"Taking Ownership' and other corporate double-speak.

The tyrant wants to be all encompassing. He wants to control your physical movements, how you spend your time and even what you think.

In 'The West', we now believe that we have a large measure of political freedom. Yet, our lives are very much controlled by the small number of global businesses that have huge sway, even over national governments.

Tyranny have become more subtle. It is not people's lives or families that are physically threatened. Rather, people are managed through the the arousal of non-essential needs, the counter part of which is readily available credit to the most compliant of consumers.

People's 'souls' are at risk.

Competition is encouraged. By wanting to 'better' our neighbors, impetus is given to the buying mechanism. Technological development means that the desire to have the latest gadgets are short lived. If on Tuesday, we have the latest and greatest new mobile phone in the market, by Saturday our neighbor may have upgraded to the newest car model.

In competition, winning is short lived. Yet, the fear of failure is all-encompassing.

In the workplace, our boss may whisper in our ear about 'taking ownership' for our performance. The notion of taking ownership, however, can so very easily be a form of double-speak. It may mean, accepting all directives from above without question. All this term actually means, is taking responsibility for arbitrary targets, set in a artificial meeting room by middle managers, who on the whole manage statistical outcomes, not people.

Large business may also have a commitment to charity. The whole notion of charity is a superficial one. It does not concern itself with the notion of social justice, but with delivering outcomes for the most impoverished or needy of world citizens. The 'caring side' of business, must therefore be taken with a huge pinch of salt. It is against big business interest to have the open wounds of the most impoverished in our society uncared for. This would raise questions would about the structure of the society in which we live. That is against big business interest.

"Don't bite the hand that feeds.'

The ambiguity of a caring-exploitive framework is sure to confuse. 'You say that we exploit our workers and our customers but the business every year donates twenty million to charities." "You say that we are unconcerned about our workforce but we have support mechanisms, such as contributory health schemes and a free counseling service available to everyone."

One of the biggest lies is that thinking positively can change your life. One of my favorite film scenes is Monty Python's 'Life of Brian.' Brian, at the end of the film is on the cross. He and the others being crucified start singing, "Always Look On The Bright Side of Life.' It is the equivalent of putting your head in the sand. Whistle and ignore the pain and things will get better, remembering to ignore the centurion hammering the nail through your bloody and quivering hand.

Life can be tough but taking responsibility does not mean taking ownership for pre-subscribed outcomes.

Like Jesus in the market place, it is okay to be angry. Anger can be fueled by the injustices that we witness in our everyday lives.

Taking ownership means having a commitment to truth. To be committed to truth is about developing a questioning frame of mind; not in order to display a superior intelligence, so that we might advance in our career- but so that we can learn to appreciate the beauty of the simple things and be in awe of our very existence.

It is always easier not to question. We might then resemble happy people.

Film: No Country For Old Men

As is often the case, when you first stumble upon something great, you might barely recognize it. Like a casual conversation with a psychopathic killer, one probably won't recognize the individual as a psychopath. This film adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's novel - is such an occasion. On first viewing the film, I thought the movie was clever but unessential.

Still, something kept drawing me back. It just wasn't the raving reviews of many friends. Behind this story about an unexplained killer - there was something lurking that I had not understood.

The first clue is that Javier Bardem's character Anton Chigurh has no sense of humor. Everything is taken with deadly seriousness. What this demonstrates is an overbearing vanity. If one was to incarnate an argument for determination within one individual, it would come in the form of Anton Chigurh. Before several killings. Anton will toss a coin - leaving the responsibility to fate. This refusal to take personal responsibility is suggestive an individual who might believe that he is carrying out a mission on earth. The killer is ultra confident..., what happens is meant to be.

One can contrast this outlook with Tommy Lee Jones character, Ed Tom Bell, a police sheriff close to retirement. Despite his years and expertise, he is unsure and uncertain about the nature of the new threat to his community. It is also a personal journey for Ed. He is aware of how events in life can appear random. Often investigations have to remain unexplained. To ponder upon the nature of life and come up short of answers, demonstrates humility and a caring attitude. But in one telling scene, Ed confesses that he thought that when he grew old, he might find God.

This failure to find God - and the psychopathic killer, is no mere coincidence. The demonic nature of Chigurh, a man without a soul, centres around the theme of 'soulfulness.'

To be soulful is to question and not always understand. To be soulful means taking responsibility for one's own life, despite random occurrences, in the knowledge that even the best laid plans can be ruined.

Ed Tom Bell's failure as a police sheriff and as a man, lies in his inability to put everything at risk.

His search for an explanation for Chigurh's activity is doomed from the beginning. By trying to understand the soul-less nature of the killer, the very possibility of a godless universe would open up, putting at risk his very own soul.

The failure to take that risk, demonstrates a lack of faith.

This film is utterly profound.