​What might it mean to be a  just company or corporation?
 
This morning, one of the Ted Talks I listened to while at the gym by was Paul Tudor Jones II and is titled “Why we need to rethink Capitalism” which was posted April of 2015.
 
In case you, the reader,  are not familiar with Mr. Jones, Wikipedia tells us:
Paul Tudor Jones II (born September 28, 1954) is an American businessman who founded Tudor Investment Corporation, a private asset management company and hedge fund. As of March 2014, he was estimated to have a net worth of US$4.3 billion by Forbes Magazine and ranked as the 108th richest American[3] and 345th richest in the world.[2]
He founded the Robin Hood Foundation in 1988, which focuses on poverty reduction.
 
He has also been instrumental in creating another organization called Just Capital.  Their mission is to:
 
“JUST Capital is an independent nonprofit information platform that seeks to measure and track corporate performance based on the American public’s definition of just business behavior.  Each year, we'll survey more than 40,000 Americans to find out what they believe defines corporate justness. From there, we'll measure how corporations are performing, based on the values of the American public. “   The board members of Just Capital include the following individuals:
Paul Tudor Jones II TUDOR INVESTMENT CORPORATION
Founder, Co-Chairman & Chief Investment Officer
Rinaldo Brutoco WORLD BUSINESS ACADEMY
Founding President & CEO
Ray Chambers UNITED NATIONS Special Envoy for Financing the Health Millennium Development Goals and For Malaria
Deepak Chopra CHOPRA FOUNDATION Founder
Alan Fleischmann LAUREL STRATEGIES President & CEO
Peter Georgescu Young & Rubicam Chairman Emeritus
John Hofmeister CITIZENS FOR AFFORDABLE ENERGY Founder & CEO
Arianna Huffington HUFFINGTON POST President & Editor-In-Chief
Mindy Lubber CERES President & CEO
Fred Matser Humanitarian, philanthropist & social entrepreneur
Jennifer McCrea BORN FREE AFRICA Co-Founder & CEO
HARVARD UNIVERSITY Senior Research Fellow
Marc H. Morial NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE President & CEO
Blake Mycoskie TOM’S SHOES Founder & Chief Shoe Giver
Jean Oelwang VIRGIN UNITE CEO & Virgin Group Partner
Andrew Paul TUDOR INVESTMENT CORPORATION  General Counsel & Managing Director
Lynn De Rothschild E L ROTHSCHILD Founder & CEO
Paul Scialla DELOS LIVING Founder & CEO
James P. Steyer COMMON SENSE MEDIA CEO
Michael Weinstein ROBIN HOOD FOUNDATION Chief Program Officer
Jochen Zeitz B TEAM Co-Founder & Co-Chair
KERING Director Just Corporate behavior
 
In his Ted Talk, Mr. Jones states:
 
“This chart (not shown) is corporate profit margins going back 40 years as a percentage of revenues, and you can see that we're at a 40-year high of 12.5 percent. Now, hooray if you're a shareholder, but if you're the other side of that, and you're the average American worker, then you can see it's not such a good thing. ["U.S. Share of Income Going to Labor vs. CEO-to-Worker Compensation Ratio"]
 
Now, higher profit margins do not increase societal wealth. What they actually do is they exacerbate income inequality, and that's not a good thing. But intuitively, that makes sense, right? Because if the top 10 percent of American families own 90 percent of the stocks, as they take a greater share of corporate profits, then there's less wealth left for the rest of society.
 
Again, income inequality is not a good thing. This next chart, made by The Equality Trust, shows 21 countries from Austria to Japan to New Zealand. On the horizontal axis is income inequality. The further to the right you go, the greater the income inequality. On the vertical axis are nine social and health metrics. The more you go up that, the worse the problems are, and those metrics include life expectancy, teenage pregnancy, literacy, social mobility, just to name a few. Now, those of you in the audience who are Americans may wonder, well, where does the United States rank? Where does it lie on that chart? And guess what? We're literally off the chart. Yes, that's us, with the greatest income inequality and the greatest social problems, according to those metrics.
 
Now, here's a macro forecast that's easy to make, and that's, that gap between the wealthiest and the poorest, it will get closed. History always does it. It typically happens in one of three ways: either through revolution, higher taxes, or wars. None of those are on my bucket list. (Laughter)
 
Now, there's another way to do it, and that's by increasing justness in corporate behavior, but the way that we're operating right now, that would require a tremendous change in behavior, and like an addict trying to kick a habit, the first step is to acknowledge that you have a problem.”
 
To the credit of this billionaire, Just Capital was created to explore this question.   I listed the board of directors to show that it includes such spiritual leaders as  Deepak Chopra.  Obviously if one is going to take the concerns about the growing income inequality in the United States seriously, it is important to ask whether it is possible to so organize a society so that  a more equitable distribution of the income.  Certainly it is lovely that the corporations such as that which Mr. Jones heads accepts  responsibility to not only be more philanthropic but to be a leader in rethinking basic economic theory  and basic concepts of justness, but that is just the beginning step.   I am hopeful that organizations such as Just Capital are going to reexamine:

      What are the basic principles of economists such as Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, Karl Marx, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.  As “wallstreetphychology.com” remind us:  “These scholars laid the groundwork for modern thinking about commerce, money theory, credit/debt, the business cycle, production, government  intervention, and intervention.”
      What products and services do all members of a society have a right to?  Does one have an intrinsic right or does one need to earn the right to health care, food, clothing, education, and shelter?
      What do we do with those members of society who do not “earn” their right to basic needs?
      Can one have a just society and allow the laws of supply and demand to determine price, access, and distribution?
      What does it mean to be a world economy rather than a group of national economies?  Can organizations such as the European Union work when millions of refugees from non-members of the Union start arriving at their doorstep?
      What is a free market economy?  What is capitalism?  What is  democratic socialism?  
      Is it just, workable, or fair to be dependent on billionaires to identify and meet needs which a free market economy is not meeting?
      What is a living wage?   
      What is a fair profit?
      Can we have a just corporation without addressing the addictive need to prove one’s worth over other corporate leaders by being paid millions of dollars?
      Where do company/corporations such as those responsible for the professional sports or artistic  stars fit into the overall economics of a society?
      Are we humans at our core so unhealthy that we need “big brother” or the threat of “eternal hell” to ensure that we are our brother’s keepers? 
 
I am sure that there are many related questions which must be asked and examined.  As Mr. Jones points out in his Ted Talk, “…like an addict trying to kick a habit, the first step is to acknowledge that you have a problem.”
 
I also know that it is not good enough for any of us to use sound bites to criticize and complain.  If I am serious about addressing these questions, I must do the tedious work of being able to cogently discuss such terms as free market, capitalism, the basic theories of economists, price fixing,  and many more.  Spending three hours just reviewing some of these basic terms this morning is not enough to participate in a cogent solution.  I need  to do more homework or to  keep my mouth shut.  I am good at spiritual and philosophical questions and concepts. I need to be better at the nuts and bolts of what works or what might work and listening to those who better understand these nuts and bolts.  I applaud those such as Paul Tudor Jones who are willing to  challenge us to begin to ask the tough questions.   I am also quite aware that I going to have to listen for my preconceived prejudices instead of just naming those of others.
 
This is a start, but only a start!
 
Written  February 16, 2016

Magic
 
Today began as a routine morning.  After coffee and responding to email I headed to the gym where I greeted some other regulars, did my exercise routine, and listened to some Ted Talks.  This morning I listened to a Ted talk by Donald Hoffman, “Do we see reality as it is?”  Donald D. Hoffman is Professor of Cognitive Science, University of California, Irvine and author of Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See and coauthor of Observer Mechanics: A Formal Theory of Perception. (http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/HoffmanPubs.html)
 
I am fascinated by the fact that through the “magic” of light waves, density of the material it is bouncing off of, the 130 million photoreceptors , the billions of neurons and trillions of synapses, the chemical balance in my body, the experiences and labels my brain has stored, my brain allows me to process the light refractions, identify something I will call a color (if not color blind) and/or a shape, and very often label that which I am perceiving.  What we perceived can be affected by a change in any of these or related factors.   Yet, if not careful we can end up not very far removed from a small animal in Australia which Dr. Hoffman talks about.  In his Ted talk he says:
“The Australian jewel beetle is dimpled, glossy and brown. The female is flightless. The male flies, looking, of course, for a hot female. When he finds one, he alights and mates. There's another species in the outback, Homo sapiens. The male of this species has a massive brain that he uses to hunt for cold beer. (Laughter) And when he finds one, he drains it, and sometimes throws the bottle into the outback. Now, as it happens, these bottles are dimpled, glossy, and just the right shade of brown to tickle the fancy of these beetles. The males swarm all over the bottles trying to mate. They lose all interest in the real females. Classic case of the male leaving the female for the bottle. (Laughter) (Applause) The species almost went extinct. Australia had to change its bottles to save its beetles. (Laughter) Now, the males had successfully found females for thousands, perhaps millions of years. It looked like they saw reality as it is, but apparently not. Evolution had given them a hack. A female is anything dimpled, glossy and brown, the bigger the better. (Laughter) Even when crawling all over the bottle, the male couldn't discover his mistake.”
 
Very often, as was true for the Australian beetle, we humans are convinced that what we perceive is the entirety of the object which could be a person, a seemingly inanimate object, or what appears to be a process such as light changing, or movement such as that which is created in the process of creating an animated film.  
 
When the beetles discovered the bottles their brains apparently connected the color and the shape with that of the female beetle with whom they would then try to mate.    I am not sure that the thought process of the beetle is the same as it is for we humans, but we do know that we humans sometimes seem to have  a habit or an instinct which directs our behavior.  Very often, though, either because of some interaction with light or sound waves  we have what we have come to describe as a thought. These thoughts might  be largely dependent on past experiences or what we sometimes call assumptions.   
 
As I was listening to Dr. Hoffman I began to think about the process of first “seeing” and then incorporating that into my expectations or past experiences to form a thought. I might even put concepts or ideas into a new patterns and have what is, for me, a new thought – words or concepts put together in a new way. This led me to a new/old thought/question about what is actually happening in the brain at moment.
 
Ask google!  Eventually, I was taken to a site, “engineering.mit.edu” and a section on that site entitled “Ask an engineer.”  I found the following  in the body of a larger article:
 
“When you read these words, for example, the photons associated with the patterns of the letters hit your retina, and their energy triggers an electrical signal in the light-detecting cells there. That electrical signal propagates like a wave along the long threads called axons that are part of the connections between neurons. When the signal reaches the end of an axon, it causes the release of chemical neurotransmitters into the synapse, a chemical junction between the axon tip and target neurons. A target neuron responds with its own electrical signal, which, in turn, spreads to other neurons. Within a few hundred milliseconds, the signal has spread to billions of neurons in several dozen interconnected areas of your brain and you have perceived these words. (All that and you probably didn’t even break a sweat.)
The fact that you are then able to convert the perception of these shapes into symbols, language, and meaning is a whole other story—and a good indication of the complexity of neuroscience. Trying to imagine how trillions of connections and billions of simultaneous transmissions coalesce inside your brain to form a thought is a little like trying to look at the leaves, roots, snakes, birds, ticks, deer—and everything else in a forest—at the same moment.”
 
So, if the reader has humored me thus far, he or she is wondering if I have a point. After all, if the reader wants to study all the latest research on how we create or form a thought in our brain, there are many papers and books on the subject. No reader is going to read a blog to earn his or her PhD on how our human brain arrives at what we are calling a thought.
 
What tickled my mind, once again, was the sheer magic and  complexity of the human brain  In fact, the entire world and how all the parts interact seem very magical to me.   I am again aware of how easy it is for we adult humans to let go of this sense of magic.  One of the qualities which I most appreciate about my six-year-old friend, Sam, is that she still has much of that sense of magic or awe about the world. Her 12-year-old brother, Paul, still retains much of that same sense of magic, but  already, less so than Sam.  
 
I am not ready to concede that we adults have to give up this sense of magic or, if we have lost it along the way, that it is impossible to reclaim it. Many of the people to whom I listen on Ted Talks have that sense of magic. Many of my friends who are artists in various fields are childlike in their pursuit of and enjoyment of that magic. Whether it is a new piece of music, a new play, a novel whose characters explore the unknown, a scientist or a doctor who is exploring a new approach to treatment, a chef who passionate about flavors and textures, or a teacher who loves helping the students blossom into flowers, the magic is everywhere.  Some may attribute this magic to a god of their understanding. Some may just enjoy it as magic. Regardless, I think we can help each other hold on to that child-like excitement. We can paradoxically have a thought about the magic of thought. We can imagine all those protons, neurons, synapse, chemicals, light waves  being delighted with playing with each other.
Just like that little engine that could:
 
“A little railroad engine was employed about a station yard for such work as it was built for, pulling a few cars on and off the switches. One morning it was waiting for the next call when a long train of freight-cars asked a large engine in the roundhouse to take it over the hill. "I can't; that is too much a pull for me,” said the great engine built for hard work. Then the train asked another engine, and another, only to hear excuses and be refused. In desperation, the train asked the little switch engine to draw it up the grade and down on the other side. "I think I can," puffed the little locomotive, and put itself in front of the great heavy train. As it went on the little engine kept bravely puffing faster and faster, "I think I can, I think I can, I think I can."
 
As it neared the top of the grade, which had so discouraged the larger engines, it went more slowly. However, it still kept saying, "I—think—I—can, I—think—I—can." It reached the top by drawing on bravery and then went on down the grade, congratulating itself by saying, "I thought I could, I thought I could."  (Wikipedia – one version of the story)
 
Written February 15, 2016














​

​The chicken or the egg?
 
I imagine that at some point in our life most of us have been exposed to the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg.  It is one of those questions  which, for many people, has a very clear and simple answer.  For many others, the answer is not so clear.  Some of the most famous arguments in favor of first cause (the existence of God)  are those presented by St Thomas Aquinas in his five ways.  Four of those ways are “versions of the first-cause argument.”  For a fuller discussion of  St. Thomas Aquinas’ five ways, one can explore one of the numerous discussion by well known philosophers and/or theologians.   Among those is an article by  Peter Kreeft  on Peterkreeft.com.  These discussions, postulations, or inquiries are often about the universe as a whole.  
 
Dr. James Doty who is a clinical professor of neurology at Stanford University and founding director of the Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education is more interested in what I am going to refer to as the micro systems of the individual human or the individual human community in which one finds themselves.  Dr. Doty is also the author of “Into the Magic Shop:  A Neurosurgeon’s Quest to Discover the Mysteries of the Brain and the Secrets of the Heart.” Dr. Doty recently discussed his professional and personal interest in these questions   in an interview with Krista Tippett on the NPR program, “On Being.”  One can download the audio version of the program or google the transcript of the conversation.
 
The question of first causes in contemporary biology and the neuro science of the human being and the community of we humans determines our approach to health care, the judicial system, and conflict between we humans on the family, local community, state, national and international level. (For purposes of this discussion, I am going to ignore the possibility of multiples universes and life forms.)
In many areas of our life, we seem to currently decide an approach based upon the following assumptions:
 
      The healthy human being, sans diagnosable mental illness which is narrowly defined or a clearly diagnosed brain disorder such as cancer, dementia,  or a developmental disorder, has a brain which is independently capable of making what we consider rational choices. (Given this assumption it is not surprising that sanity and insanity are so narrowly defined in determining the guilt or innocence of an individual in a court of law.)
      The brain makes decisions based upon one’s values or one’s intrinsic goodness or badness.
      We  affect others and are only nominally affected by others.
      Although emotional and other traumas and physical trauma affect the overall health of the brain, in most cases they do not determine how the brain makes decisions.
      Behavior of the group affects us but does not determine and cannot be blamed on our behavior.
      The brain and other parts of the body can only be healed if the damage is minimal, i. e., a cut or broken bone.
One of the exciting opportunities which is available in this period of history is our ability to measure changes in the human body in response to the presence or absence of  stimulation which is internal, external, or both.   The results of this more “evidence based” methodology are the calling into question all of the assumptions which I listed above.  No longer can those claiming those claiming that emotions compassion and love heals be so easily dismissed as religious zealots or academic pie in the sky thinkers.    

If we consider one  aspect of the research which Dr. Doty and many others are conducting, it is now evident that, in fact, meditation, compassion, and other positive forces  can shrink parts of the  amygdala. 
 
Consider the following question by Ms. Tippett to Dr. Doty:
 
“MS. TIPPETT: We mentioned Richie Davidson a minute ago, who’s at Madison and has done some of these important studies. I’m pretty sure I heard him say [laughs] — but I wanted to check this out with you — that they’re doing studies now practicing compassion and actually seeing the amygdala shrink.” 
 
Why is this important? We know that the amygdala is divided into the right and left amydala.  We also know or think we know that
“There are functional differences between the right and left amygdala. In one study, electrical stimulations of the right amygdala induced negative emotions, especially fear and sadness. In contrast, stimulation of the left amygdala was able to induce either pleasant (happiness) or unpleasant (fear, anxiety, sadness) emotions.[9] Other evidence suggests that the left amygdala plays a role in the brain's reward system.
Each side holds a specific function in how we perceive and process emotion. The right and left portions of the amygdala have independent memory systems, but work together to store, encode, and interpret emotion.
The right hemisphere of the amygdala is associated with negative emotion. It plays a role in the expression of fear and in the processing of fear-inducing stimuli. Fear conditioning, which is when a neutral stimulus acquires aversive properties, occurs within the right hemisphere. When an individual is presented with a conditioned, aversive stimulus, it is processed within the right amygdala, producing an unpleasant or fearful response. This emotional response conditions the individual to avoid fear-inducing stimuli.” (Wikipedia).
 
The article in Wikipedia also goes on to state the following:
 
“The amygdala is one of the best-understood brain regions with regard to differences between the sexes. Larger male than female amygdalae have been demonstrated in children ages 7–11,[14] in adult humans,[15] and in adult rats.[16]
In addition to size, other differences between men and women exist with regards to the amygdala. Subjects' amygdala activation was observed when watching a horror film and subliminal stimuli. The results of the study showed a different lateralization of the amygdala in men and women. Enhanced memory for the film was related to enhanced activity of the left, but not the right, amygdala in women, whereas it was related to enhanced activity of the right, but not the left, amygdala in men.[17] One study found evidence that on average, women tend to retain stronger memories for emotional events than men.”
 
What this later part to the article does not address is the extent to which we universally treat male and female babies differently. Many studies have confirmed that as soon as parents know or think that they know the gender of the child in vitro it is likely that they begin to talk differently to that child.  Once the child is born, parents and others  not only encourage the child to explore the world differently based on their gender, they dress them differently, touch and hold them differently and, in other ways, give them different messages. We can and should still ask the question of whether there are innate differences in the male and female brain development, but even more importantly is the question of how various factors such as compassion, play, and early spoken and unspoken messages affect the future size and function of such brain parts as the amygdala.  
 
There are many other questions regarding our future ability to affect how our individual human brains function to suit the needs and conditions of the world we have and the world we want.   The neurosurgeon may, one day, have a 3-D printer in the operating room to make the part of the brain which reflects the mirror image for the autistic person who is missing that part. Perhaps we will be able to adjust the chemical production of those neurotransmitters which affect mood without needing to give person medication which has other side effects.   Perhaps the work of such researchers as Patience Mthunzi will be able to use lasers  as a delivery method directly to parts of the brain without  affecting the entire system.  
 
The possibilities are endless. As with any other advances,  some changes are uncomplicated. The use of meditation or compassion  may not require the involvement of spiritual leaders or moral philosophers.   Some other possible decisions might.
 
Whether it is the recent confirmation of gravitational waves, the amazing effects of compassion and meditation, or the business theories of such people as Margaret Hefferman, what we think we know we may not know and what we think we may not know we may know.
 
The essential spiritual lesson seems to be to  accept the limitations and possibilities of our humans’ brain and hearts.   We have always “known” that the possibility of wisdom arrives via way of humility – that is only by leaping into the unknown that we may know. 
 
Could it be that Dr. Doty is accurate when he suggests that it is “the age of compassion”?  Could it also be possible that  many of the “truths” we think we know such as the ones I listed above, may have to be called into question.  Let’s now ask list those again:
 The healthy human being, sans diagnosable mental illness which is narrowly defined or a clearly diagnosed brain disorder such as cancer, dementia,  or a developmental disorder, has a brain which is independently capable of making what we consider rational choices. (Given this assumption it is not surprising that sanity and insanity are so narrowly defined in determining the guilt or innocence of an individual in a court of law.)
      The brain makes decisions based upon one’s values or one’s intrinsic goodness or badness.
      We  affect others and are only nominally affected by others.
      Although emotional and other traumas and physical trauma affect the overall health of the brain, in most cases they do not determine how the brain makes decisions.
      Behavior of the group affects us but does not determine and cannot be blamed on our behavior.
      The brain and other parts of the body can only be healed if the damage is minimal, i. e., a cut or broken bone.
     
Written February 14, 2016

​Foxy Woxy
 
Mercy me.  I just finished my workout at the gym followed by breakfast.  While on the treadmill I listened to CBS news on the television.  While having breakfast I read the  local newspaper.
 
Although there is the occasional good news story, it does seem as if the bulk of the news is about doom and gloom.  In my role as an addiction counselor and a general life coach, I am also working for/with a  number of individuals who are really struggling with  the feeling that “the sky is falling” – that events which have happened to them or to  people they love  or to the general state of the world in which we humans continue to destroy each other at an alarming rate are going to have disastrous results. 
 
The sky has been falling for a very long time.  There have been stories of the sky is falling for as long as we humans have been living.  Although these stories may not been written down in their current form until the middle of the 19th century, we humans have been predicting the end of the world as we know it for a very long time.  Whether the end was to be visited upon we humans by an angry God or Gods or by the wolf who may have eaten the animal on its way to warn the king (President, whomever), the life of the individual or the world as it was currently known was to be no more unless one could warn the king or queen who would take action to prevent the sky from falling.
 
Many in the United States of America read the version of this story whose main character is Chicken Little.  Wikipedia reminds us however:
 
“In most retellings, the animals have rhyming names, commonly Chicken Licken or Chicken Little, Henny Penny or Hen-Len, Cocky Locky, Ducky Lucky or Ducky Daddles, Drakey Lakey, Goosey Loosey or Goosey Poosey, Gander Lander, Turkey Lurkey and Foxy Loxy or Foxy Woxy.”
 
I have decided that my personal favorite for today is Foxy Woxy. It has a sort of a ring to it, doesn’t it?  Of course, since my mother’s maiden name is Drake, I am also rather fond of Drakey Lakey. Then again Cocky Locky has a certain ring to it.
 
Various situations or even  brain conditions can birth the “truth” about the imminent fall of the sky.  Certainly, the clarity of thinking about this issue improves the closer one is to an event such as the Presidential primaries in the United States, a war such as the one which is raging in Syria, or the action of the infidels as predicted by the radical Christians, Muslims, or  the representatives of other religions. The feeding of certain beliefs can also improve the ability to envision the fall of the sky.  We humans can convince ourselves that the death of a love relationship, the refusal of a relationship to die, the death of a loved one, especially a child, the loss of a job, the need to cull our home of all that we have accumulated, the death of a car, or any number of life events can jump start the journey from here to the sky to the  wave of energy which is so well described by the string theory.
 
Depression, obsessive compulsive illness, a history of being told that one is weak, ineffective, and worthless  and coming to believe those lies, a history of abuse and many other condition can wipe out the ability of one’s mind to access a more balanced view of oneself or the world.  The lies become the truth and “the truth shall trap us in despair”  becomes our reality.
 
If one says to someone that Foxy Woxy is  lying and one has to quit buying into the lies of  Foxy Woxy, one may be accused of making light of the eminent fall of the sky.  
 
If I was a political candidate or a passionate religious leader, the conversation might go as follows:
 
FW (Foxy Woxy):  I am here to tell you that unless you listen to me you are doomed to death – eternal death. Do you want this on your conscience of all of eternity?  Only X can save you from this eternal damnation!
 
Self:  Ahh.  I don’t know.  I don’t know if I believe you.
 
FW:  The sinful and the weak always want to avoid the truth. I tell you that unless…
 
 
One could, of course, go on and on until FW wears one down and one begins to believe him/her/it/them.  One could also:
 
      Correct the lie each and every time it appears, pat Foxy Woxy on the head and say, “There, there we will take care of that terrible lie which threatens to bring down the sky.”  It is, after all the lie which turns out to be the villain.  Foxy Woxy is the lie. Cute little Foxy Woxy is the problem. Bless him/her/it.
      Remind oneself that if the sky falls it falls, one cannot control a lot of what goes on.
Surround oneself with others who are going to tell the lies to buzz off!  For example,  this morning while at the gym, I was listening to a Ted Talk (surpise!) by Patience Mthunzi whose talk is entitled: “Could we cure HIV with lasers.”  If one goggles Patience Mthumzi one get a link to Ted.com and finds out the following about this amazing woman:
“Patience Mthunzi is a research group leader at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research in Pretoria, South Africa. There, she uses laser "tweezers" to try and separate diseased cells from healthy ones. She's also developed a way to use laser pulses to target drug delivery into cells.
Born in Soweto, Patience got her PhD in physics from the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. In 2012, she was named one of 20 Youngest Power Women in Africa by Forbes magazine; that same year she was given the Order of Mapungubwe for her contribution in the field of biophotonics. She's also a TED Fellow.”
 
It is possible that she and other researchers could find a way to use laser pulses instead of medication and cure illness such as the HIV virus which hides inside of cells?  Yes, I said cures.   
 
Unlike Chicken Little or Foxy Woxy some of we humans such as Patience Mthunzi are convinced that we can find a way to keep the sky from falling.   These are the same people or type of thinker who did not panic  when the Ebola virus arrived for its visit or the person who believes in the face of all evidence to the contrary that we humans can find a way to peacefully resolve the situations such as the one in Syria or the one between the Palestinians and the State of Israel. 
 
All it takes to hold up the sky is a Pope Francis who is willing to take the leap of faith that the 1000-year old rift between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church can be healed.  Really!  Foxy Woxy says, “A thousand years!  No way.”  Pope Francis says, “We are brothers” to Patriarch Kirill. (Tampa Tribune, February 13, 2015,p 1,  “Pope, patriarch end 1,000-year Christian rift” by Nicole Winfield, The Associated Press)
 
There, there Foxy Woxy!!
 
Written February 13, 2016

​Chronic Illness as systemic 
 
Chronic illness is, as many of us know, very tough on systems.  At some level most of us understand:
 
      The term chronic means that some illnesses or situations go on and on and on and on.
      Systems are chronically interactional. A affects B which affects C and D.  B, C and D affect A which changes A which changes B, C and D, all of which affect and change each other which ….
      Chronic diseases or situations are not anyone’s fault.
 
Sounds pretty simple and axiomatic.  Yet, even knowing these “facts,” we humans engage in blaming, punishing responses to chronic illness or situations.  We humans would often like to believe that there is a simple solution.  If A would just change his or her behavior then B, C and D would function better which would help A continue to change which would...
 
Let’s discuss these three points one at a time. Point number 1 is about the nature of chronic.
 
Oxford dictionary. Com defines chronic (in English) as:
      (of an illness) persisting for a long time or constantly recurring.
      (of a person) having a chronic illness.
      (of a problem) long- lasting.
      (of a person) having a bad habit.
      (British informal) Of a very poor quality.
Whether the chronic condition is an illness such as diabetes, addiction, dementia, or some other condition which adversely affects the health of the person, it is:
      Frustrating   because we cannot make the other person not have the behavior or the illness.
      Exhausting – the person may need constant care.
      Feels personal – it may often appear that the person does not care how their behavior or lack of taking care of themselves affects the rest of the family.
      Imprisoning – often there is no one to watch or take care of the person or situation long enough to allow the rest of the family to go on vacation or just take regular breaks.
      Shameful – may feel or even believe that others do not  want to publicly expose the person or condition to people outside the family.
      Expensive –  the illness or condition may use up a lot of resources of the family.
 
Point number 2 is that systems are chronically interactional.  This adversely affects the family in the following ways:
      The illness or the condition may affect the ability of the person with the illness or the condition to make what seem to be simple, logical decisions.  For example, the diabetic needs to restrict their diet, possibly take medication, and exercise.  The alcoholic has to refrain from drinking, stay away from triggers (people, places or things which remind his brain of a stored habit/thought) as much as possible.  The alcoholic also needs to use therapy, a 12-step program or some other system to change his or her thinking.  The obvious problem is that the he or she needs a well-functioning mind to make healthy/logical decisions to take these actions.
      The exhaustion and residual effects of exhaustion of the family members who do not have the diagnosed illness or condition will affect their ability to take care of themselves and eventually their ability to make logical/loving decisions. 
      The person with the chronic illness or condition may already feel bad or shameful about themselves.  When the other family members react with blame and anger this increases their stress which may increase the craving for alcohol, other drugs, unhealthy foods, nicotine, or behavior such as anxiety, obsessive/compulsive behavior, or other dysfunction which, of course, makes the person feel worse about themselves which makes the rest of the family feel bad which triggers dysfunctional behavior which …
      We also now know that,  “… the brain’s executive command center does not completely relinquish control of habitual behavior. A new study from MIT neuroscientists has found that a small region of the brain’s prefrontal cortex, where most thought and planning occurs, is responsible for moment-by-moment control of which habits are switched on at a given time. (news.mit.edu).”  Habits are very resistant to change.   This is good for positive habits which help us function. It is great that I do not have to relearn how to type very time I sit down at the computer (multiples times a day).  In other words, habits/addictions are tough to change.
 
Point number 3 is that the chronic illness or condition is not anyone’s fault.   Really!  It certainly seems as if the person with the chronic illness or condition:
 
      Does not care if their decision to not eat the right food, stop their compulsive or obsessive behavior, resume smoking, quit taking their medication or quit going to 12-step meetings, stop therapy, stop seeing the doctor, stop acting on sexual impulses or other “feelings” affects other family members.
      Is a person who decides to “sin,” be self-centered, or otherwise act the same as a self-centered, spoiled, 13-year-old.
 
We humans seem to be especially fond of assigning blame or fault to an individual, a group, or even an country.  When we are able to convince ourselves that A is to blame thus making him or her a bad person, it follows that we need to make A see the error of his or her way.  If we punish or even kill A then the problem will no longer be present.   At some level, most of us know that diagnosing the cause of the problem is not that simple.  If it was then the solution would be simple and effective.    We would punish, lock up, or even kill A and we will no longer have the problem.  What is wrong with this?  The problem with this is that the diagnosis is wrong. If we have an inaccurate diagnosis it does not matter what we do, the system will not get healthy.  Let us, for a moment, consider the family who has a family member who is an alcoholic.   It is true that the problem is partly the addiction.  Often when the alcoholic comes home from treatment, he or she is their “old, charming, loving, helpful, healthy self.”   The other family members will typically respond by:
 
      Relating to the person as healthy and be very grateful.
      Relating to the person as one who needs to make amends and make amends and make amends and make amends for their past behavior. The rest of the family either does not trust the alcoholic to stay healthy or wants to make sure that the alcoholic knows that he or she has ruined the life of the family for years or even forever.
      Some combination of these two.
      Disowning the family member.
 
Much of the time the alcoholic will relapse by drinking or more likely by dropping pieces of recovery and reverting to old ways of behavior which will eventually result in a return to drinking or engaging in other negative addictive behavior – i.e. exchanging drinking for compulsive gambling, sexual behavior, eating or other drugs.
 
If or when the alcoholic relapses the family members will also revert to their former way of responding to him or her.  They are also in relapse mode.
 
If the alcoholic does not relapse the family system will face the challenge of other chronic conditions – physical aging, dementia, death, accident resulting in physical injuries which are chronic and require long-term care, financial hardships because of recession, changes which make family business obsolete, etc.  If the family system does not have healthy tools for dealing with chronic conditions or situations, it will again be chronically ill as a system.
 
With any system life is going to show up.  If we fail to diagnose systematic problems or conditions no matter what the chronic illness or condition is, the system will not heal. Individuals may heal by moving away or somehow limiting contact but they system will stay chronic unhealthy.
 
Systems can be treated and can heal, but only if everyone in the system can agree that the problem is systemic.   To be sure there are still going to be challenges.  Life will show up, but healthy systems do what they need to do to deal with the new challenges. Sometimes, outside help in the form of long-term care or treatment is needed.   The person with acute dementia may need to live in a different setting which has 24-hour care.  The alcoholic may need to live in a half-way or quarter-way house when they complete residential care.  The diabetic may need a regular support group.   The person with advanced Parkinson’s, ALS, or some other physically and/or mentally deteriorating disease may need to live in a different setting.   There are no one size fits all solutions. One fact is clear. If the system does not accept the diagnosis as systemic, no solution will work for long.  When the diagnosis is systemic there is:
      No blaming.
      Focus on problem solving.
      Willingness to make tough decisions
      Openness to loving support which is willing to support and help the system.
      Lots of room for laughter, grief, and other small ways of taking care of each other and themselves individually.
      Much courage and faith in a power greater than oneself – God of one’s understand, friendship, life process, or system.
      Acceptance that when life if tough it does not mean that something or someone is at fault.  It is just tough.
 
Written February 11, 2016

​Love is all that matters – Love is not enough
 
It is February 12 and, thus, only two days from the day on which much of the world will celebrate Valentine’s day – a day of love.  There are many stories about the possible origin of Valentine’s day. “The Catholic Church recognizes at least three different saints named Valentine or Valentinus, all of whom were martyred.” (history.com)
“The oldest existing Valentine card is believed to be housed in the manuscript collection of the British Library. In 1415, Charles, Duke of Orléans, gave his wife a valentine while being held prisoner in the Tower of London. The French nobleman was wounded and captured at the Battle of Agincourt during the Hundred Year’s War.
The valentine poem that Charles wrote his wife was not the typical happy-go-lucky valentine that we may be use to but, instead, was of somber yearning:
Je suis desja d’amour tanné
Ma tres doulce Valentinée…
I am already sick of love
My very gentle Valentine”
Historybyzim.com
 
In modern times there continues to be no end to the poems and songs which celebrate Valentine’s day. This includes songs such as:
"Love Is All That Matters," a song by the British synthpop group The Human League.  (Wikipedia) 
 
I overheard a group of men at Panera’s this morning suggesting that Valentine’s day is really a creation of Hallmark to sell cards.  
 
My personal feeling is that the etiology of the celebration is not important.  Any excuse to stop and remember the blessing of love which touches our life is good as far as I am concerned.  At the same time, I do not think that it should be a day when we compete to see who can purchase the most lavish gift which may have to be charged on the credit card which one is already struggling to pay off.
 
I daily remind myself that the only real power I have is to show up in this moment and to love as best as this human is able to do so.  Often, when I say this, people have “heard” me saying that “love is all we need” and “love is always enough.”  I do believe that love is enough, but the question is enough for what?   Some, most recently a client who is heartbroken, believed that I meant that love is enough to make a relationship happen. Since that has not been the case in a relationship she was hoping would result in a primary commitment, I then suggested that:
      Love is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for a healthy, romantic, and familiar relationship.
      Love is not conditional and respects that the person whom one loves may not be in a position to make a commitment to a primary relationship. 
      Love is a verb which has no expectations or demands.
 
In the Christian religion/tradition, probably one the most famous of the statements about love, attributed to Paul of Tarsus, is from1 Corinthians 13:4–8a
(English Standard Version)
Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. (ESV)
 
Again, it I think that some have read this passage of Paul’s to mean that if love believes all things, then if one believes enough, one will get what one wants or what one thinks one needs.
 
It is my understanding that when Paul suggests that loves believes all things, he is referring to a belief that if one believes or trusts, one will always get what one needs.   What we “need” is to know that we have done our very best to be the most loving person we can be to our self, others, and the rest of the universe today. As a human we are never going to be perfect at loving or at any other action. 
 
Too often it seems that we humans convince ourselves that if we are a good person and love others well that we will be rewarded with getting what we think we NEED or WANT at this moment.  This often presupposes that another person or the world at large is just waiting for us to behave well and as soon as we do something good we will be rewarded with what we think we want/need no matter how that affects others or the rest of the universe.
 
Obviously, many of we humans have a very difficult time accepting that one does the next right thing because it is the next right thing to do.  We may or may not get what we determine “should” be our just reward.  The best I/we can hope for is the satisfaction of knowing we did our best.  If my belief is that to be a moral/spiritual person means pursuing the goal of practicing unconditional love then a life is successful if one does one’s very best to keep coming back to that goal and doing one’s best to achieve it. Being human, one is not going to do that perfectly.   Being human, one will slip into anger, resentment, jealously, pettiness, and expectations of others. One can get better at noticing and feeling those thoughts and feelings.  One can practice “just noticing” them and then bring oneself back to center.
 
Last but not least, love requires an enormous sense of humor. I have this animated film in my head of me constantly changing from this bratty 12-year-old who wants what he wants when he wants it and if does not get rewarded with what he wants he is not going to do anything to this very Buddha like, serene, accepting man who has attained the apex of spiritual maturity. With my energizer bunny battery fully activated, I run back and forth between the two. I am bright, stupid, loving, selfish, delightful, petty, and a host of other characters. Bless my heart.
 
Martin Luther King Jr., for all his achievements, was very obviously a human and, yet, he kept coming back to the commitment that, “I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.”
 
Oscar Wilde, on the other hand, was this delightful elf who is alleged to have said, “Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead.”  My image of Oscar is as a butterfly flitting from one flower to the next spreading his pollen or seeds of love.
 
Love is always enough but, my dear, it is a verb. It is not a ticket disguised as a diamond or a box of candy which guarantees love or anything else in return.  Oh well!
 
(Oscar Wilde and Martin Luther King quotes can be found at:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/topics/topic_love.html#haopyyk77cCUG6lL.99)
 
Written February 12, 2016

​Introduction to the leadership of Margaret Hefferman

I have just listened to a Ted talk by this amazing woman, Margaret Hefferman,  who states what seems to me to be an obvious “truth” or “principle” but which many of we humans seem to find difficult to practice.  I heard this on the heels of the presidential primary election in New Hampshire – a primary won by Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.  On the surface they seem diametrical opposites.  I have a difficult time imagining either one of them creating a viable working relationship with Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States.  Perhaps they would run as co-presidents or as co-vice presidents with Margaret Hefferman as President.  Actually I am not sure if Ms. Hefferman is currently as citizen of the United States. She was born here but was raised in the Netherlands, educated at Cambridge, and is apparently well known in international business circles. She is also the author of  five or more books including:  The Naked Truth,  A Working Woman’s Manifesto About Business and What Really Matters, How She Does It , Willful Blindness: Why Ignore the Obvious at our Peri,  A Bigger Prize: Why Competition Isn’t Everything, How we do Better, and Beyond Measure.
 
My goal is not to repeat or retype the Ted Talk or to retype what can easily be found in her books. I do, however, want to begin with an excerpt from her Ted Talk about “Why it’s time to forget the pecking order at work” posted in June of 2015.  She begins this talk:
 
“An evolutionary biologist at Purdue University named William Muir studied chickens. He was interested in productivity -- I think it's something that concerns all of us -- but it's easy to measure in chickens because you just count the eggs. (Laughter) He wanted to know what could make his chickens more productive, so he devised a beautiful experiment. Chickens live in groups, so first of all, he selected just an average flock, and he let it alone for six generations. But then he created a second group of the individually most productive chickens -- you could call them superchickens -- and he put them together in a superflock -- and each generation he selected only the most productive for breeding.
 
After six generations had passed, what did he find? Well, the first group, the average group, was doing just fine. They were all plump and fully feathered and egg production had increased dramatically. What about the second group? Well, all but three were dead. They'd pecked the rest to death. (Laughter) The individually productive chickens had only achieved their success by suppressing the productivity of the rest.
Now, as I've gone around the world talking about this and telling this story in all sorts of organizations and companies, people have seen the relevance almost instantly, and they come up and they say things to me like, "That superflock, that's my company." (Laughter) Or, "That's my country." Or, "That's my life."
 
She goes on to ask the question, ,”So what is it that makes some groups obviously more successful and more productive than others?  Well, that's the question a team at MIT took to research…Nor were the most successful groups the ones that had the highest aggregate I.Q. Instead, they had three characteristics, the really successful teams. First of all, they showed high degrees of social sensitivity to each other. This is measured by something called the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test. It's broadly considered a test for empathy, and the groups that scored highly on this did better. Secondly, the successful groups gave roughly equal time to each other, so that no one voice dominated, but neither were there any passengers. And thirdly, the more successful groups had more women in them. (Applause) Now, was this because women typically score more highly on the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test, so you're getting a doubling down on the empathy quotient? Or was it because they brought a more diverse perspective? We don't really know, but the striking thing about this experiment is that it showed what we know, which is some groups do better than others, but what's key to that is their social connectedness to each other.”
 
In short, let us imagine for a moment if Ms. Hefferman were the next president of the United States  with Bernie Sanders as one co-vice president and Donald Trump the other co-vice president. One can just imagine her meeting with Mr. Trump, Mr. Sanders, and the rest of the staff on the first morning of the new administration.  Listen in:
 
Ms. Hefferman:  Good morning ladies and gentlemen. I am delighted that we are going to be learning to work together.  I am going to assume that we are all on the same page.  I would like you to consider the following:
      We all respect each other as important and equal members of the team. That includes the Cabinet heads as they are approved, the Secretaries of the various departments, the grounds people, the cooks, the maintenance staff, and all the rest of you who are going to insure that we can function as a team.
      There will be disagreement and conflict about problems/issues and solutions.  This is good because no one of us has the answers.
      Nothing is more important than how we take care of each other and our families.  We know that if we are not healthy we cannot think clearly and compassionately and, thus, cannot be effective at our job.
      We will focus on solutions and not criticism of each other, members of Congress, other countries or other groups.
      Any solution we agree on has to be one which we would recommend to Congress, our national and international colleagues, and friends.  
      If there are momentary issues such as salaries and benefits which prevent any staff person from taking care of themselves and their families, we will find a way to adjust the budget without asking for additional money.  If some changes have to be approved by Congress, we will together draft that proposal and present it to Congress as a unified team.
      Once we have a basic level of trust we will spend time getting to know the esteemed member of congress. We will spend time with them at this workplace and in their homes and we will invite them to spend time with us and our homes.
      Despite our titles and no matter how the press and others related to us, we are a team.
      The roles of myself, Mr. Trump, and Mr.Sanders will, in effect, be that of co-leaders who be calling on you and others to help us design a  system which facilitates us staying focused on finding new approaches to the many challenges which face this nation. Now, we need to redefine leadership as an activity in which conditions are created in which everyone can do their most courageous thinking together.
Mr. Trump:  Excuse me.  We need to tell this staff how they are going to function.
Ms. Hefferman:  I really appreciate you sharing that Mr. Trump.   I know that if we can agree to function the way I am suggesting it will be a learning curve for all of us.
Mr. Sanders:  I think we need to get our proposals in for a single-payer health insurance plan before Congress comes up with another unworkable plan.
Ms. Hefferman:   Thank you Mr. Sanders. I can understand your fear, but I am going to suggest that we take it a bit more slowly.  I don’t think any member of Congress is going to respond well to being told what to do.
Mr. Trump: That is what people understand.  It was not my idea to share this leadership. I know how to get things done.
 Ms. Hefferman:  I know we have the same goals and that none of us alone has been very successful in achieving them. Please be patient.
 Mr. Sanders:  With all due respect, I am afraid we are going to miss our chance to get our bill to them.
 Ms. Hefferman:   That may happen but I am convinced that  attempting to push them will not work.  I am impressed that we are starting off well here listening to each other and not attacking each other. That is a terrific start.
We have a group of really bright, competent people gathered here.   I  also know that we know a lot of other very bright people who want a more just and less violent world.    I know that all of you need to get settled in your offices.  Mr. Trump, Mr. Sanders, and I will be meeting to get to know each other and to begin a discussion of how he can share the duties of our part of the job.  Tomorrow I will like to hear from each of you about what your three top concerns are.   In the meantime, I need to hear from the respective secretaries and cabinet heads about any immediate concerns they have.  I understand that earlier you members of the  kitchen staff had prepared pizza and salad which the secretaries and cabinets heads can bring to my  office in thirty minutes.  Thanks so much for agreeing to be part of this team.
 
Written  February 10, 2016

Moral leadership of the United States
 
This is not an exciting, funny, or entertaining approach to a difficult topic.  This blog contains a number of lengthy quotes and will not be a quick read.  While I could appreciate a Saturday Night Live approach to this topic, that is not what the muse has permitted today.  Perhaps another time.  Or not!
 
In the United States the year is 2016. This is the year when this country will elect a new president.  My friends who live in other countries such as Australia are closely following the rhetoric of the hotly contested race.  Neither major political partly has yet elected a primary candidate.  In the United States, there is first a long season of primary elections in which each party in each state votes for the candidate it wants to represent its party in the race for the next president of the country   Each party will then host a convention in which the delegates from each state will vote based on the outcome of the primary election in  the state it represents.   Thereafter  the nominated candidates from the Republican and Democratic parties plus any other candidates running will attempt to convince the United States populace or rather the relatively small percentage of the populace in the United States who votes, that they are best qualified to lead the United States as President for a four-year term beginning in January 2017.
 
Some years there seems to be less difference in the platform of the respective  parties and candidates than there are this year.  One of the major differences this year is the open stance on such issues as the use of torture in interrogating those who are suspected of having information which might assist in giving the United States government an advantage in any conflict it is fighting.    Torture under a program known as rendition has been used by the United States for some time. Wikipedia reports:
 
“Extraordinary rendition, also called irregular rendition, is the government-sponsored abduction and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one country to another.[1]
In the United States, the first well-known rendition case was that of an airline hijacker abducted in Italy and brought to the U.S. for trial, authorized by President Ronald Reagan.[2] President Bill Clinton authorized extraordinary rendition to nations known to practice torture, called torture by proxy.[3] The administration of President George W. Bush "renditioned" hundreds of so-called "illegal combatants" (often never charged with any crime) for torture by proxy, and to US controlled sites for an extensive, advanced interrogation operation program under the euphemism enhanced interrogation.[4] Extraordinary rendition continued with reduced frequency in the Obama administration: instead of subjecting them to advanced interrogation methods, most of those abducted have been conventionally interrogated and subsequently taken to the US for trial.”   Obviously,  one of the key phrases used here is “Most of those abducted.”   As I recall ,even though  President Obama public stated that torture would not be used under his administration, he would not go so far as to denounce the previous use of it.
 
According to an article by Ginger Gibson, the current republican candidates recently stated the following in a publicly televised debate:
 “Waterboarding surfaces at debate and divides Republican hopefuls”  (February 7, 2016)

By Ginger Gibson
sgnew.yahoo.com
 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seven years after the United States banned waterboarding as an interrogation tactic, two Republican presidential candidates said on Saturday they would revive its use and one of them, billionaire businessman Donald Trump, would go even further.
"I would bring back waterboarding and I'd bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding," Trump said during Saturday night's Republican debate on ABC, days before New Hampshire holds its primary for the Nov. 8 election.
Trumps's rival and a fellow leader in the opinion polls, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, said he would only allow limited use of the practice.
Waterboarding - the practice of pouring water over someone’s face to mimic drowning as an interrogation tactic - remains controversial in the United States even after Democratic President Barack Obama banned use of the method days after he took office in 2009.
The Senate Intelligence Committee released a report in 2014, despite the objection of Republicans, that detailed what it called torture tactics used by the Central Intelligence Agency, including the extensive use of waterboarding.
Waterboarding came into more common use by the United States during the early days of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. American interrogators utilized the tactic to try to garner more information from captives, but critics argued the method never actually yielded any intelligence information.
Republicans have been critical of Obama's decision to eliminate the practice, saying it telegraphs a position of weakness to the nation's enemies and concedes that the United States erred in using waterboarding.
Cruz said he would not "bring it back in any sort of widespread use" and noted that he doesn't believe waterboarding meets the international definition for torture.
"If it were necessary to, say, prevent a city from facing an imminent terrorist attack, you can rest assured that as commander in chief, I would use whatever enhanced interrogation methods we could to keep this country safe,” Cruz said.
Florida Senator Marco Rubio declined to say definitively whether he would reinstitute the use of waterboarding.
"We should not be discussing in a widespread way the exact tactics that we're going to use because that allows terrorists to know to practice how to evade us," Rubio said.
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush said he would not employ waterboarding.
"Congress has changed the laws and I... think where we stand is the appropriate place," said Bush.”
 
According to law.cornell.edu, the terms of the Geneva convention of which the United States is a signatory include:
 
“The 1949 versions of the Conventions, along with two additional Protocols, are in force today.
Convention I: This Convention protects wounded and infirm soldiers and medical personnel against attack, execution without judgment, torture, and assaults upon personal dignity (Article 3). It also grants them the right to proper medical treatment and care.
Convention II: This agreement extended the protections mentioned in the first Convention to shipwrecked soldiers and other naval forces, including special protections afforded to hospital ships.
Convention III: One of the treaties created during the 1949 Convention, this defined what a Prisoner of War was, and accorded them proper and humane treatment as specified by the first Convention. Specifically, it required POWs to give only their name, rank, and serial number to their captors. Nations party to the Convention may not use torture to extract information from POWs.
Convention IV: Under this Convention, civilians are afforded the protections from inhumane treatment and attack afforded in the first Convention to sick and wounded soldiers. Furthermore, additional regulations regarding the treatment of civilians were introduced. Specifically, it prohibits attacks on civilian hospitals, medical transports, etc. It also specifies the right of internees, and those who commit acts of sabotage. Finally, it discusses how occupiers are to treat an occupied populace.”
 
According to Geneva-academy.ch:
 
The United States is a party to the Geneva Conventions, with a reservation on the right to impose the death penalty in occupied territory under the Fourth Geneva Convention even if this was not part of the law of the occupied territory. It also made a declaration at the time of ratification of the four Conventions, rejecting the reservations made by other state parties, but accepting treaty relations with all parties 'except as to the changes proposed by such reservations.' It has not acceded to either the First or Second Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, although it signed both in 1977.
Reservations and statements of understanding were made in ratifying the conventions on racial discrimination (ICERD), civil and political rights (ICCPR) and torture (CAT). The US has not accepted the jurisdiction of the treaty bodies (committees) to consider individual complaints against it under these human rights conventions, nor under the convention on discrimination against women (CEDAW). It has signed, but not ratified, the conventions on economic, social and cultural rights (ICESCR), and the rights of the child (CRC).
The convention on excessively dangerous or indiscriminate conventional weapons (CCW), and its five protocols, have all been ratified with reservations. However, the US has not signed the 1997 Ottawa Treaty on anti-personnel landmines, nor the 2008 convention on cluster munitions.
The US signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 2000, but subsequently notified the UN Secretary-General that it did not intend to ratify the treaty.”
 
As I type I am aware of the following:
 
      My education did not include a detailed discussion of the  historic stance of the United States in its justification for the exclusions it insisted upon in the Geneva Convention.
      The historic use of rendition.
      The role of the CIA and other intelligence groups of the United States in using force to guard what it has considered its interest in the affairs of foreign nations.
      How the United States  justifies the presence of United States troops in as many as 150 nations.
      How we, as a nation, reconcile our right wing insistence on being a Christian nation and defense of the use of Christian prayer in public gathering with the defense of the use of many forms of violence including torture.
      How we as a nation posit that we have a right to do what we deem is necessary to protect our national interest while  defending our right to keep foreign governments from interfering in or having an active role in the affairs of this nation.
 
I am grateful to the Republican presidential candidates for their honesty.  While I am saddened and frightened by the thought that we are publicly providing justification for the entire world to behave as we do, it is a first step towards having a meaningful dialogue.  I fear, however, that we as a country will continue to assert our moral superiority over other nations and groups while continuing to justify our use of torture and any other means to protect the so-called interest of the United States.
 
We need, I believe, to keep opening up this dialogue.  Anyone who votes for any candidate of any political party who is in favor of the use of torture or as Mr. Trumps says, "I would bring back waterboarding and I'd bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding," needs to be ready to accept that we are, in effect, stating that indeed, “all is fair in love and war.”
 
Even when “accidentally” bombing a hospital, we are less than contrite. Our behavior and now our words say more clearly than ever that we believe that all nations and groups can use whatever means necessary to protect what they and their god deems necessary.
 
Every classroom in the United States from first grade to post graduate school needs to be openly  discussing what we,  the United States, wants to be its moral footprint.  Who are we? Who do we want to be? What are the core values we will demand of our leaders?
 
These are tough and necessary questions. If the honesty of Mr. Trump, Senator Cruz and Senator Rubio helps us as a nation to discuss these question then we owe them our gratitude.   So far, I have not seen any evidence that the citizens of the United States are, in large numbers, saddened and frightened by this admission, and I do not think that the votes of those citizens in New Hampshire will be  determined or even greatly influenced by the stance on torture.
 
Written  February 9, 2016

​ 
Twelve-year-old  Paul practices “just noticing”
 
Apparently the schools which my adopted 12-year-old nephew  and six-year-old niece attend scheduled a teachers’ meeting for the day following the annual Super Bowl game.   I am sure that many parents who stayed up to watch the game were not opposed to taking the day off or at least using the excuse of having to care for the children to treat themselves to a few extra winks.  Unfortunately, I know that was not the case with the parents of Paul and Sam.   I had gladly arranged my schedule so they could spend the day with me.   I thought that perhaps we could begin the day by making homemade cinnamon rolls which we could eat with oatmeal.  Sunday I had made up the refrigerator dough.   It was rising over the top of the bowl this morning.    This morning I had measured out the oats, milk, a little cinnamon and a little brown sugar.    I also set out the frozen blueberries to thaw.  After that I melted  ½ cup of butter in the microwave.    I also got out the other ingredients for the rolls and the frosting – powered sugar, butter to soften, vanilla extract, milk, and cinnamon.    We would also need the pastry sheet, flour, and rolling pin.  
 
I had decided earlier that since it is a cool morning I would make the hot chocolate and have it ready when they arrived.
 
I look across the way to the house next door and I see the kids bundle up in their coats and hats on this cool morning.
 
Me:  Good morning.  Burr….  You both look cold.
 
Paul: Not that cold Uncle Jim.
 
Sam:  I am!
 
Me:  Well, come on in and we will have a little hot chocolate before we start making the cinnamon rolls. How does that sound?
 
Paul:  With marshmallows Uncle Jim?
 
Me: Of course! What would hot chocolate be without marshmallows?
 
Sam:  I will get them Uncle Jim.   
Sam gets the kitchen stool and climbs up to get them from the lower shelf.
 
Me:  Paul, how about you put on  your apron and help Sam with hers while I pour out the hot chocolate.
 
Paul:   Okay uncle Jim.
 
They  seem to be on their very best behavior so far this morning with none of the normal sibling rivalry.   Perhaps it is the novelty of both spending the day with me. More often, except when I am with the entire family, I visit with one at a time so that each feels special.
 
I pour the hot chocolate into their special mugs.
 
Sam:  Yum… Now I am getting warm Uncle Jim.
 
Paul:  Thanks Uncle Jim.
 
I take the overflowing bowl of dough out of the refrigerator.
 
Sam:  The dough is trying to escape Uncle Jim.

Me:  Where do you think it is trying to escape to, Sam?
 
Sam: My stomach!
 
Paul:  Sam! (sighs)
 
Me:  We are going to need to roll out the dough to a big rectangle.  What do we do first?
 
Paul:  I know. We sprinkle flour on the baking sheet so it will not stick.
 
Me: That is right.  
 
Sam: I will do it.  
 
Sam sprinkles flour all over the baking sheet.
 
Paul: Now can I dump the dough on the baking sheet?
 
Me: Yes, that would be great.  Perhaps you can then roll it in the flour  so it is all covered.
That is great.  
 
Sam, do you want to take the first turn with the rolling pin?
 
Sam: Okay.   This is hard Uncle Jim.  Paul your turn.
 
Paul:  Okay.  A rectangle Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  Yes, almost as big as the baking sheet.  Here we may need some more flour on the top.  
 
Using my hand, I sprinkle a bit more flour on the dough.
 
Paul you are doing a fantastic job!  That looks good.  Now what comes next?
 
Sam:  I know. The butter.
 
Me:  (I was clearly impressed that she remembered.)   Here is the melted butter and here are the paint brushes. You can both paint on butter.
 
Paul and Sam each take a pastry brush and begin to cover the dough with butter.
 
Me:  Now what?

Paul:  The cinnamon. Shall I sprinkle it Uncle Jim?
 
Me: That would be great.  You are both doing a terrific job!  Did we also want to add raisins?
 
Sam:  Yes, please.  Can I do it?
 
I retrieve the box of raisins and hand it to Sam.  Sam begins to add the raisins.
 
Me: Not too many Sam.  Okay we are ready to roll it now.  Sam how about you get in the middle.  Paul will get on one end and I will get on the other end.
 
We begin to roll more or less at the same speed.  Obviously it does not need to be perfect.
 
I pinch the edges and ends together and then use a sharp knife to cut it. Earlier I had greased the two round cake pans.
 
Okay now we need to be careful and place them in the pans. 
 
When we are finished I cover the pans with a damp cloth.
 
Me: While those are rising let’s have our oatmeal.  Who wants blueberries on their oatmeal?
 
Paul:  Me please.
 
Sam:  Me too.
 
I dish out the oatmeal and place the bowls on the  table where I have already set out the cloth napkins and the spoons.   I then set out the blueberry bowl with a big spoon in it.
 
Sam:  Yummy Uncle Jim.
 
Me: Thanks.
 
Paul:  Uncle Jim, the other day this woman came to class to talk about meditate…  Oh!  Meditat …
 
Me:  Meditation.
 
Paul:  Yes. That was it .  She talked to us about how to use it when we worry  about a test or something.
 
Sam:  What is meta…
 
Me:  Here, lets write it on the board. Meditation.
 
Sam: What does it mean Uncle Jim?
 
Me: Well, Sam, you know how we just used bowls,  brushes, a rolling pin, and a knife to make the cinnamon rolls.  We could call those tools – kitchen tools.
 
Sam:  Yes.
 
Me: Well, we can also have tools  to help us quit worrying except now the tool is not something we see but a mind tool to help us relax and quit worrying.
 
Sam:   I hate to worry.
 
Paul:  Sometimes I worry about a test or whether I am going to do okay on the soccer team and then I cannot sleep.
 
Sam: Sometimes I see something on the television and then I worry that something is going to happen to mom or dad.
 
Me:  Yes, we can all have a lot of thoughts, can’t we?    Let’s see.  How about we make the banana the worry thought and the apple the thought we have in response to the worry.  For example, if I say I am worried about whether the cinnamon rolls will rise, that is the banana. Then another part of my mind might think, “Yes, you probably forget to put in an ingredient or the yeast is not good or they will not taste good.”  That is the apple talking to the banana.  Let’s take the example of  you, Paul, worrying about a test.
 
The banana:  You are going to flunk the exam.
 
The apple:  You are right. I probably did not study enough.
 
The banana:   You are not as smart as the others in your class.
 
The apple: I know. I wish I was smart.
 
Paul:  That sounds just like my mind Uncle Jim.
 
Sam: Me too. I have a lot of bananas and apples in my mind Uncle Jim.
 
Me:  We all do.  Let’s imagine another way for the apple to respond to the banana, but first I think we can turn the oven on.  (I turn the oven on.)   In a couple of minutes we can put the cinnamon rolls in.
 
Banana:  You are going to flunk the exam Paul. 
 
Apple:  Hi Banana. I notice you are trying to scare me.
 
Banana: You are really dumb.
 
Apple.  Hmmm    It is interesting that the banana is trying to convince my apple that it is dumb.
 
Sam:  Uncle Jim, the oven just dinged.
 
Me:  Oh, let’s put the rolls in the oven.  Let’s set the alarm for ten minutes. 
 
Paul:  I can do that.
 
Me:  Okay. Thanks Paul.   I hand him the phone.
 
Sam:  I cannot wait!
 
Me:  Me  either.  Let’s get back to the example.
 
Sam:  This is silly uncle Jim. We don’t have apples and banana in our head.
 
Me: No we don’t, but we do have worry thoughts and then thoughts in response to the worry thoughts.
 
Paul:  I think I understand Uncle Jim.  Sometimes I worry and then I believe that I really am going to fail the exam which makes me feel worse.
 
Me: Yes, that is right Paul. Then if I keep telling myself that I am going to do poorly, what do you think happens Paul?
 
Paul:  Mom and dad say that if we tell ourselves we are going to fail, we will probably fail.
 
Me:  So if we think that we cannot do something we will give up easily and also be more focused on failing than on doing the work.
 
Sam: Uncle Jim you are always telling me that I can do something even if I cannot do it well at first.
 
Me: That is right Sam.  When the worry about failing comes along we try anyway. We don’t know if we can do something or not.  Remember the first piano lesson you had Sam?
 
Paul:  I do. Sam went bang, bang, bang.
 
Sam:  I did Uncle Jim.
 
Me: Yes, but then you practiced and practiced and pretty soon you were making music.
 
Sam:  Yes, you kept saying that none of us could play the first time we tried. We just did not pay much attention to the voice that said I could not do it.
 
Me: That is right Sam. We just notice  the thought instead of letting it convince us we cannot learn to play.
 
Paul: Oh, I get it Uncle Jim.  So when the banana – the voice which says I am dumb and I am going to fail the exam – begins to speak, I usually  agree with it or sometimes argue with it. You are suggesting that I just notice the thought.  
 
Me: That is right.  That is what scientists do, right Paul and Sam? They just notice what is happening or what seems to be happening.  For example, I notice that the rolls are smelling really good.
 
Ring!
 
Sam: They are done uncle Jim.
 
Me:  Let’s check. Well they certainly look done. 
 
 I take them out and set them on the rack. We need to let them cool a little before we frost them and eat them.
 
Here, let’s quickly mix the frosting.  
 
I put the softened butter, vanilla, the milk, and the powdered sugar in the bowl.
 
Paul: I can mix that up Uncle Jim.
 
Me:  Great. Thanks Paul. I hand him the spoon.  
 
I then take and put ½ of the frosting in another bowl.
 
Paul:  They smell really good Uncle Jim.
 
Sam:  Yes, I want one right now, but I do not want to burn my mouth. Then I could not talk!
 
Paul: That would be too bad!
 
Me: Paul.
 
Paul: Okay. I am sorry I said that Sam.
 
Paul: So the woman who came to class was trying to tell us that we should just observe the thought and not argue with it  or agree with it.   Why didn’t she just say than Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  She probably did Paul, but when I am learning something new I may need to hear it said many times before I really understand.
 
Me:  (I notice Sam is just smiling and seeming to stare out into space.)  Sam, what are you thinking about?
 
Sam:  I am just noticing the smell of the rolls, Uncle Jim.
 
Me:  I think I can  put them on these two plates.  Then you two can frost them.  
I hand each of them a cheese spreader which is good for putting on frosting.  I take them, put them on the plates, and then give each a bowl of frosting and the spreader.  They each begin to put frosting on a plate of rolls.  In the meantime I get out three small plates and  three glasses of milk.
 
That is great.   Both of you did a terrific job!  (I put a roll on each plate and set them on the table.)
 
Sam: This is so good Uncle Jim.  
 
Paul: We did a good job Uncle Jim. We could open a bakery.
 
Me: We could do that. They really are good. We did do a good job. 
 
Sam:  Thanks uncle Jim.
 
Me: How about we go to the zoo after we clean up?   It looks like it is warming up.
 
Paul: We can observe there can’t we?
 
Sam:  I can observe too, Uncle Jim.
 
Me:  We can. We can just notice what the animals are doing and we can share our observations.
 
Written February 8, 2016

​Psycholinguistics and the Presidential campaign

It is Sunday morning.  Earlier  I listened to the NPR program “On Being” with Krista Tippett which this week featured a conversation with Dr. Jean Berko Gleason, Professor Emerita of psychology at Boston University.  Dr. Gleason made reference to a Ted Talk by Deb Roy,  an engineer at MIT, who, along with his wife or certainly with the cooperation his his wife, has been studying the interactional development of language with his son using a multitude of video cameras in their home.  I also read the Tampa Tribune of February 7 including a story by David Fahrenhold of the Washington Post entitled “GOP candidates accuse, bicker.  In this article Mr. Fahrenhold reports that both Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz endorsed the use of waterboarding “in certain situations.  Mr. Trump in fact is reported to have stated,”I would bring back waterboarding, and I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse then waterboarding”    Senator Rubio is reported to have said that, “We should be putting people into Guantanamo, not empting it.”   On CBS news while I was at the gym I also heard a discussion about the concern of representatives of the United States, as well as other countries, about the launching of a  long range rocket missile by North Korea, allegedly to launch a satellite.  

As I prepare to write, my thoughts are running around in a million directions.  I  think of  the sage reminder of my friend Dr. Walter Kaufman  the other day following his reading of one of my posted blogs.  Essentially he was reminding me of  the basic rules when writing and attempting to communicate a point.   His basic reminder was to write a thesis statement and stay focused.  He was accurately suggesting that I had neglected to follow this rule in the blog he had just read. I had introduced a number of topics without tying them together under a thesis point or statement.  It was a good reminder that even though I might have a sense that some thoughts all have a central theme, I need to find a way to make that clear when I am writing.

So, with that in mind, I need to ask myself the common theme or thesis point which is coming out of these seeming varied writing and thoughts this morning.   What does the work of a  psycholinguistic professor, the scientific observations of an MIT engineer dad, the reaction to the launching of a long-range rocket missile by North Korea and recommendation of the use of waterboarding and a camp/prison where the United States keeps prisoners indefinitely without due process  have in common.

The work of Dr. Roy and Dr. Gleason as well as that of the work of social scientists and the work of those such as neurobiologists are increasingly confirming that learning is interactional and  all of life forms are interdependent. For example, the study of language confirms that when a child in vitro is exposed to more than one  language the brain of that child will be born with a bilingual brain. As the child develops the adults with whom the child interacts will continue to learn and to develop.  The adults spending time with a child will also adjust their behavior to that of the child and vise versa.   

While we are still leaning a lot about what abilities, including that of language, with which children are born, we are learning and/or confirming that children do need to interact with other people to develop language skills.  Those of us who are parents and who have paid attention also know that we as adults are influenced and affected by  what children say and do.  Increasingly as Dr. Gleason reminds us,” A lot of people are talking about children and animals, and the importance of animals, or how good it is to take a dog to the nursing home, things of that sort. But, uh, the point is, that we have an enormous connection to the rest of the living world and that we love the living world.”

Thus, it is it true  and it certainly seems to be true that  despite some innate abilities and talents, children are dependent on interacting with other humans and the rest of life forms to fully develop language skills and  how they affect and are affected by the language and behavior of we adults.

This background of thoughts made me think about how children might be hearing  what the GOP (and Democratic) political candidates were saying last evening and how the United States and other countries are responding to the launching of a long-range missile by the North Koreans. Specifically I was thinking about future conversations with my adopted six-year-old niece Sam and my 12-year-old nephew Paul. I can well imagine them attempting to understand why it is wrong for them to hurt their friends and classmates and right for we adults to use waterboarding and other techniques of torture.  They might even ask if it is okay if someone in another country in which one is traveling gets angry at them to torture them.  I can also imagine them asking me why it is okay for the United States to keep people in jail for years without a trial. They might ask, “If I travel in another country and someone gets mad at me or suspects me of something, is it okay for them to keep me in jail for years.

Other questions of Sam and Paul to which I might need to respond are:

•    If Oscar (the sheepdog)  is bad can we put a towel over his head and pour water on him?  
•    Why do people get in trouble for punishing a cat or other animal?
•    If the North Koreans  know we have long range rockets  and know we might torture or bomb them why can’t they have rockets like we do?
•    If Tommy is bad can we lock him in the  basement until he is an adult?
•    If I say I am going to torture Mr. Trump will I get into trouble?

Obviously if we are going to study the development of language we must also be concerned about how we teach children to learn to use language. Most parents quickly figure out that they should not use language they do not want their children to copy or to mimic.  We may find it charming and amazing, as Dr. Roy did, when our child learns to copy our excitement by saying “Wow” when he is about to take more than two steps for the first time, but we may not find it cute or charming when that same child says “Oh f…” in public.  Certainly the first time a child says to his or her teacher, “I am going to waterboard you, you f…… b….” it is not going to be well received. 

It may be that children innately know syntax or they may not.  Whether they know it or learn it, they will learn that syntax is used to describe or announce behavior. Otherwise languate is not communication. Then it be nonsensical sounds and have limited, at best, social purpose. While we may alter tonality to change the meaning of a word, we are still going using it to communicate. This is what we will be teaching our children.  

Perhaps some adults have such a finely discriminating mind that they can delineate the “bad” person who deserves waterboarding” from “good” person who does not,  but who decides who is qualified to be that discriminating person?

As a psychologist Dr. Gleason is well aware and emphasizes that language is an interactional tool and that children learn from we adults just as we need to learn from children. The rest of we humans might  be well advised to remember this.

Written February 7, 2016