around us.
What is God’s end purpose in all of this? Mrs. Cowman said, “The entire purpose of this entire process of upheaval, tilling, plowing, cultivating, sowing, watering, pruning, weeding is to bear fruit.”
I now know that the changes I have gone through recently were the Lord’s catalyst that got things moving, the break shot that scattered the balls so that they could be in the positions needed to be used more greatly of the Lord. I know these changes were engineered by the Lord for my spiritual growth and the furtherance of His kingdom. Prior to the “plowing” I felt as if I was losing my fruitfulness. Life was getting dangerously predictable and routine, but the upheaval and consequent uprooting of my entire life changed all that. Through this upheaval my entire walk with the Lord has changed. New fruit is starting to show up on my old branches. New buds of life are coming forth. I feel a new awakening.
By the grace and strength of God I want my heartcry at this special time in my life not to be a lamentable, sorrowful, “How long, how long, O Lord, must I suffer this? Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus.” But rather, “Dig deep, dear Lord! Dig deep! Whatever it takes to make my heart fertile, fruit-bearing ground again for Your Word to take effect, I give You permission to work. Leave nothing unturned, no clump hard and unbroken, remove any rocks and bring the garden of my heart back to full fruition. Help me desire only Your golden seeds of truth and not to accept the genetically modified spiritual seeds of the enemy which are destroying the spiritual food chain of the world.”
*
We cannot have the result of the harvest without the process. The price must be paid.—Linda Cowman
*
Oh God, wert Thou plowing
Thy profitless earth
With the brave plow of love,
And the sharp plow of pain?
But hark to the mirth
Of wheat field in harvest!
—Author unknown
*
Sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy; break up your fallow ground: for it is time to seek the Lord, till he come and rain righteousness upon you.—Hosea 10:12
1 Ezekiel 36:9.
2 http://anchor.tfionline.com/post/trials-equal-good.
3 See Hebrews 12:10–11.
