​Who is a brother/sister?
 
There was another Republican Presidential Debate in the United States February 25, 2016.  The main goal seemed to be to discount Donald Trump which is a far cry from staying focused on what I would consider viable long term solutions to important issues affecting this country and all the other countries of the world.  More than ever it is difficult to ignore the fact that what one country does affects all other countries. Never before has the average citizen of so many countries had such immediate access to the actions of the so called leaders of the country of which they are a citizen.   Despite the fact that nationalism continues to be promoted as a virtue,  we cannot ignore the fact that we are all world citizens. Yet, Britain is thinking of dropping its membership in the European Union.  Many in the United States are not even in favor of participation in the United Nations.
 
As more people leave one area of the world  and move or attempt to move into another area of the world there are renewed cries for border protection.  In the United States there is talk about building a wall separating the United States and Mexico.  One U. S. presidential candidates even suggests that the United States force Mexico to pay for the wall.  A former Mexican president, Mr. Fox, responded to that suggesrtion in a clear, even if somewhat crude manner, “No way am I going to pay for that F…ing wall.”  He was then scolded for this language by the master of crude remarks, Mr. Trump.
 
Many countries in the rest of the world struggle with the ever increasing burden of more and more immigrants with needs for food, shelter, health care, education,  and jobs.  
 
Despite the facts that:
      Most major religions religions including the Muslim and Christian religions state that we are our “brothers” keeper or that ““He who kills a person, it is as though he has killed all mankind,” says the Koran. “And he who saves a life, it is as though he saved all mankind.”
      There is a long history of empire building and the falling apart of empires which played a major role in the current state of affairs. A brief review of the list of empires in more modern history includes:
o   British Empire
o   Nazi Germany
o   Empire of Japan
o   Russian Empire – Soviet Union
o   Qing Dunasty
o   French Empire
o   Italian empire
o   Afsharid dynasty
o   Ausria-Hingary
o   Mughal Empire
o   Dutch Empire
o   Ottoman Empire
o   Empire of Brazil
o   Portiugese Empire               Wikipedia
 
Obviously this is not an exhaustive list.  There is some disagreement of whether to label the United States an empire.  Globalpolicy.org  offers the following:
 
“The United States is the most powerful nation in the world and it often acts unilaterally, but is it an Empire? Though some insist that "empire" means only direct rule over large-scale conquered territory, the United States today looks decidedly imperial. The term empire has entered common usage, not only among critics but also among advocates of muscular US policy and global superiority. Economist Niall Ferguson has written about the British Empire as a lesson-book for contemporary US power. Influential Washington neo-conservatives are using the E-word freely, insisting that the United States is the world's most benevolent nation and that it should use its imperial power robustly to expand "freedom" across the globe. 
This section considers not only the utility of the Empire concept but also the way in which the United States (empire or not) deploys its economic, political and military power globally, limiting the force of international law, shrinking the capacity of international organizations, and reducing the possibility of multilateral action and democratic self-governance in an increasingly interdependent world. We ask also: what limits will this empire encounter, can it sustain "full spectrum dominance" for the forseeable future or will it provoke such broad opposition that its era of hegemony and prosperity comes swiftly and decisively to a close?”
 
The questions which can no longer be ignored include:
 
      Are some individuals or even countries more deserving that others and, if so, is this because they have worked harder, inherited more, or is this a result of survival of the fittest.
      If, in fact, some of us are more deserving what should be done with those who are not as deserving?  Shall they and their offspring be mercifully killed?
      Are there enough basic resources to ensure that all can survive at a minimal level?
      How should we deal with those who cannot live peacefully in community – those who kill, rape and otherwise abuse others because of such ailments as brain dysfunction, mental limitation for other reasons, or mental illness?
      Is punishment a moral or effectiv way to ensure that all people treat each other with love and respect?
      Who decides what is moral or ethical? 
      How is moral and ethical behavior enforced?
      How do we govern if there are no national borders?
      What are the long term affects of doing away with nationalism?
 
Obviously there are tough questions which few of us feel ready or able to address.   Yet, the  price of not addressing them seems to be:
 
      Ever increasing warfare over resources.
      Ever increasing warfare over what pleases the various concepts of God/Allah/higher being
      Continuing non-productive name calling, giving each other ‘the finger’ and other juvenile behavior.
      Destruction of this universe as we know it.
      A take over by those from another universe.
 
Classic educations asks these basic questions.  Historically classic education was available to only a few.  We are now in a position to ensure that a wide segment of the population of the world can obtain a classic education, but they cannot do when their time and energy is driven by hunger, exposure to extreme weather conditions and a lack of basic medical care.
 
I am suggesting that unless all of us resolve to make an organization such as the United Nations the organization where such difficult questions are going to be addressed and resolved, we are going to continue live or die with the effects of acting unilaterally.  As a citizen of the United States, I do not think it is going to be effective for us to act unilaterally militarily or diplomatically.  Certainly building walls or attempting to bully other countries such as Mexico to build a wall is not going to work.  I do not want to hear our leaders or those campaigning to be leaders in this country acting as if we or even a small group of nations can make other nations or other groups behave in a way which is consistent with what we perceive to be in our short term interest.  We citizens of the world know that the is a significant disparity between the haves and the have nots.  Despite the best efforts of some leaders in all countries to censor or limit access to information, many people are gaining access and will, like Edward Snowden, take the risk of sharing information with the world at large.  There are going to be people who help each other gain access to all sorts of sophisticated “weapons of mass destruction”.   No one nation or group of nations can change that fact. If we want to stop bullies, whether it be a super power or a radical group such as ISIS, then we need to find a way to invite and attract each other to work together towards a true sharing of resources.
 
I have not personally heard anything from any of the the leaders or would be leaders of the United States which I think is going to attract those who now find radical groups attractive.  What I “hear” is more of the same rhetoric which essentially says that we are going to protect the privileged way of life for a few in the world and/or we are going to make sure that the god of our understanding is going to support us in beating others into submission.  I see no evidence that approach will work long term from a moral/spiritual or practical perspective.  The days of empire building or  even saving others from themselves in an imperialistic manner are, I believe, over.   Unless we take those options off the table I do not think we are going to find effective ways of of living together and sharing resources.   If we start from with those options off the table I think we are creative enough to educate ourselves and our children to ask the tough questions and arrive at creative solutions. Let us enlist the creative talent and the courage which is already available.  If one has any doubts that talent is available, I challenge all of us to listen to one or two Ted talks every day for the next month.  By the of that month one will know that the passion and the talent for creating a more just world is available and will attract all those now so discouraged that they are willing to trust their future to a Donald Trump or the leaders of such groups as ISIS.
 
Written February 26, 2016

​Now I “know”? 
A conversation with myself!
 
I like to think that I am always searching for new information which is going to allow me to finally understand why I and other humans behave the way that we do. Perhaps if I had gotten a PhD instead of stopping with a master’s degree in clinical psychology I would have found the answers. The truth, of course, is that our human brain is part of a complicated interactional system which is part of a larger interactional system. Many factors determine the why.   Yet, when I was listening to a Ted Talk by Celeste Headlee entitled “`10 ways to have a better conversation” and I “heard’ her say, “The average person talks at about 225 word per minute, but we can listen at up to 500 words per minute.” I thought, there you have it.  It is not my fault that my mind is choosing to rush on to an answer even before the person has finished speaking.  Well, actually as I “listen” to myself I know that is not true either.  The truth is that it takes a lot of energy and courage to train oneself to slow down one’s mind and attend to what the other person is saying. 
 
Ms. Headlee talks as if just because she has been practicing listening as a talk radio host (who as a singer had to listen to herself and who has descended from  distinguished parents and grandparents) that for we ordinary human beings, it is possible to train our minds to attend to what others are saying rather than engaging in a tennis match. Goodness, that analogy would only work if I began a conversation with an equal score of love –love.    Sadly, I (if honest) begin many conversations with me 15 and the “opponent” 0.   Obviously on many subjects we already know that we know.  That being the case, what is the point of having any sort of interaction with another person.  It is obviously not accurate to call it a conversation.  A conversation would assume a sharing of ideas, information, or the mutual exploration of some topic. Oxford dictionary defines conversation as an exchange of information, ideas, opinions, etc.   Writing a blog is not a conversation. It can and often does, as in the case of this blog, lead to a back and forth exchange, but the blog itself is not a conversation.
 
Offering my opinion or probably more accurately telling someone “the truth” about the merits of presidential candidates in the United States is not a conversation or necessarily the precursor to a conversation.  
 
Ms. Headlee seems to be assuming that there is some advantage to having a conversation and not just pontificating to each other.    It would seem that most presidential debates are the stating of opinions which are presented as “the truth” which may deteriorate into arguments with no pretense of having a conversation.  Theoretically a debate might present an opportunity for audience members to later engage in a conversation. This would then require that the debater and the audience member make a serious effort to listen to and consider the opinion of the other.
 
So, what is the point? I have previously extoled the virtue of honing one’s listening skills. The point, from my perspective, is that neither I or anyone else I have “heard” has come up with solutions of how we humans are going to live in a cooperative manner rather than continuously finding new ways to prove that we can force each other with weaponry science to adopt the beliefs and behavior of “the other.”
 
If I do not have the answers it would behoove me to explore new ways of overcoming the hurdles to sharing the resources of mother earth.
If we are going to explore new ways of overcoming these hurdles, we must start having conversations. The 10 suggested guidelines for having a meaningful conversation which Ms. Headlee purposes are:
 
1.   “ Don’t multitask.
2.    Don’t pontificate.
3.    Use open ended questions.
4.    Go with the flow. That means thoughts will come into your mind and you need to let them go out of your mind.
5.   If you don't know, say that you don't know.
6.   Don't equate your experience with theirs. If they're talking about having lost a family member, don't start talking about the time you lost a family member. If they're talking about the trouble they're having at work, don't tell them about how much you hate your job. It's not the same. It is never the same. All experiences are individual. And, more importantly, it is not about you.
7.   Try not to repeat yourself.
8.   Stay out of the weeds. Frankly, people don't care about the years, the names, the dates, all those details that you're struggling to come up with in your mind.
9.   Listen.
Be brief.”
 
Yes, it may be true that the differential between how quickly I hear versus how quickly I talk is 275, but it is not true that this is the primary reason why I do not listen to the ideas of others.   I suspect that I could  learn to use meditation and other techniques to slow down my mind enough to attend to what the other person(s) is saying.  I think the main impediment for this human in slowing down enough to listen is some internalized belief (which may have become a habit)  that I have to prove my worth by proving that I know the answer or some answers or at least am not totally clueless much of the time.  I do not want to believe that X’s pessimistic view of segments of we humans could be accurate or perhaps I do not want to hear the fear which leads him or her to this stance.  Perhaps I become fearful and uncomfortable when another opinion is diametrically opposed to mine. 
 
Perhaps my “excuse” is really just that – an excuse.  Now the conversation is between me and me! Perhaps the first person with whom I need to have an honest, open conversation is with myself. Perhaps the 10 rules which Ms. Headlee recommends  could be applied to this conversation.
 
Written February 24, 2016

​Here???
 
I will be here.  I can be here.  There is a me beneath the fears, expectations, doubts, distractions, and the long list of “must do’s” I impose on myself.
 
While in theory it is very simple to just show up or to face all one’s fears and sense of  being lost, for most of us it seems impossible. We may have a long list of commitments to self and others. Certainly I do. Although I am now semi-retired, the list of tasks I “must” accomplish today seems, if anything, longer than when I was working full time, doing volunteer work, maintaining a large home and office, and attempting to stay connected to family and friends.  How is this possible?  I am well aware that there is no one to blame.  I am also aware that all of these tasks and commitments seem very important.  
 
As seems to always be the case, what I “need” always appears.  This morning when I opened up the Ted Talk app on my iPhone, a talk by Marina Abramovic “popped” up. She is a performing artist whose “works” often set herself up as a mirror for the fears, pains, doubts and other thoughts and emotions experienced by all we humans.  While one might find some of her works intimidating, threatening, or pushing the limits of what is acceptable or in good taste, one cannot avoid being deeply affected any more than one can avoid being affected by the works of another performing artist and designer, the American Vito Hannibal Acconci.
 
For me art, whether it be a performance, a painting, a musical confrontation, or words woven into a painting, exposes the me beneath my various costumes and renders me naked.  This is, at times,  a very sobering experience. Also sobering was confronting myself when I worked with a movement therapist for many ten-hour days without being able to use language to communicate, when I studied dance, or when I began to post a blog both on my webpage and on sites such as Facebook and Twitter. These experiences also left me fully exposed.  Although it would  be pleasant to think this exposure revealed the Adonis model for strength, virility, and power, I have no illusions that is the case.   I am well aware that any strength I possess will not be enhanced by my nakedness.  Perhaps the strength is allowing myself and others to see  my fear, doubt, age, and a person who is always coming up short in more ways than one.  This could  be frightening  because I “know” that some others will accept this invitation to comment on my obviously human qualities    Just this morning I had notices of comments on a blog which challenged some of the opinions I posited.   
 
I ask myself why I continue to expose my nakedness in this very public manner.  Yet, for many years, I have accepted that the price for not being willing to do this is death – a shrinking of spirit, brain, and vitality.
 
Yes, I know that the next time I put myself in a learning situation which offers the opportunity to choose between an experience which is safe and potentially boring and one which will cause me enormous anxiety I will choose the later.  Obviously, if I am typing I have survived all experiences to date.   I have not, however, put myself in some of the extreme situations which the performing artist, Marina Abramovic has.   I would welcome the opportunity to put myself into the six-hour experience she will be offering at the institute she is planning and which she describes in a Ted Talk, “an art made of trust, vulnerability, and connection.”  She describes the experience she and Rem Koohaas are designing: “And it’s very simple. If you want to get experience, you have to give me your time. You have to sign the contract before you enter the building, that you will spend there a full six hours… The public comes in, and the first thing you have to do is dress in lab coats. It's this importance of stepping from being just a viewer into experimenter. And then you go to the lockers and you put your watch, your iPhone, your iPod, your computer and everything digital, electronic. And you are getting free time for yourself for the first time. Because there is nothing wrong with technology, our approach to technology is wrong. We are losing the time we have for ourselves. This is an institute to actually give you back this time…  So what you do here, first you start slow walking, you start slowing down. You're going back to simplicity. After slow walking, you're going to learn how to drink water -- very simple, drinking water for maybe half an hour. After this, you're going to the magnet chamber, where you're going to create some magnet streams on your body. Then after this, you go to crystal chamber. After crystal chamber, you go to eye-gazing chamber, after eye-gazing chamber, you go to a chamber where you are lying down. So it's the three basic positions of the human body, sitting, standing and lying. And slow walking. And there is a sound chamber. And then after you've seen all of this, and prepared yourself mentally and physically, then you are ready to see something with a long duration, like in immaterial art. It can be music, it can be opera, it can be a theater piece, it can be film, it can be video dance. You go to the long duration chairs because now you are comfortable.”
 
I am well aware that I do not have to wait for such an institute to put myself in a meditative experience.  I have the freedom of setting my own schedule and designing my own relationship or lack of relationship with the cell phone, computer, and other gadgets which can keep me from being with myself.    Obviously, I will not die; the world will not significantly change, and I will not be homeless or disowned by all my friends if I am not instantly available.  The world will go on without me just has it goes on when someone “important” such as Justice Scalia suddenly dies.   It will go on without  the aid of any of us. This is not to deny that some leave a very positive footprint, but positive or negative, it will go on until it no longer goes on.
 
A friend who has struggled with addiction, depression, and more recently cancer as well as the side effects of cancer treatment, and who has been very open with the vulnerability of his fear and  the darkness which has often seemed to cover him in this life journey, has  recommitted to choosing life. This  is a courageous decision. Just the mere fact of his decision challenges me to show up today.
 
So, here I am typing, despite the fact that it seems I have nothing new to say.  The dance which may begin with typing is often where I start. Well, actually, that is not true.  I started, as I frequently do, with making a choice to see or hear the mirror which folks such as Marina Abramovic and Vito Acconi offer. While the mirror is brighter than most, the underlying nakedness is not unique or even unfamiliar.
  
Today will be a day of running/walking toward and not away from.
 
Written February 25, 2016

​Addiction/attachment to a person
 
A woman who reads this blog messaged me this morning:   “Jimmy could you blog about addiction to a person.”
 
There is a lot of controversy about whether one can become addicted to a person.  The definition of addiction which I find most helpful is: Consistently looking to something outside of oneself to fill the void or to avoid dealing with the belief that we are not enough. 
 
There are many studies which confirm that all of our behavior changes our brain.  If we think about it, we know that our body is an interactional system and we also know the body and the rest of the world is an interactional system.  Some scientists are now  researching brain activity when individuals are compulsively or addictively watching pornographic videos.  
 
“The researchers found that three regions in particular were more active in the brains of the people with compulsive sexual behaviour compared with the healthy volunteers. Significantly, these regions -- the ventral striatum, dorsal anterior cingulate and amygdala -- were regions that are also particularly activated in drug addicts when shown drug stimuli. The ventral striatum is involved in processing reward and motivation, whilst the dorsal anterior cingulate is implicated in anticipating rewards and drug craving. The amygdala is involved in processing the significance of events and emotions.”(Brain activity in sex addition mirrors that of drug addiction. July 11, 2014, University of Chicago, Sciencedaily.com) 
 
This is interesting but it does not necessarily address the question about whether one can become addicted to a person. Or does it?   We know that not everyone who dates or has a committed relationship with someone becomes addicted to that person.  We also know that not everyone who watches pornographic videos becomes addicted to watching them.  There are plenty of people who can safely have an alcoholic beverage, have sexual activity, even use cocaine or heroin without becoming addicted. It does seem true that some substances or drugs are more likely to result in addiction than others.  Nicotine, for example, is highly addictive for many but I have known a number of people who can occasionally use tobacco products without becoming addicted.
 
What could it mean to get addicted to a person?   Perhaps it would  be more helpful to talk about becoming attached to the belief that one cannot have a good life without  having  a relationship with that person. This is usually different than the parent who cannot come to terms with the fact that their child is missing or is deceased. A person who is attached to a belief that they cannot move on without this other person or without having healthy closure to the end of a relationship with another person “finds” themselves staying in or returning to a relationship regardless of whether the affection or love is returned, is available, or how one is treated when with that person.  This phenomenon is different than wanting to be with a person who is available and treats one with love and respect. 
 
How does one let go of this attachment and move on to a healthier life?  It is helpful to remind oneself that:
 
      Scientists have now determined that habits are stored in a different part of the brain than memory and are very difficult to change.
      If one has been an in emotionally or physically abusive relationship for any length of time, one has internalized the  lies of the abuser.  The mere fact of being abused says that one is not worthwhile or deserving of respect.
      If one has internalized the lies of the abuser, it is “normal” to consciously or unconsciously wait for that person to correct the lies. If some part of one’s brain has given authority to the lies of the abuser, it is normal to return to that authority to correct the lies. It does not matter if, on the surface, one “knows” that this does not make sense; one may “feel” a very strong urge to keep returning for affirmation.
      If one has been emotionally or physically abused, one may have internalized what Dr. Lenore Walker, has termed “learned helplessness.” That is, one has internalized the belief that one is helpless or cannot function without the abuser.
      Even if one has been in a healthy relationship, it is common for one to have a very difficult time imagining a life without the other person.  For example, a person I know  who is around age 60 has been with the same partner since she was 15.   Although there were times in their marriage when they separated because of his addiction, he has been in recovery for many years and, thus, they have enjoyed a healthy relationship for many years.  It is easy to see why this woman has a difficult time imagining a worthwhile life without her soul mate.
      If we have a compulsive need or feeling for a particular relationship, we may be in the habit of reinforcing the messages of the brain associated with that felt need. For example, the brain may be saying “I need this person to keep living or to have a decent life.”  Another part of our brain, rather than correcting this lie, may keep reinforcing it. In other words, one may not be intentionally responding to and correcting the lie.  We need to either say, “ That is a lie. That person does not have what I need.”  or “Isn’t it interesting that I am telling myself this lie.”  One does not want to fuss at oneself. One wants to keep working on teaching oneself a new truth.
      Returning to a person who does not have what we need or wants is like going to the local auto parts store to purchase a new kidney.   Auto parts stores do not sell new kidneys.  They are perfectly good stores but they do not carry human organs. We do not have to get angry at them because of that. We do need to shop elsewhere.  Returning to a person who does not have what we need is the same thing. He or she is not a bad person. They simply, for whatever reason, do not have what we need.
      The more one treats oneself with love and respect, the more likely one’s brain will be able to make new decisions and practice new habits.  We know that nutritional intake, exercise, healthy emotional support, a cheerful well-tended home, and daily spiritual practices will help our brain function differently.
      Asking a counselor, friends, or others to support your healthy choices can also help.
 
I was reminded yesterday by my friend, Dr. Becky Johnen, that the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus is reputed to have said, “We cannot step into the same river twice.”   To me, this mean that change is inevitable. We can move forward or backward but we cannot stand still.  If I am not daily being intentional about positive care and positive, honest messages to my brain. I will not move forward.
 
Written February 23, 2016

​Patriotism?  Combat?

It is Monday morning and I am looking forward to a visit by my 12-year old adopted nephew, Paul who has, what seems to be yet another day off from school while teachers attend training.  Of course, I am always happy to see one of my nieces or nephews.  It is treat to live next door to Paul and his sister, my adopted six-year old niece, Sam.

I know that Paul already had breakfast with his mom, dad and sister, but will want a snack and hot chocolate later.  Fortunately, I have gotten smart enough in my old age to bake dozens of chocolate chip cookies which I keep in the freezer.

As I look out the kitchen window I see that he is on his way.

Me:  Good morning Paul.  How was your weekend?

Paul:  Good morning Uncle Jim. He gives me a hug and a kiss on the cheek. 
(I am, of course, hopeful that he will not have to go through that developmental stage of being shy about showing affection. Both his dad and I are very affectionate as are both of his grandfathers.)

Me: Do you want anything to drink Paul.

Paul: Maybe just a glass of water for now Uncle Jim.

I get that for him,

Paul: Uncle Jim will you help me with my homework assignment?

Me:  I will sure try Paul.  What is your assignment?

Paul:  Let me read it Uncle Jim.   “Be prepared to discuss whether pilots dropping a bomb from a plane or people directing a drone to drop bombs should be considered combat troops.”

Me:  Goodness, that is an interesting topic. Good for your teacher for suggesting it.   Have you done any research yet, Paul?

Paul: Well, I asked mom, dad, grandma, grandpa, mamma and pop pop.

Me: That is a great way to do start a research project Paul.  What did they say?

Paul:   Well, mom said that if someone intentionally dropped a bomb on our house or a nearby house from a plane or a drone it would feel like a war related combat.  Dad said that military officials and several presidents have said it was not.  Grandma said when all those people in Japan died from our nuclear bomb no family member still living cared whether or not we call it combat.  A lot of people died.   Grandpa said, …. Now I am getting confused by I recorded the answer on my phone.  Shall I play it Uncle Jim?

Me: That was smart of you Paul.  Yes, play it.

Paul:  Okay, Uncle Jim.  Here it is:   Grandpa is first.

(Grandpa):  You know Paul that my father and mother both talked about how frightening it was to be in London when bombs were being dropped. They spent a lot of time in bomb shelters. It certainly felt like combat to them.  They did not have drones but I think it would have felt the same.

(Mamma):  Your great grandparents, my parents, were in France during World War II. Planes with bombs were a part of combat from the beginning of the war.  

(Pop Pop):  I think that we humans try to convince ourselves that as long as we cannot see how human the other person is the easier it is to kill them. I suspect it is easy to just think about dropping bombs on people we call the enemy. If we have to see them then it is more difficult. I recall friends telling me that the hardest part part of combat was finding family photos on the body of someone they just killed. It makes them too much like them.    I think drones makes it even easier to forget that we are trying to kill people like us.

Me: Goodness.  What do you think after hearing those answers?

Paul:  I am still confused Uncle Jim. The other day we were listening to NPR and someone was saying that we dropped bombs in Libya but we would never use combat troops.  That really confused me. I asked Dad and mom why we were dropping bombs in Libya?

Me: What did your parents say Paul?

Paul:  They said the the military people were saying that there were IS people in Libya training to attack the United States.

Me:  What do you think of that Paul?

Paul:  Well, mom, dad and I started looking up more information on the internet.  We found on bbc.com:

“Libya's internationally recognized government, based in the east of the country, was also angered by the US raid.
It said in a statement on Saturday that the attack had not been co-ordinated with Libyan authorities and was "a clear and flagrant violation of sovereignty of the Libyan state".”  That is confusing Uncle Jim.

Me:  I think that they are saying that they think that dropping bombs in their country is wrong.

What else did you find out Paul?

Paul:  Well, let’s see.  We found out that a William Blum wrote a book called “Rogue State” about all the countries the United States has bombed since World War II   It was a long list Uncle Jim. It seems like nearly everyone thinks bombing is combat Uncle Jim. What would our leaders say it is not?

Me: Well, Paul, I think for a long time we in the United States have convinced ourselves that we are the good people trying to keep bad people from hurting others.   

Paul:  I thought that people we call the bad people say that we are the bad people Uncle Jim.   In school we studied about planes hitting the Pentagon and buildings in New York.  The Untied States got very angry. Did we see that as combat Uncle Jim? Would we have felt different it the bomb were carried by drones?

Me: We certainly seem to think that it was an act of war which I think fall under the definition of combat.  Did you look up the definition of combat Paul?

Paul: Yes. The Oxford dictionary said that that combat was: “fighting or a fight, especially during a time of war.”

Me: So when someone drops a bomb here we think it is fighting and even an act of war but when we do it it is because we are going after the bad people. It does not seem as if it would matter if a drone or a plane dropped a bomb.

Paul:  It sure sounds like that Uncle Jim.

Me:  Ready for a break?  How about some hot chocolate and cookies Paul?

Paul:  Yes. My head hurts Uncle Jim

Me: Mine too.  Get your apron on and I will get on the ingredients.

Paul gets his apron off the hook and I tie it for him.    Then I get out the pan, cocoa, sugar, salt, vanilla and milk.  Paul has done this often enough that he remembers how much of each to put in the pan.  He does so and begin to stir. In the meantime, I have turned on the heat. While he stirs I put away the ingredients and get up cups and the marshmallows. I also get the cookies from the freezer.  We both like to dunk the frozen cookies in the hot chocolate.

Paul: Thanks Uncle Jim.

I pour the hot chocolate in the cups and Paul adds a generous bunch of the miniature marshmallows.

Paul:  Yummy Uncle Jim.  Uncle Jim while do our heads hurt when we are talking about something confusing?

Me: Well, I think that we are trying so hard to think that our head gets all tense like this.  I tense up my face and head so that he can see my squinched up eyes and wrinkled forehead.

Paul:  Oh that looks painful Uncle Jim

Me: Yes, I think we both unconsciously do that we are thinking really hard.

Paul:  I think I am more confused than ever Uncle Jim.

Me:  Well,perhaps we only learn and change behavior when we are get confused Paul. When we think we know the answers there is no reason to try to learn more is there?

Paul:  I guess not Uncle Jim.  Yes, sometimes it sounds like our President and all the military people and all the people who want to be presidents know the answers.

Me:  I agree. It does sound like that and I can see why it is tempting to believe one of them, but it is not that clear to me.

Paul:  Me either.  Do you think we could just type out some to the questions so that I could take them to class Uncle Jim.

Me:  We sure could Paul.  As soon as we finish our hot chocolate we will do that.

Paul:  Thanks Uncle Jim

Me: You are welcome, Paul.

Written February 22, 2016

​A man of faith
 
The Reverend Paul Scalia, son Justice Antonin Scalia and a Catholic priest, who presided over the funeral mass for his father on Saturday, the 20th of February, 2106 is reported in several news sources to have said of his father that he considered the founding of the United States a blessing – “a blessing quickly lost when faith is banned from the public square or when we refuse to bring it there.”  
 
From everything I read, Justice Scalia was a person who gave a lot thought to his vocation, his roles as father, husband, and grandfather and to his relationship with the God of his understanding.   His son, The Reverend Paul Scalia, seemed to be saying that his father believed that the blessing of this country was diluted “when faith is banned from the public square or  we refuses to bring it there.”  On the surface, I could certainly agree with Justice Scalia.  Surely most of us could agree that we humans need to bring to the public square a deep faith in the ability of we humans to claim the fact that the world in which we find ourselves is enormously interdependent – that we cannot harm or mistreat one part of creation without affecting all of creation. Personally I would like to enter the public square knowing that I am going to encounter other people who will treat me with enormous respect and will expect that I will treat them  with the same respect.    There, we have it.  In this area at least I could easily replace Justice Scalia on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States  and come to the same conclusions he did on cases dealing with freedom of religion.   Case closed. Opinion rendered.
 
Well, not so fast.  It would seem that if one reads the opinions of Justice Scalia or those of such Christian and judicial scholars as Gary DeMar (see godfatherpolitics.com) the opinion is that the Constitution of the United States protects the right to have certain religious displays, prayers, and monuments in public places.    The first amendment of the United States reads as follows:
 
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
 
 According to Mr. Demar and quotes attributed to Justice Scalia, the amendment  states “of religion” rather than “from” and thus states that we have to allow religions displays, prayers, or monuments in public places.  Suppose we agree to that interpretation.  What religious displays, prayers, or monuments should represent all the various religious beliefs and traditions as well as the beliefs and traditions of the non-believers?   If all are equally represented the amount of time and space required could be prohibitive. Perhaps we could have a prayer, for example, which was inclusive of  the beliefs of all the people who might comprise the citizens of the United States.  Programs such as AA and NA sometimes refer either to the God of one’s understanding,  a power greater than oneself, or “Good orderly direction.”  Those programs are eager to be inclusive of anyone who needs the support and assistance of the members of AA, NA, or one of the other 12-step programs. I am not sure anyone would object to a moment of meditation or a call to help each other open their hearts and minds to a wisdom which was inclusive and respectful of all of creation. 
 
The problem, of course, is often cases come before a legal body which reference a particular religious belief. In the United States and, it would seem in the case of Justice Scalia and several of the current presidential candidates, faith refers to a Christian faith.  Surely no one hears candidates such as Mr. Cruz, Mr. Rubio, or Mr. Trump advocating the universal inclusion of Muslim displays, prayers, or monuments at all public gatherings.   The individuals and groups supporting those candidates are, for the most part, expecting them to uphold the carefully contained Christian faith which believes that one must accept Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior.  Even Mr. Trump who is the least vocal about his Christian, Presbyterian beliefs seems to expect the voter to assume  that he is embracing the Christian religion.
 
It is interesting to me that we humans can simultaneously posit an all-powerful, an ever present, and an all knowing “God” who also needs to be constantly affirmed and recognized as the only deity whose embracing arms are  open only to those who can pass through one very narrow door.
 
Perhaps it is my limited ability to focus which fails to see that faith can only refer to a concept of a deity based on the narrow beliefs of a particular religion.    
 
I am delighted that Justice Scalia and at least one of his children, the Reverend Paul Scalia, were able to identify a religious community which they found welcoming and able to embrace them in all their humanness.   I applaud the fact that each of the presidential candidates know that they are a valued member of a community of faith who affirms them in times of joy and in times of sorrow.  I am delighted that they each search for a set of core values which helps them be intentional about their life journey and their personal and leadership roles.  
 
I am just as delighted that my atheist, Muslim, Hindu, and Jewish friends  who embrace a wide spectrum of religions or non-religious communities,  know that they too are part of the we who are invited to the table in the public square.   I believe that:
 “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  
 
I agree with the late Justice Scalia that this amendment clearly says “of” and not “from”.  Let’s never, ever do or say anything in the public square which makes a person from any religion or non-religion feel excluded.  That will, of course, demand that if we are going to posit a concept of a higher power – a deity – that it be one who is strong, self-confident, and courageous enough to open all the windows and doors of all faiths to embracing arms.
 
Written February 21, 2016

​
“Please, let me blame the other.”

I am writing on February 20, 2016.  It is an election year in the United States; an election year which includes a rich business man who takes no prisoners  and is very egalitarian in who he chooses to insult, a woman whose history continues, it seems, to include some serious errors of judgment, a democratic socialist, a man whose constitutional right to be president is being questioned, a couple of men  who who seem to be the darling of the evangelical Christian,  a past governor who is also  the son and the brother of past presidents and several others.  

Anyone who decides to run for such an important office knows that they are putting themselves in a no-hold barred fight.  It seems any insult, the revelation of past demonstration of humanness by any of one’s opponents, or questioning of motives or associations is allowed.    

Clearly the most interesting of the candidates is the business man who one might be tempted to say has made an art form out of insulting individuals and groups of people except one would hesitate to insult artists by referring to his behavior as an art form.  Most interesting is that this crass person is hugely popular. At a time when political unrest and violent conflict is rampant throughout the world and we, as a nation, continue to make it our business to beat the swords into plowshares with bombs and other weapons of mass destruction, it seems as if many in the United States are determined to elect this man who only 32 percent of Republicans see as compassionate and 42 percent see as likeable. Yet, 86 % of GOP polled say Trump can win in November (Associated Press Article by Bill Barrow and Jill Colvin published in Tampa Tribune on February 20, 1976, page 4).

Mr. Trump, the other political candidates and the current leadership of the United States seem to make it very easy to justify pointing the finger rather than examining one’s own actions and motivations.

I recall being a member of the Racial Justice committee in Wheeling, WV in the 1980ies.  Members of this committee were often charged with the responsibility of speaking to students and others about racial justice.  Our first assignment, and a periodic one thereafter, was to write a paper on “How I learned to be racist.” or perhaps it was, “When did I learn to be a racist?”  I recall writing about my first experience of knowingly using racism in an attempt to shift blame for something I had done at age 5.  I had been haunted by this memory for as long as I could recall.  Even at 5 years old, I knew it was wrong and felt very guilty.   Every member of the committee, regardless of race, had similar stories.  Through telling our stories we hoped to make it safe enough for others to accept that all of us learned in subtle and not so subtle ways to be racist.   Nothing, including race, mitigated that learning process. We had all, no matter how much we attempted to be part of the solution/part of the healing process, been part of the process of feeding racism.  As with with all other processes of healing/growing, we had to be willing to be honest with ourselves and then with others. While this approach did not insure that others would change, it allowed for that possibility. So it is that at this important time in the history of the United States if I truly want change I have to be willing to look at all the biases and overly simplistic solutions that I bring to the table. The danger in that I will dismiss the 86% of Republicans (or whatever number are the results de jour) in the same way that Mr. Trump says that he is willing to dismiss or keep out all Muslims, build a wall to keep out all immigrants coming to the United States via way of Mexico or rely even more on military strength.

It is not fair or helpful if I merely deny that I can see the attraction of labeling some person or group as one’s enemy.   I have heard myself think and even say things such as, “Let’s forcibly lock on the politicians in a room or perhaps on different planet until they can learn to play nice.”  I have more than once wanted to just walk on the other side of the street or country to avoid dealing with someone(s) I feared.  I have certainly felt like throwing my computer out the window when it did behave as I expected or wanted.   

One of the short essays or articles currently posted on the “On Being” NPR website is, “Life on the Mobius Strip” by Parker J. Palmer whose insightful views I have often admired.

Most readers will know that a Mobius strip is simply a strip of paper or some thin material which is bendable and turned at end before being taped together. Wikipedia describes it better:  “An example of a Möbius strip can be created by taking a paper strip and giving it a half-twist, and then joining the ends of the strip together to form a loop. However, the Möbius strip is not a surface of only one exact size and shape, such as the half-twisted paper strip depicted in the illustration. Rather, mathematicians refer to the closed Möbius band as any surface that is homeomorphic to this strip. Its boundary is a simple closed curve, i.e., homeomorphic to a circle. This allows for a very wide variety of geometric versions of the Möbius band as surfaces each having a definite size and shape. For example, any rectangle can be glued to itself (by identifying one edge with the opposite edge after a reversal of orientation) to make a Möbius band. Some of these can be smoothly modeled in Euclidean space, and others cannot.”

Mr. Parker in his brief meditation on the Mobius strip says:
“The first time I saw a Möbius strip, I thought, “Amazing! That’s exactly how life works!”
Whatever is inside of us continually flows outward, helping to form or deform the world — depending on what we send out. Whatever is outside us continually flows inward, helping to form or deform us — depending on how we take it in. Bit by bit, we and our world are endlessly re-made in this eternal inner-outer exchange.

Much depends on what we choose to put into the world from within ourselves — and much depends on how we handle what the world sends back to us.” …Here's the question I've been asking myself ever since I understood that we live our lives on the Möbius strip:
"How can I make more life-giving choices about what to put into the world and how to deal with what the world sends back — choices that might bring new life to me, to others, and to the world we share?"

There are many ways to state the mirror of the Mobius strip.  Jesus is alleged to have said that before we worry about the spec in the eye of another person we need to remove the log from our eye.  The psychologist might say that that if the mirror image part of our brain is not there or not functional we won’t see the reflection of ourselves in the other - we won’t be able to experience empathy.  Buddhists such as Pema Chodron might suggest that if we want to grow we have to appreciate the concept of shenpa – the triggering of some fear or other issues in ourselves by something by another person or event.   

All wise teachers always remind us that all growth begins with claiming the courage to open our hearts and minds to another level of honestly within ourselves; that it is never about the other person. The lesson of the Mobius strip is the gift of the lesson of Mr. Trump and all other who I want to dismiss as very different than me.

Written February 20, 2015

​From pissy to just noticing

Why am I pissy this morning?   I just got short with the person who called wanting me to come in for a medical checkup when there is no need for me to do that. There was no reason for me to be pissy. In fact, I certainly could have kept the appointment even though it would have been a waste of everyone’s time.  I was aggravated with myself when it is my intention to just notice my pissyness. It is interesting that it is so difficult to just notice rather than judging or beating up on myself.  Naturally, I want to be this serene and loving person all the time.   Well, obviously, that is not entirely true. I also want to rebel or object when something does not make sense.  On the other hand, I know myself well enough to know that when I am feeling good I am able to respond to people more lovingly than I think I responded to the  person who called regarding the doctor’s appointment.   Am I feeling “sick”?  Not really, but I do feel a little off centered even though I got a decent night’s sleep, have eaten healthy food, and have been to the gym this morning.  

Of course, I am well aware that I can be a bit off center without being able to identify the reason.   Naturally I feel better if I can identify a cause or a reason for being off center  because I can then do something to change it or just accept that such and such is going on and I will  be better when such and such is no longer an issue.

I have an appointment with a client tomorrow who is dealing with extreme anxiety and an obsessive, compulsive disorder.  I have suggested to him that he begin to practice just noticing when he feels an uncontrollable urge to perform a ritual or when he is obsessively worrying/thinking about something.   The goal is to quit reinforcing the internal fear that inaccurately tells him that something bad Is going to happen if he does not perform the ritual or begin to worry/take the  internal message seriously.

My experience this morning is a good reminder for me to practice what I advise others to do.  Since I did not notice that I was a bit off center until I got pissy, it is important for me to just notice that I got pissy and to not fuss at myself.  I am not saying it is okay to be pissy. I am suggesting that if I want to change my behavior I do not want to either (1) Justify the pissy response or (2) further stress myself (cause myself to be more off centered ) by fussing at myself.  Of course, I can, without doing either of these things, apologize to the office person. If the representative from the insurance company who I emailed tells me that I really do need to keep this appointment to avoid getting the doctor in trouble, I can also do that.  I do not have to try to put a lot of effort into  attempting to force either the staff at the doctors office or the insurance company to behave in a way which makes sense to me.

This brief experience is a gift – a good reminder before I talk to the client about how difficult it is to “just notice” and, thus, to refrain from justifying behavior or increasing the stress by fussing at oneself  or calling oneself unkind names.

The human brain is very interesting.  Many factors affect how it processes incoming stimuli.  At times nothing feels like a big deal and it seemingly takes no effort to “just notice” what is happening.  Other times it feels as if any incoming stimuli is an incoming assault which one automatically fights by withdrawing, numbing oneself out in some way (food, alcohol, drug, justification/anger) or withdrawing.    Saying to oneself “Oh my, it seems that by brain is not processing incoming stimuli well at the moment.”  is generally not the first thought which comes to mind.  Despite years of practice, the first time I notice that my brain is not processing incoming stimuli is often after I have reacted in a pissy way to something.  It is true that I have practiced enough that once I hear myself being pissy I can usually start to “just notice” my response and acknowledge that, for whatever reason, my brain is not processing well.    Then I can begin to react differently.  For example , the man sitting next to me at Panera’s was playing  music on his laptop loudly and someone else nearby was talking loudly on their phone.  I simply noticed that was not working well for me and moved to another table.  As it happened it was warm enough to take my laptop  and my coffee to an outside table which is much more pleasant than being inside.

I am also reminded that, for me and I suspect, often for others,  writing takes some of the power out of not being able to process incoming stimuli well.  Isn’t that interesting?

Written February 19, 2016

​Pants on Fire
 
In this day of instant, 24 hours news and political campaigns it has become common to expect news programs to have what has come to be termed politick which attempt to determine if something said by a public figure, particularly an elected official or someone who is campaigning for political office, is accurate, partly accurate, or completely false.  In fact, one can google a web site, politifact.com.   If a statement is determined to be completely false it is determined to be “pants on fire.”   There is a poem, often attributed to William Blake entitled “The Liar” which apparently is a parody of the poem “The Tiger” by William Blake. The last stanza of the poem “The Tiger” is:
 
Tiger, tiger, burning bright 
In the forests of the night, 
What immortal hand or eye 
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry? 
 
The first stanza of the parody is:
 
Deceiver, dissembler 
Your trousers are alight 
From what pole or gallows 
Shall they dangle in the night? 
 
Some version of pants on fire has been used as an attempt to shame and, thus, to admonish we humans until we feel enough guilt to behave differently in the future.
 
The authors of the web site, “Ancienthistory.com” state that the difference between guilt and shame is:
 
“When you publicly admit your sins (and are then absolved) or are put into the stocks, you are shamed. When you instead internalize the shame, it becomes guilt.
In the epic poems attributed to Homer, the Iliad and Odyssey, some of the behavior that seems strange in modern society is actually based on the idea of a shame-based culture. The Greek’s transition from a shame culture to a guilt culture is characterized throughout these works.”
 
One can, of course, feel so bad or guilty about one’s own behavior that one shames oneself.  Although one may not ask one’s friends for assistance in putting oneself in the public stocks or may not ask them to stand together in the public square pointing and shaking their finger at one, most of us can do a perfectly acceptable job of covering ourselves in the equivalent of sackcloth and ashes for an indeterminate amount of time. Sometimes we can and do perform the ultimate shame based act and commit suicide thus showing the world that we are indeed mortified by our behavior and consider it unforgivable.   Thus has been the case with such people as Tyler Clementi, the Rutgers University student, who committed suicide in 2010 following the release of a secretly made video showing him doing something he did not want to be made public.
 
Some of the readers may remember the name of Monica Lewinsky who in 1998 was revealed to be the young White House intern who had a sexual relationship with the then married president of the United States.  Not only was it publicly revealed that he and she had a sexual relationship but specific details of the acts were made public. She was publicly ridiculed for many months.  Her mother kept a close watch on her to insure that she did not commit suicide.  The nation was diverted from important matters of state while many people shamed and even attempted to evict the President from office.  Even Mrs. Clinton was shamed for her decision to stay with the President.
 
Monica Lewinsky now, at age 40, is actively involved in speaking out about the devastating effects of shaming and bullying behavior including cyber bullying.  In fact, one can listen to a Ted Talk she delivered in March of 2015.  The very articulate woman is using her experience to address this important social issue.
 
As Ms. Lewinsky so accurately points out, we have all engaged in behavior, often especially when young, that we know was not consistent with the footprint we want to leave on this journey.
 
Later this morning I was continuing a conversation with some lovely people I know whose son continues to engage in behavior which is consistent with his illness of alcoholism.  This very fine young man is so caught in the grips of the addictive illness that it does not allow him to consistently behave according to the moral code which would otherwise guide him and which does guide the non-addictive members of the family.   Last night he tried to pry open the door of someone who rents from his parents.  Later his mom said, “We, his parents, who believe in God first, …we’ve either done something terribly wrong. Or are we being prepped for something even bigger to test us? We have always done the right thing.”   True, these very good people attempt to be very intentional in being the best that they can be.   Of course they know that they fall short just as all of we humans do and yet, they do better than many of us.  I again reassured them I did not think the behavior of their addicted son has anything to do with them.  I also do not think that the son deserves to be shamed.  The sad truth is that addiction affects how one’s mind works. In this state of mental dysfunction, one is expected to make a sane decision to begin or return to a recovery program. Sometimes it happens.  The addict reaches his or her bottom, so to speak, and in desperation, with very little faith that help is possible, they seek out help.   In our attempt to protect the “rights” of those of us who have a sick brain, we have decided that it is not right to force someone into treatment.  To be sure, treatment is often not effective the first or second or eighth time, but it can be and sometimes is.   We know that the diabetic or the person with any other compulsive or addictive illness may need much patient understanding, but this is not often true with the person who lives with an addiction to alcohol, other drugs, or sex.
 
Was there ever a time when public shame healed?  I am not aware of any longitudinal studies which compare a loving approach and a shaming approach.  My own experience and that of many of those I know who have successfully stayed in recovery or, as has Ms. Lewinsky, learned to leave a footprint of which she is proud is that love and not shame heals.  To be sure, all too often, nothing works to heal the unhealthy or perhaps permanently damaged brain.  I do not believe that shame works. I do know that having a sense that one wants a different footprint and the hope or believe that it is possible does often work.
 
I have also not seen any recent evidence that “pants of fire” significantly changes the footprint of those on the political campaign trail.
 
Written February 18, 2016

​The donkey and the elephant
 
I had nearly forgotten that today was a teacher training which meant that Sam and Paul, my adopted niece and nephew, had the day off.  Twelve-year-old Paul was going to work with their mom which I knew he was really looking forward to.   Six-year-old Sam was going to spend the day with me.   I had promised her that after breakfast here we would go to the zoo.  First we would finish her homework which her dad had already told me was to find out what “politics” is?   
 
There she comes across the lawn from next door.
 
Me:  Good morning Sam.
 
Sam:  Good morning Uncle Jim.  It is cold.
 
Me:  Well, I have the oatmeal made.  Do you want a bagel or an English muffin to go with that?
 
Sam:  An English muffin with some of your homemade strawberry jelly please.
 
Me: That is easy.  Shall I toast the muffin?
 
Sam: Yes, please, Uncle Jim.  Can I have hot chocolate too Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  You sure can. Suppose I make it while you start on the oatmeal.
 
Sam:  Okay. Do you remember how to make it Uncle Jim? You need cocoa, sugar, milk, salt, and then cinnamon, marshmallows, and whipped cream.
 
Me:  Wow. You remembered all the ingredients. That is great!  I think we have everything we need.  Oh!  The muffin just popped up. Do you want me to butter it?
 
Sam:  Yes, but can I put on the jelly please?
 
Me: You sure can Sam.
 
I butter the muffin, open the jelly, and get a spoon for her. 
 
Me: Now I will start the hot chocolate.  Oops.  We forgot your apron.  Here let me get it and tie it on.
 
Sam:  Thanks. Dad hates it when I have hot chocolate or jelly on my clothes. He says that they are sometimes hard to wash out.
 
Me:  Yes they are.  Now while I am making the hot chocolate, tell me about your homework assignment.
 
Sam:  Our teacher said to ask adults in our family what politics are?  I asked mom and she said, “I am so sick of politics.”  Then I asked dad and he said, “Uncle Jim would love to help you with that question. 
 
Me:  Well, what do you think it is Sam?
 
Sam:  Well, there are always these men and sometimes women saying mean things about each other.
 
Me:  Really. What men and women are these?
 
Sam: Uncle Jim!  You know that a lot of people want to be the next president.  None of these people seem to like each other. Is that what politics are - saying mean things about each other? 
 
Me:  Well, that is what happens, but that is not what the word means.  I better get the big dictionary.
 
I go over and get the Merriam-Webster dictionary and set it on the table.  
 
Let’s see Sam.  Here it is:
 
1      a:  the art or science of government b: the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing government policy c: the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government.
2      :  political actions, practices or policies.
3      A:  political affairs or business; especially: competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in government) b: political life especially as a principal activity or profession c:  political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices.
4      :  the political opinions or sympathies of a person
5      :  the total complex of relations between people living in society b:  relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view.
Sam:  I have no idea what that means Uncle Jim. It keeps using the word to define the word. I thought we were not supposed to do that Uncle Jim.
 
Me:  You are right.  Let’s see if you and I can make it simple. How about we start with government. How about we look at your family Sam.  How does your family make decisions?
 
Sam: Well, sometimes we all sit down and make decisions. Sometimes mom makes decisions and sometimes dad makes them.  Lots of times mom and dad tell Paul and me what to do and then sometimes Paul thinks he is my boss.
 
Me:  Very good. The way your family makes decisions is the government of the family.  Now if we leave your house you sometimes go on the street or you use your bicycle on the sidewalk.  Also, water comes to your house. You flush the toilet and it goes some somewhere.  We turn on the stove and set the thermostat if we want heat or air conditioning.  Everyone on the street can do all those things.
 
Sam:  Yes.  How does water get there Uncle Jim?
 
Me: Well the water, for example, comes in a pipe which brings the water from a reservoir (a big lake like of water).  All the kids at your school live in house which has water from the same lake. Here let’s draw it on the board.  
 
I draw the reservoir and then all these pipes going to all the houses.
 
Me:  The water has to be made safe. Someone has to buy the pipes, dig the holes in the ground, lay the pipes, and hook them up to our houses. The same thing happens with the pipes carrying everything from the toilet to bringing electricity and gas to the house.  Then someone has to make the streets and the sidewalks. We also share the schools, the police, the fire department, and all the other things we need to take care of each other.  Someone has to make a lot of decisions.  What would happen if every time they needed to fix something at the school or put out a fire someone had to find all of us and we had to have a meeting to make a decision?
 
Sam:  I would not know what to do and we would never get any rest. Boy, we would be tired.
 
Me: So we get together as a community and we vote on who is going to make all these things happen. We form a government. We have to do that as a country and that is why we are electing a president and others who will help make decisions.
 
Sam: There are a bunch of people who want to be president Uncle Jim.
 
Me:  Yes, there are Sam.  In this case, it is more than our neighborhood.  It is a whole country. Let’s look at the map.  See it is all this land and this place called Hawaii and a couple of other places.  Just this area here has places where people can vote in the presidential election. 

I point to other places where there are US citizens who cannot vote:  Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands and Samoa.  
Sometime we will talk about these other places.   At any rate, a lot of people think that they can best be the leader for our country.
 
Sam: What about the elephants and the donkeys Uncle Jim?
Do we vote for an elephant or a donkey? Will they be at the zoo today Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  Well, there are some people who think an elephant or a donkey might do a better job, but no, one group of people have an elephant which is the mascot for that group of people.  Do you know what a mascot is Sam?
 
Sam:  Is that like the animal which comes on during the football game Uncle Jim?
 
Me: Very good Sam. That is exactly what it is. A mascot is an object or an animal that is a fun way to identify a group. For example, we could say that Oscar, your dog, is the mascot for your family. Everyone in the neighbor knows that Oscar lives at your house and when they see Oscar they think of your family.
 
Sam: But Uncle Jim if there are a lot of people running for president who belongs to the elephant and who belongs to the donkeys?
 
Me: The elephant is the mascot for the Republicans which includes Mr. Trump, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Bush and Mr. Kasich.   The donkey is the mascot for the Democrats which includes Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders.
 
Sam:  So we pick one donkey and one elephant?
 
Me: Well, first if we think the donkeys are best we vote for one of the donkeys and if think the elephants are better we vote for one of the elephants. Then later we vote again for either the elephant or the donkey.
 
Sam:  Mom said they are all just hot air Uncle Jim. Does that mean they are like a balloon and if we stick a pin in them they will be dead?
 
Me: Well, not exactly Sam but it is hard to know who to believe and who has the best ideas.
 
Sam: So politics is deciding to be the best elephant or the best donkey and saying mean things about the others and then having the others say mean things about you and then everyone votes for the one who says the meanest thing best.
 
Me:  It seems like that doesn’t it Sam?  No, politics is a way of trying to decide how we can make decision to take better care of each other.  It is not good or bad. Every group is political in that it has to make lots of decisions. Sometimes people think the other people wanting to be elected would make bad decisions and they say mean things.
 
Sam:  Can we go to the zoo soon Uncle Jim?  Then maybe we can ask the elephants and the donkeys how they make decisions. 
 
Me:  Well, yes, although their language is different than ours. If we watch them carefully we can see them making decisions. If you wanted to study the politics of the elephants and the donkeys what do you think you would study in college?
 
Sam: I could study that in college?
 
Me:  Yes.  You might study ethology or zoology.  There are several other professions which also studies animals.  You have sometimes thought you wanted to be a veterinarian.
 
Sam:  That might be more fun that studying humans Uncle Jim. 
 
Me:  Yes, it might.  Let’s clean up and then we can go to the zoo.  Later we will make some notes for what you want to say about politics in class tomorrow.
 
Sam: Okay. Do you think we could get a toy elephant and donkey I could take to class?
 
Me:  I think so. We will look in the gift shop at the Zoo.
 
Written February 17, 2016