​Our children deserve the truth
 
I recall an advertisement on television many years ago and one of the lines was “It is not nice to fool mother nature.”    I was reminded of this when thinking of the important role or job of we parents. The lies we deliberately or, out of ignorance, pass on to them is not helpful or kind.  I touched on this subject in a recent blog in which I quoted Bret Stephens’ article in the Wall Street Journal on May 17, 2016, entitled “What’s Socialism?” He was, as I noted, attempting to explain the horrifying conditions in a Venezuelan hospital to his 10-year-old son.  Most of the readers of this blog will know a number of factors have contributed to devastating economic conditions in that country.   The simple  answer is to blame it on socialism in general, on a particular brand or implementation of socialism  or on the particular political leaders.  One could also blame it on the glut of oil and the resulting drop in world oil prices per barrel.  The combination of factors is something which the economists, historians and others will be pouring over for years to come.  The answer that Mr. Stephens gave his 10-year-old son was not overly complicated for a 10 year old.  It was a lie as was the answer that he later in the article says he wished he had given his son.  Mr. Stephens said:
 
“I told him it’s an economic system in  which the government seizes and runs industry, sets prices for good, and otherwise dictates what you can and cannot do with your money, and then your life….Here is what I wish I had said:  Socialism is a mental poison that leads to human misery of the sort you see in these wrenching pictures (photo what is happening in some hospitals in Venezuela)”  The article was  essentially a response to the candidacy of Bernie Sanders which he calls the democratic socialism which is “legalized theft in the name of the people against the vilified few.” (Wall Street Journal, May 16, 2016)
 
Although the answer was simple, it was not accurate and, in the long run this type of over simplistic answer is not likely to help his  son or the rest of our children become better problem solvers as they enter adulthood and inherit the job of the management of families, facilities, cities, and countries.
 
He could, of course, have told his son that socialism is a system for sharing resources.  He could have explained,  “Our family is socialist. We  do not have a separate washing machine, refrigerator, stove, house or other appliance  for every member in the family.  We pool our resources and shared them.  We also have some things which we do not share.  We each have certain clothes, toothbrushes, and other private things which we do not share.  Along with our neighbors, as a community we pool our money and create and take care of parks, roads and many other resources that we share. Sometimes we do this as town or city and sometimes we do it as a state or as a country.   We share a police force, fire fighting force, and some road building responsibility.  We own them together. We also, as a community, hire and pay judges  and build and maintain jails.   We do not share everything.  In this country private people own and run factories which grow and sell the food we eat and the cars, clothes, and many other things that we buy and use.  In some countries they have experimented with all the people jointly owning the farms and factories.” He could have continued explaining to his son, by telling him that the larger the group the more difficult it is to decide what parts should be owned and run as a community and what parts individuals should own and run.   He might even have offered to take his son to a small, cooperative community such as the Bruderhof or Twin Oaks. There are many small communities in the United States who operate as cooperatives on the basis of socialist beliefs.
 
Given that his son is 10 this might or might not be a good time to explain to him how some countries, such as the Soviet Union, did not work well.  It might or might not be a good time to explain to him what happens if everyone in a family, community or country are not treated well.   Later he might introduce his son to theories about political and economic systems.  As we know with children – or even we adults-  too much information at once can be very confusing.  Generally, if we adults are paying attention, children will  let us know when they cannot take in any more information – when we are  giving them too much for them to understand or assimilate.
 
The important point is that we do not want to lie to children or to teach them there are simple answers to complicated issues such as how we create and share resources.   In this country, the disparity between the very wealthy and the former so-called middle class is growing. This is resulting in a lot of social unrest. Although it is easy to use “sound bites” to explain to our children why there is so much passionate debate among political candidates and their supporters, it is not fair or kind to do so.  It may also be tempting to tell our children that the reason for all the terrible fighting and resulting killing of each other in many parts of the world is that there are good people and bad people –to tell them the good people have to kill the bad people.   The history and the roles that individuals and countries played in bringing us to this point are diverse and complicated.  Yet, if we lie to our children by pretending that there are simple answers we are doing us and them a disservice and ultimately making the world less safe and less prepared to meet the challenges which will face us in the future. 
 
In this and other countries we are going to continue to explore a workable intersection between various economic systems.   We are also going to continue to explore social and political systems which come closer to creating a community which is inclusive, vibrant, passionate, creative and just.  Certainly, no matter what the system, dividing the world into the haves and have nots  - into those who “know what is best” and “those who need to be told what is best”  does not work no matter what we call the system
 
We need to prepare our children for a world which requires, thoughtful and often complicated solutions to how we can explore ways of living together.  Lying to them or feeding them half-truths is not kind, fair or realistic.  Our motivation might be to protect our children from difficult truths.  If not careful, we will raise children who believe that the best solution is to numb themselves because they do not feel prepared to deal with complicated social, economic and political issues.
 
Written May 19, 2016

​I want.  I want.  I….
 
In the midst of concerns about the overall economy, the ongoing violence between individuals, ideological groups and nations, and such issues as the exclusionary cost of so called higher education in the United States, I listen to individuals and families talk about their concerns.  I also read about such issues as job satisfaction, the search for meaning, the ability to enjoy the luxuries of urban living, the ongoing issues of the gender disparity in pay, dissatisfaction with “the establishment”, the right of everyone to be treated with dignity, more adult children living  with their parents, and the increasing rates of addiction.
 
My head swims attempting to figure out if I am hearing incorrectly, listening to only a small minority, or am hearing the symptoms of collective schizophrenia.
 
I recently moved to a lovey area in Florida, but soon discovered that it may not be the best location for a single person who enjoys the symphony  and other cultural offerings of the theater, museums and ongoing adult education.  I am the perfect candidate for downtown living.  There are many apartments or condos available in downtown Tampa and St. Petersburgh. There are also a number available in my adopted home city of Pittsburgh, Pa.  “So, move already.” one might recommend.   I am one of those fortunate people who does not have any debt and who can continue to work part time. I have enough income to live in the modest condo I now own and to pay other expenses including occasional travel to see my son, other family members and friends in the Pittsburgh area.  Because  of choices I have made to make my services available to individuals and families regardless of how much they can pay, I do not make enough to live in even a modest  downtown apartment or condo in any major city.    I am blessed to know that this is a result of my ongoing choices.  I am hardly a victim and cannot justify a “poor me” attitude.   
 
I know that I have been very blessed to be born in this time and place and with the ability to make job and career choices.    I can take no credit for the relatively low cost of education when I attended college, the fact that my brain worked well enough and the fact that I have been free of acute mental illness, addictions or other dis eases which would have prevented me from setting and attaining personal and professional goals.
 
I have worked at a variety of jobs since I was a young man. These jobs included working in a grocery store, attempting (unsuccessfully) to sell encyclopedias door-to-door, clerking in a men’s clothing store, working in an office clerk position and later an administrative position for a research company, washing cows and doing other jobs for a diary, operating a jack hammer, being an ordained minister, and as a statistician. I also worked as an addiction counselor and as a general  individual and family counselor.  I have lived in third floor. shared bath walkups, one room apartments, shared housing, a large restored Victorian house, a three room house without electricity or running water with six other people and my current bedroom, two bath air conditioned condo.  Sometimes I have made enough money to travel to Europe and sometimes I walked many blocks to avoid paying a nickel transfer fee.  
 
I knew from the time I was a young child that I had to pull my weight in performing work at home  By the time I was a teenager I was working outside the home to pay for such expenses as my clothes and other luxuries.    I knew when I graduated from high school that I was expected to do something  to earn enough money to pay for room and board if I was living with my parents or to pay for my own place to live.  I also knew that I was “my brother’s keeper”.  Although no one used words such as socialism I knew I needed to share with others.
 
For better or worse, it was a different time than is is now for those who are or will enter the skilled or professional work environment.  Just this morning, May 18, 2016 I was reading an article in the Wall Street Journal by  Lindsay Gellman entitled “Helping Bosses Decode Millennials.” (B1, continued on B7).  In the article “Millennial expert Lindsey Pollak says that she can teach companies a thing or two about young workers. First, they expect work to be meaningful. Second they crave frequent feedback . Third they despise voice mail.”   She is talking about people born in the 1980ies an the 1990ies.   The author of the article goes on to say that there are a host of experts who charge as much as “$20,000 an hour” who say that “they can interpret young worker’s whims and aspirations”
 
I also read an article in the same edition of the Wall Street Journal about the ongoing gender discrepancy for men and women in elite professions “such as doctors, compensation managers and personal financial advisers…” (WSJ, May 18, 2018, A1, Pay Gap Widest for Elite Jobs by Janet Overberg).  Among other factors discussed in the article was the ongoing tendency of women to take time off or work shorter hours so that they can spend more time taking care of their family.   Other factors quoted included whether one was able and willing to negotiate higher salaries  and outright gender discrimination.    The difference in salary can be considerable, but in some cases it is the difference between a high income and a very high income (over $100,000.00).  There were some careers, such as personal financial adviser,  where surveys revealed “men took in about $100,00 while women made about $62,000.”    In addition to the issues mentioned above my experience is that many of the women I know have different work habits.  For example, many of the females doctors I know spend considerably more time with patients than their male colleagues (I also happen to know some male doctors who intentionally choose to focus on spending more time with patients even if this means less income.)
 
Yesterday, May 17, 2016 I saw a headline in the  Opinion section of the Wall Street Journal (A17) by Bret Stephens entitled “What’s Socialism Dad?”  As all my readers know I love it when kids ask such questions. My adopted niece and nephew, Sam and Paul, frequently ask such questions.  He says in the article he told his son. “I told him it’s an economic system in  which the government seizes and runs industry, sets prices for good, and otherwise dictates what you can and cannot do with your money, and then your life….Here is what I wish I had said:  Socialism is a mental poison that leads to human misery of the sort you see in these wrenching pictures (photo what is happening in some hospitals in Venezuela)”  The article was  essentially a response to the candidacy of Bernie Sanders which he calls the democratic socialism which is “legalized theft in the name of the people against the vilified few.”
 
Mercy me.  I read and listened to much more than these three articles. I also listened to some television news commentary from individuals with widely divergent viewpoint, some TED talks and some commentary on NPR.   I also read other news sources.   
 
Is there some common themes or issues for many of us which are not immediately evident.   We would need to consider the concerns of  those supporting the candidacy of Donald Truth, those who call themselves Tea Party Republicans, those who see themselves as devout, (extremist) supports of the will of Allah, those who represent the Occupy Wall Street group, and the millennials as well as the Baby Boomers. those born after the Millennials, the Hilary and Bernie supporters,  and the rest of human kind.
 
It seems to me that there are some common themes which include:
 

• Frequent use of the pronoun ‘I’ even when a member of a movement or group.
• A desire to do something which validates one’s worth and life work.
• A  desire to be part of a community while retaining an ‘us’ and ‘them’ stance.
• A separation of life and work  (Millennials wants a lot of time off work while wanting meaningful work.)
• Luxurious life (AC or heat, healthy food, and the enough money for smart phones, x-box and other “toys”.

 
 
If I am accurate, we are at an exciting time in the history of we humans.   Although many of us may not see that we are asking the same questions and searching for something beyond materialism , we are all asking the Peggy Lee question,
“Is that all there is?”.    Many of us may not yet be convinced that we cannot have it all or that the answer is internal and not external, but I fervently believe that we will get there.  Sadly, we may have to hit a darker bottom before we are able to experience that epiphany, but I have no doubt that we will get there.
 
It would be easy to merely react to what seems to be very radical, self-centered, divergent views.   It is, I think, more difficult or perhaps it feels more risky to connect at the vortex of that pain and fear –than it is to see that we are expressing the same, deep longing. We may be tempted to convince each other that we do not  have much in common but, I suspect, if we just show up with love and listen to the longing beneath the words, costumes and “things we will find that we do have much in common.
 
 
Written May 18, 2016
 
 
 
 
 
 

​The language of spiritual evolution
 
Although I would to be able to say that the writing of a daily blog limits the risk of one using tautologies without even owning them as such, the truth is that I have been a prodigious writer and a poor editor of my own writings for as long as I can recall.   The fact that I do not discipline myself to slow down enough to fully attend to the words and phrases that I use has often resulted in being challenged to explain more fully what I had intended to convey.  Such was the case this morning. I had apparently used the term spiritual evolution recently. My friend Howard asked some days or moment  later “What constitutes your definition of spiritual evolution.”   My first thoughts were in no particular order:

• Oh dear, I have done it again.
• Evolution is clear.  Spiritual not so clear.
• You have done it again – thrown out a term which sounds as if conveys a clear meaning but, in actuality is as clear as a pond following a severe storm.   It is a very muddy phrase.

Many readers may  recall that I have previously stated that I think the clearest example of a tautology is “The red apple is red.” pronounced in such a way which clearly indicates that I have made a very profound statement.  Of course it is obvious to anyone who is paying attention that I have said nothing profound at all.  By definition all red wagons are red.
 
Thus, I might blithely say, The spiritual evolution of X is questionable or something equally inane. The truth, if I really think about it, is that spiritual evolution of all of we humans is questionable.  In fact, the meaning of the term spiritual evolution is not at all clear.
 
The definition of evolution is normally used to mean a developmental process. In chemistry it is “the giving off of a gaseous product, or of heat: the evolution of oxygen occurs rapidly in this process. (oxford dictionary.com).  If we pair it with the word or concept of spiritual we add a level of vagueness or complexity which can and does fill volumes.   By itself the word spiritual is used to refer to some quality or characteristic of we humans which is alleged to be distinct from “material or physical things, values or pursuits (oxford dictionary.com).  Generally the word spiritual is used to denote that quality of we human to somehow rise about the “mere” physical survival which might differenentiate us from the other animal, plants or chemical.  On the other hand, some cultures or groups of people attribute spirit to life forms other than that of we humans in this life journey.  Then the term comes to denote that quality which may be both central to and survives this brief life journey of all of life.  When used in connection with a religious deity one may talk about the “Holy Spirit”.  These days one can also, with a few clicks, seek out the wisdom of the wisest one, Wikipedia.  If one googles “spiritual evolution” and clicks on the Wikipedia.com site, one is whisked off to:
 
“Spiritual evolution is the philosophical, theological, esoteric or spiritual idea that nature and human beings and/or human culture evolve: either extending from the established cosmological pattern (ascent), or in accordance with certain pre-established potentials. The phrase "spiritual evolution" can occur in the context of "higher evolution", a term used to differentiate psychological, mental, or spiritual evolution from the "lower" or biological evolution of physical form.[1]
The concept of spiritual evolution is also complemented by the idea of a creative impulse in human beings, known as epigenesis.[2]
Within this broad definition, theories of spiritual evolution are very diverse. They may be cosmological (describing existence at large), personal (describing the development of the individual), or both. They can be holistic (holding that higher realities emerge from and are not reducible to the lower), idealist (holding that reality is primarily mental or spiritual) or nondual (holding that there is no ultimate distinction between mental and physical reality). One can regard all of them as teleological to a greater or lesser degree.”  (teleological  meaning final design, purpose or cause) (Wekipedia.com)
 
 
I am constantly awed by the thought of some wee philosopher or other scholarly person tapping away at desk in some unknown location so as to make these sorts of google entries available.   How did this “suddenly” happen?
 
At any rate, my child-like mind is more than ever convinced that I had no idea what I was talking about although, in my defense, I must say that there was something I wanted to convey when I used the term spiritual evolution. I do, however, seem to do better when I limit myself to statements about my personal journey and do not attempt to imprint the purpose or sense of my journey on to others.  For me, my own spiritual evolution refers to my attempt to:

•  Be more present to myself and others while letting go of expectations, conditions or dualities.
• Be more open and honest with my true nature  - gifts, limitations, fears, prejudices – and my habit of projecting these on to others.
• By being more present, open and more connected to the reality of the inter-connectedness of all of creation.

 
The opposite of spiritual evolution for me is:

• Falling into the trap of thinking situation X, Y, or Z is a big deal.
• Blaming other people, places or things for my inconsiderate or dramatic behavior.
• Expecting others to take on the responsibility for my happiness or well being.
• Living in a way which creates disharmony with my total being, other beings and all of the universe.
• Not trusting that I am enough which prevents the full realization of my talents and abilities.
• The illusion that I can or need to control other people, places or things.

 
When I am am not focused on evolving spiritually I live with a great deal of ‘dis ease”.  Dis ease means, for me, that there is an imbalance because of how I have treated my individual body, because of how have treated others or because I am taking on responsibility for the dis ease  experienced and/or caused by other people, places or things
 
I am not suggesting that I should be a passive bystander in this life journey.  I am suggesting that I am not in charge of outcome.  If I love X and X does not return that love or even if X blames me for Y outcome and decides to shoot me I am only responsible for the extent to which I am willing to empathize with the pain of X as opposed to becoming defensive and verbally or physically shooting X first.  In other words,  if I become so attached to this life journey that I am willing to forego love then I have regressed in my spiritual development.
 
This morning I was reading an article in the Wall Street Journal by Trefor Moss about Philippine President-elect Rodigo Duterte.  Mr. Moss reports:
 [
DAVAO CITY, Philippines—Philippine President-elect Rodrigo Duterte outlined plans on Monday to curb social freedoms and impose more order on this often unruly nation by cracking down on a range of social ills.
Elected a week ago on a tough law-and-order platform, Mr. Duterte told reporters in his home city of Davao that he was declaring a Singapore-style war on antisocial behavior, promising to ban smoking and drinking alcohol in public places, and to crack down on speeding and drunken driving. He pledged to restore the death penalty, which was suspended in 2006, and allow police to shoot on sight people suspected of involvement in organized crime.”
 
From my limited human perspective it seems as if this man is the antithesis of spiritual evolution.  On the other hand, I am not willing to say that he needs to be stopped by any means possible. If Mr. Duterte knocked on my door I would want to treat him as a sacred part of creation. No matter how disconnected he might be from his own sacred position in the universe I would not want to give him the power to cause me to behave in a way which is contrary to my understanding of spiritual development. It is not up to me to determine his worth or to succumb to behaving violently toward him as a way of preventing what I think is immoral behavior.   If I have an opportunity to non-violently, lovingly help to curtail his behavior I think I need to do that.  If I do it with hate or thinking I am better than he, than my behavior is no better than is.
 
Perhaps in the future I will want to be more careful about projecting my definition of spiritual growth onto other while speaking out against the mistreatment of all parts of creation. Although it is very tempting to judge the spiritual evolution of others it is a full time job attending my my own evolution or lack of evolution.
 
Written May 17, 2016
 
 
 
 

​Trusting our Intuition – Common sense economics
 
It has long been my belief that most of we humans know when something does not make sense. We may or may not know or be able to articulate why something does not make sense, but often, if we are paying attention, we ‘know’ what makes sense or does not make sense. 
 
Learning to trust what I am going to call intuition or the “common sense buzzer” is, for many of us a process.  Many factors can prevent us from fully trusting this internal buzzer.  We may not know the language or we may not have done sufficient research to be able to launch an articulate or cogent argument to connect the dots but we “know” when something does not quite make sense.
 
One of the economic issues which has caught my attention for some time has concerned the argument that increasing the minimum wage would have a long term negative effect on the economy.   I have heard a number of people posit that if the minimum wage is raised to $15.00 an hour (or even less) companies will have to lay off employees or perhaps even shut their doors.  Those who argue this positon claim that this will result in more people being out of work which in turns means that they will not be able to spend money and, in fact, will eventually become homeless resulting in a further drain on the economy.  This argument is based, in part, on the trickle-down theory of economics. The trickle-down theory of economics very simply stated is:
 
“Definition: Trickle-down economics is a theory that says benefits for the wealthy trickle down to everyone else. These benefits are usually tax cuts on businesses, high-income earners, capital gains, and dividends.
Trickle-down economics assumes investors, savers and company owners are the real drivers of growth. They use any extra cash from tax cuts to expand business growth. Investors buy more companies or stocks. Banks increase business lending. Owners invest in their business operations and hire workers. These workers spend their wages, driving demand and economic growth.
 
Trickle-Down Economic Theory
Trickle-down economic theory is similar to supply-side economics. That states that all tax cuts, whether for businesses or workers, spur economic growth. Trickle-down theory is more specific than supply-side theory. It says tax cuts targeted to corporate, capital gains, and savings work better than general tax cuts…
Both trickle-down and supply-side economists use the Laffer Curve to prove their theories…
Arthur Laffer showed how tax cuts provide a powerful multiplication effect. Over time, they create so much growth that make up for any lost government revenue. That's because the expanded, prosperous economy provides a larger tax base. 
Most proponents ignore Laffer's warning that this effect works best when taxes are in the "Prohibitive Range." If taxes are already low, then tax cuts will only lower government revenue without stimulating extra growth.
(useconomy.about.com)”
 
On the surface this theory may seems to make sense.   X makes a lot of money.  X uses profit to expand the business resulting in more hiring which results in more spending and a larger tax base.  As stated above Laffer warmed that if taxes are already low, then government revenue will be lower and growth will not be stimulated.
 
The other result which is not discussed in this trickle-down theory  is that if the average worker is not making enough money to afford the products which are being manufactured then the economy is not going to grow.   Even on a minimum wage of $15.00 an hour one’s gross income if working an average of forty hours a week (not necessarily the case) one gross monthly income is only $3,100.00 (need I remind one that gross income can be vastly different than spendable income).   If I use a very conservative amount of 5% to be deducted for taxes, etc. one’s take home pay would  be $2964.00.  Using 2013 conservative estimates on stretcher.com if one spent the following:
         $1200.00  Housing
         $  444.00  Transportation
         $  220.00  Utilities
         $  378.00  Food
         $  188.00  Health care
        
Balance available:
         $ 534.00
 
Notice that I have not included any money for insurance, clothing, school fees, appliance repair or replacement, equipment for lawn maintenance, laundry, or other basics.   $534.00 a month is not going to cover those expenses.   How many products is that family going to purchase outside of that budget?  None.   How many products are the wealthy families going to buy?  Even if the wealthiest families spend, spend, spend, their numbers (N) is not great enough to keep an expanding economy going.
 
One of the significant concerns of the average person in the United States in recent years  is that their spendable income has shrunk while that of the top 1 % has risen.  It is also true that the number of decent paying jobs in manufacturing, mining or other similar union protected job has decreased.  Many of the new jobs are in the service industry which generally pay a very low amount.  Whether one is working as a clerk for a department store, a low level office worker in a a service company, or for fast food one has seen a rise is expenses and a decrease in spendable income because of decrease in actual salary, paid hours or benefits.  When one shops at the grocery store, pays utilities or other bills, one is acutely aware of an increase.
 
Some of the current political candidates have captured the attention of those frustrated with their increasing inability to take care of themselves and their families.  
 
Something is clearly not working and a lot of people know it.  It is also true that in this age of the internet, information is shared.  In the past one could be fired for revealing even to one’s co-workers one salary and benefits.  This is no longer the case.  If the information is not openly shared by the company enterprising tech person will hack into a computer system and find it.
 
Additionally, there are individuals such as Nick Hanauer who openly describes himself as a plutocrat sounding the alarm.   In a Ted talk on August of 2014 entitled “Beware fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks coming”, he states:
 
“So what do I see in our future today, you ask? I see pitchforks, as in angry mobs with pitchforks, because while people like us plutocrats are living beyond the dreams of avarice, the other 99 percent of our fellow citizens are falling farther and farther behind. In 1980, the top one percent of Americans shared about eight percent of national [income], while the bottom 50 percent of Americans shared 18 percent. Thirty years later, today, the top one percent shares over 20 percent of national [income], while the bottom 50 percent of Americans share 12 or 13. If the trend continues, the top one percent will share over 30 percent of national [income] in another 30 years, while the bottom 50 percent of Americans will share just six.
 
I know I must sound like some liberal do-gooder. I'm not. I'm not making a moral argument that economic inequality is wrong. What I am arguing is that rising economic inequality is stupid and ultimately self-defeating. Rising inequality doesn't just increase our risks from pitchforks, but it's also terrible for business too. So the model for us rich guys should be Henry Ford. When Ford famously introduced the $5 day, which was twice the prevailing wage at the time, he didn't just increase the productivity of his factories, he converted exploited autoworkers who were poor into a thriving middle class who could now afford to buy the products that they made. Ford intuited what we now know is true, that an economy is best understood as an ecosystem and characterized by the same kinds of feedback loops you find in a natural ecosystem, a feedback loop between customers and businesses. Raising wages increases demand, which increases hiring, which in turn increases wages and demand and profits, and that virtuous cycle of increasing prosperity is precisely what is missing from today's economic recovery.”
 
When I listened to this talk by Mr. Hanauer, I was delighted to find someone much more qualified and articulate about the current economy and the trickle down economic theory in particular who could confirm what I already “knew”.  What I had previously thought was confirmed as basic common sense.     His talk was just one more reminder that it would behoove all of us to trust our intuition – our common sense internal buzzer – more often.  Very frequently when something does not seem to make sense perhaps it is because it in fact does not make sense.  We may need to get better at using the vast resources of libraries, the internet, and other available resources to do our research.  We may need to rely on folks who are experts in particular area – who know the language –  but thankfully the wisdom of those folks is more available in the age in which we are living.
 
It did not surprise me that Mr. Hanauer has a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from the University of Washington. I have previously argued that we need to be teaching basic philosophy courses to our very young children.    We need to be encouraging and teaching children to think. Children, if healthy and living in a relatively healthy environment start asking questions at an early age. They want to know how things work. Most original thinkers in all areas of life – music, art, literature, business, engineering, computers – were, from an early age, curious and excelled in exploring putting pieces together. Whether those pieces are ingredients for new food creations, notes and space for music, colors or perspectives for art, a new building, or computer codes the basic approach is the same. 
 
The above is just one example of why we need to trust our common sense buzzer test.   I personally think that we humans know when something does not make sense. We only need to encourage each other to trust that intuitive part of our brain which I think originates from the part of our brain which we usually think of as logical.   We may be missing some pieces of the puzzle but we “know”.
 
Written May 16, 2016

​Creating sacred spaces
 
As a clinical counselor trained in clinical psychology, Christian theology, and Native American tradition I knew that unless I could create a sacred space none of those who entered the space would feel safe enough to continue their healing journey.   I also knew and would increasingly appreciate that I could not expect the person or persons labeled as clients to do spiritual and emotional work that I was unwilling to do.  In other words the counselor could “share” with the “client” their approach to healing, but the pace of the client would need to be respected.   The client needed to trust that they would be treated with loving respect no matter how quickly or slowly they proceeded on their journey.   I knew that respecting the pace of the client (and myself) is enormously important.  
 
It has been common in my profession to frequently give clients a failing grade in their course on healing/growing.  In fact, I failed counseling a number of times.   My first counseling experience was an 8 week, once a week group counseling experience. At the end of the eight weeks the therapist/counselor said to me, while the other group members listened in, “I am so disappointed in you. I had hopes that you were really ready to grow. You did nothing.”   Later, I tried again with a different therapist leading a different group.  At the end of the prescribed course of treatment I got a similar grade.  I had again failed.  The third time I did not fare much better. I felt like the kid in school who was shuffled from school to school only to fail every time. The fact that I was an adult and was choosing to continue to try a different school did not make the experience any more positive.
 
In the long run, this was, very good professional training.  I learned that if I disrespected the choice and pace of the clients or myself I was not going to create a safe, sacred space.    I also learned over time that it was important that I not set myself up to fail as a clinician.  No matter how hard I tried to do my part to create a sacred space I was sometimes going to inadvertently say or do something which the client might hear as negative. For example. I once used the word large to convey to a female client that she was not the 2 inch tall woman she felt like when her husband verbally abused her. Because the woman had been told that she was fat and ugly by her abusive spouse she heard me saying that she was fat.  No amount of apologizing or explaining was going to make me or the space feel safe or her again.
 
One of the presenting issues in which I was trained and then certified was alcohol and other drug addiction. Later, I would become trained to work for/with those struggling with addictions to sex,money, power, food, anger and other behavior.   There are obviously many ways to run from ourselves. 
 
When working with clients with certain addictions it is fruitless to try to do counseling if the client is so impaired that they cannot hold a conversation.  One can, however, assuming it is safe and that person is not passed out,  be lovingly present with others or, at the very least, let the person knows it is okay that they have relapsed.  They have not failed. They and I had been reminded of the power and strength of the addiction. 
 
Group therapy is often more effective when working with/for those struggling with addiction.  If a client came into a group therapy session drunk or clearly under the influence of some other mind altering drug they could be very disruptive to the group.  The challenges become:

• The rights of the other clients in a group session or a group residential treatment setting.
• Writing a clinical note which justifies or validates for the treating agency and/or the the third party payer the fact that the time with the client was spent on the recovery/healing goals.
• Respecting the fact that addiction is a chronic illness similar to diabetes and one can expect relapses.
• Finding a safe place for the person to be until they are able to rejoin the group and/or honoring the fact that the person may not now be ready or able to embark on or resume their healing/recovery journey.   (Few places have the resources to have a group of residential settings where individuals in various stages of addiction or healing can safely live.   I do know of one agency in a Florida city which has several group homes which are open to individuals in various stages of their addiction or recovery.   There is a home for folks who are very active in recovery and free of chemical use or other active addictive behavior.  There is a home for people who are committed to recovery but still periodically relapsing. There is also a safe, clean home for people whose life is again or still controlled by addiction.  The goal is to insure that no matter what home one needs at the moment, there is no judgment.  This is an expensive solution, but less expensive than the person being cared for frequently in the emergency room or jail. It is also cheaper than the emotional and spiritual price the community pays when just one person is treated less then.

 
There are those who suggest or perhaps clearly state that any behavior which keeps the individuals from experiencing the full impact of their disease is harmful in the long run.   Yet, seldom will those same people insist that the diabetic who has been unable to exercise and restrict their nutritional intake to only what is healthy for them should die or suffer with unhealed wounds. Neither will they allow the person having a heart attack, especially if they are considered a “valued’ member of the  community,  to die without any medical intervention.  
 
Ahh, but I digress or do I?  The subject was sacred spaces. Creating a sacred space has to mean, at a minimum, that we take responsibility for coming to terms with our own humanness which then allows for the possibility that we can accept the humanness of others.  Once we accept the humanness of ourselves and others and once we decide that we are all sacred – that all of life is sacred – than we are free to love unconditionally.  Only then can we create a sacred space.  If we are creating this sacred space in the context of a treatment/healing setting we are still going to face some limitations of budget and space.   We are still going to have to face fact that making a space sacred for some might mean temporarily excluding others.  It does not mean that we need to judge those who are unable to be present in a way which honors their own sacredness as well as the sacredness of others.   It is too easy for us to judge ourselves and others.  Too often I have read in the “clinical” notes of my colleagues:

• He/she is not motived for treatment.
• He/she does not want to get well.
• He/she is a sociopathic addict or …
• He/she is a poor excuse for a human being.
• He/she was dirty and disheveled.  (As opposed to he/she is unable to take  care of their hygiene.)

 
Sacred space obviously cannot be abusive – emotionally, physically, nutritionally, or spiritually.  I just advised a friend to leave the house where she lives with her abusive husband.  Yet, if that very same husband, called or otherwise contacted me, I would want and need to treat him as sacred. I have no idea what his demons are.  I do not know what keeps this intelligent man in the lonely, disconnected space of the abuser. I have no right to judge him.  I do know that I am not healthy enough to live with an abusive person and stay healthy myself.  If he came to me for therapy or as someone who has known the family for a long time, I would have to tell him that his behavior keeps love at a distance.  I would have to tell him that he is love and it was safe to allow himself to be loved. Most likely he would be unable to allow that.   The moment he is able to allow that love I would  recommend that we kill the fatted calf and welcome the “prodigal son” home. 
 
There are those who believe that we cannot create a sacred space and kill the fatted calf – that the calf is also sacred. I come from a belief system that states that all life is sacred. If I allow the fatted calf or a stalk of wheat to provide me substance I must remember to take only as much as I need and to do so with enormous gratitude.
 
Sacred space is as much a state of mind as it is a place.   Once we can give ourselves the gift or can claim the right of this space those who are not, for whatever reason, able to enter and share this space will distance themselves. We will not have to push them out.  Our arms will stay open to welcome them into the space anytime they are ready and able to join us.  We will find, of course, that we will also continue, at times to deny ourselves that space and, if not careful, will blame others.  Yet, others do not have the power to deny that space to us. That is, of course, the symbolism, of resurrection.  We can reclaim that space anytime we are ready.
 
Written May 15, 2016
 

​Look at me!
 
All of us it seems
 
If indeed we had a childhood
 
A childhood not stolen by war, alcoholism,
 
mental illness or some other dis ease
 
had moments of “Look at me.”
 
“Look at me, I can lift my head, make noise,
 
create bubbles.
 
Look at me.”
 
“Look at ME!
 
See my success.
 
My new car, big house,
 
bulging muscles
 
designer gowns
 
degrees,
bombs
 
political rhetoric
 
new symphonies
 
my very own art show
 
a book
 
my own show
 
Look at me.
 
I am
 
I am SOMEBODY.
 
Look at me.
 
My gun is my voice.”
 
David Isay, founder of StoryCorps
 
Says “Listening is an act of love.”
 
 “The soul is contained in the
 
Voice.” 
Can my voice be heard from my fingers  or my feet
 
and not just a throat.
 
You see, not all of us have a voice which can
 
form words which travel up the throat and
 
through our mouths.
 
Krista Tippett reminds us
 
Dietrich Bonhoeffer said in his book,
 
“Life Together”
 
“The first service that one owes to others in
 
the fellowship consists of listening to them.”
 
What was Hitler saying to this man in prison?
 
“Listen to me?  I am somebody.   No mater
 
what my father said.” 
 
LISTEN
 
TO
ME
 
Did Dr. Alice Miller listen to Adolf?
 
Really listen?
 
Mother Theresa is reported to have
 
said to Dan Rather in response to , “What do
 
you say to God?”,
 
“I listen.”
 
Rather asks,  “What does God say back to you?”
 
She says,  “He listens.”
 
If God is love and love is listening then
 
we must listen beneath the words to the heart
 
which often cries.
 
We must listen beneath the words.
 
Does my listening say, “You have touched my
 
heart. 
You exist.
 
We exist.
 
There is love
 
We are love.
 
God is love.
 
He listens.
 
 
Written May 14, 2016 after listening to the replay of Krista Tippett’s April 17, 2014 interview with David Isay, founder of Storcorps. I also attended and, hopefully listened to a talk by the noted theologian Matthew Fox on May 13, 2016
 

​Freedom to or freedom from
 
It is that time of the year again.  High schools and colleges are holding graduation ceremonies. I am well aware that some students graduate in December, but this seems to be the time of the year when many notable people are invited to speak to graduating seniors.   I am not surprised when publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, publish articles about free speech. Just this morning, May 13, 2016 the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled “Why Free Speech matters on Campus” by Michael Bloomberg and Charles Koch. (page A13).
 
Most of us have been acutely aware of the seeming intolerance exhibited by opposing sides in the current presidential campaign in the United States.  I am, of course, also aware that intolerance for what others say or do is fueling violent behavior in many places around the globe. All too often the God of one’s understanding is blamed or credited for the intolerant views. We humans often seem convinced that the God of our understanding needs us to protect His, Her or its reputation or place in the hierarchy of this universe.
 
So often as I age (actually it has been happening since I was quite young even by the standards of youthful ageists) I am unsure of the authorship of certain thoughts or questions.  For example, when I was reading about free speech this morning, the questions of freedom from or freedom to rushed to the forefront of my mind.   Perhaps I first heard these questions from Professor Charles West at Princeton Theological seminary, Water Kaufman at Princeton University or one of my esteemed philosophy professors at the University of Maryland.   Perhaps it was first uttered to me by my Grandmother Pickett, my Aunt Pleasie, or my Uncle Harold.  This thought may have been first provoked by my observance of the bullies I encountered as a young child.  I have no idea. Regardless, it seems to me that the questions of freedom to and freedom from  are important questions which we need to explore with our children beginning at a very early age.
 
If one asks the question, freedom to, one might consider:

• The freedom to bully.
• The freedom to kill those who are weaker, smaller, less powerful, or less willing to engage in violence.
• The freedom to hurl hurtful invectives
• The freedom to live off the largess of others.
• The freedom to wear costumes which some might experience as offensive or the freedom to wear no costumes.
• The freedom to worship or not worship a particular deity or no deity.
• The freedom to oppress others.
• The freedom to control or even own own others.
• The freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater.
• The freedom to end one’s life when one chooses.
• The freedom to live with the consequences of one’s actions or to be have a helping hand when one makes a choice with negative consequences.
• The freedom to have an equal share of resources.
• The freedom to have the best health care available.

 
Obviously one can continues to list such questions until one has filled up many pages.   On the other hand, one could think in terms of freedom from and ask:

• Freedom from hunger or suffering in extreme conditions without housing.
• Freedom from the interference of others in one’s life.
• Freedom from bullies or other oppressive behavior.
• Freedom from being one’s brothers (or sisters) keeper.
• Freedom from rules or laws which restrict one.
• Freedom from those who would disrespect the God of one’s understanding or one’s religion.
• Freedom from others determining what is attractive or polite behavior

 
I do not personally like behavior which discounts, dismisses, is intentionally hurtful, controlling or destructive towards others.  I do not think that finances, physical strength, or intellectual strength should be used to restrict the ability of others to live.  
 
I am very uncomfortable with negative name calling or any form of violence – verbal, psychological (sometimes too vague) or physical.   On the other hand, I do not want laws which restrict the right of political candidates to say what they think even if what they are saying is hurtful to me or others. Yet, if their language is likely to cause grave offense to others then, at the very least, it is distasteful and not to be encouraged.   
 
I would certainly defend “the right’ of others to publish drawings or words which are offensive to certain groups.  For example, I would defend “the right’ of Charlie Hebdo to have published controversial cartoons what depicted the Prophet Muhammed and lampooned Islamic radicals.   At the same time, I think asking if he had the right begs the larger question.  Why would one deliberately do something to offend another individuals or group of individuals? I would also ask, “Why posit a God whom one believes one has to violently defend?  Why conceptualize a God for whom one has to kill others?  Islamic radicals are not the first to do this. Certainly the history of Christianity is rife with such examples. To this day, many Christians feel very strongly about their “duty” to defend their right to insure that others do not engage in behavior which they believe the God of their understanding finds offensive.
 
Clearly one has the “right” to engage in behavior which is labeled as free speech. On the other hand, if the exercise of our free speech is the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater is it right, ethical or moral behavior.
 
Rather than talking about free speech we could address the possibility that we could come to an agreement to:

• Not say or engage in any behavior which is intended to disrespect the thinking of others.
• Engage in behavior which is designed to respectfully challenge our own thinking and the thinking of others.
• Practice listening to the opinions and concerns of others.
• Agree to refrain from sound bites which are designed to get attention, but which are not designed to facilitate helpful discussions. I realize that this would severely limit the speeches or talks of many political candidates, some clergy, bullies and others.
• Challenge each other to switch sides of the debate – to be willing to see the other side.
• Open ourselves to the possibility that we do not possess “the answers” or “the ultimate” truth no matter the passion with which we are convinced that, in fact, we and only we have descended from the mountain with the revised tablets. 
• Consider the possibility that everyone, no matter how diverse our opinions are sacred occupants of this planet.

 
In short, it is my considered opinion that a discussion of free speech is only meaningful if considered in context of a goal which is mutually respectful.    As all my readers know I have many very passionate opinions which I do not hesitate to state.  I hope that I can continue to practice the goal of stating them with a question mark at the end.
 
 
Written May 13, 2016
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

​Twelve-year-old Paul asks about for profit and non-profit
 
I, of course, knew that eventually  my adopted niece and nephew – ages twelve and six – were going to want talk about the ethics of money.  Thus, I was not surprised when Paul, the twelve-year-old called last night and asked if he could come over and talk about money and values.  I am sure it was just the first of many such discussions with both he and his sister.
 
Since it was a school night I had already made the hot chocolate and gotten some of the cookies we had made last Saturday out of the freezer.
 
Paul:  Uncle Jim!
 
Me:  Hi Paul. Come on in. How  was your day?
 
Paul:  Good Uncle Jim.   How are you?
 
Me:  I am fine.  Here is your hot chocolate and some of the cookies you, Sam, and I made last Saturday.
 
Paul:  Thanks, Uncle Jim.
 
Me:   What can I help you with Paul?
 
Paul:  Our homework assignment is to write about the difference between a for-profit hospital and  a non-profit hospital.   There was an article in the newspaper about one of the local non-profit hospitals being sold to a profit chain in 2013. Since then they have been helping fewer people. 
 
Me:  I read that story. After the hospital was sold to a for-profit chain, charity care went from 5.1 per cent to 3.2 percent and from $63 million to $51 million in the same period.  Is that the case you are talking about?
 
Paul:  Yes, Uncle Jim.  I do not understand Uncle Jim.
 
Me:  What is you do not understand Paul?
 
Paul.  To start with what is the difference between non-profit and for-profit.  Doesn’t profit mean that you make money?  Does non-profit mean you do not make any money?
 
Me:  You remember when you and Sam had the lemonade stand Paul?  I loaned you the money to buy lemons, sugar, glasses, and straws.  Your parents and I agreed to rent you and Sam a table, an umbrella, and the juice machine.    All together you and Sam spent $48.00.  You sold 50 glasses of lemonade for $1.00 each netting $48.00.  You made a total of $2.00 profit because you and Sam were donating your time. The purpose of making a profit was donating money to the church Christmas fund for needy families.  
 
Paul: I remember. That was a lot of work for not very much money.
 
Me:  It certainly was. If you and Sam had been trying to make money to pay  for rent, utilities,  clothing and all the other things you and Sam want and need, $2.00 would not have paid for much.
 
Paul:  No kidding.  We just bought new running shoes and they cost  $60.00 on sale. Some of the gym shoes were over $100.00!
 
Me: So you and Sam would have had to sell a lot of lemonade to make enough profit to even buy the shoes.
 
Paul:  So a for-profit stand would mean that we were making enough money to buy shoes for both me and Sam.
 
Me:  Not exactly Paul.  A non-profit still can make enough money to pay the employees enough to allow them to pay for food, clothing, electric and other necessities.   A for-profit hospital would have enough left over to pay more money to some of the employees.  Your non-profit stand would do the same and make sure that me, your mom  and dad who invested in the lemonade stand make money.
 
Paul:  So you all would make money just by lending us money and equipment?
 
Me: That is right Paul.  We would be the investors and we expect to make money from helping you and Sam get started.
 
Paul:  Where does the charity come in Uncle Jim?
What if Maria is thirsty and really needs something to drink?
 
Me: Good for you Paul for remembering that this is one of the concerns we need to explore.  So, if this is a non-profit business we can share some of our lemonade with Maria. This means that we have to still pay the bills but me, your mother and dad do not have to have make any money. You and Sam just have to pay for the initial  investment or ask us if we could afford to donate it. 
 
Paul:  So a non-profit still has to make money or get money donated because they have to buy equipment and pay everyone a salary.
 
Me:  That is very good Paul.   So if you and Sam run the business well and manage and have some extra money should you pay yourselves a lot and buy a big house and a fancy car?
 
Paul:  Then we could not help Maria and others who were thirsty. 
 
Me:  That is right, Paul. A for-profit business might tell Maria she could only have something to drink once a month so that there was enough money to pay bigger salaries and to pay me, mom and dad some money.
 
Paul:  But you, mom and dad already have jobs and enough money to live don’t’ you? 
 
Me: Yes, we do but some people want more.  What if we wanted one of those big houses with a swimming pool and someone to clean and someone else to cook and someone else to do yard work? We would need you and Sam to make a lot of money and only help Maria and others a little bit if there was enough money.
 
Paul:  Isn’t Maria important?
 
Me: Well yes, but with the money we were making we would hire her and she would  have some money to buy something to drink.
 
Paul: So for profit is good Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  Well, not everyone thinks so because sometimes some people have a lot of money and some people have very little and still need help.   For example, medical care can be very expensive. Remember we started  with the example of the difference between for-profit and non-profit hospitals?
 
Paul:  Uncle Jim, people have to have medical care  but not lemonade.
 
Me:  Ah!  So perhaps some things could be profit and some things could be not for profit?
 
Paul:  It gets complicated doesn’t it Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  Yes, it does Paul.  Perhaps the teacher would be happy if we came up with a list of questions or issues rather than saying what is best. What do you think Paul?
 
Paul:  Will you help me with those Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  I sure will Paul.  Do you want to type or since it is late do you want me to type while you tell me what to type?
 
Paul:  Will you type Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  Sure Paul. Let’s get to work. We can do a draft and then work on the wording tomorrow since it is late.
 
Paul: Great. Thanks Uncle Jim.
 
Written May 6, 2016

​Hope – learned helplessness
 
Being the spiritually enlightened person that I work so hard to become,  when I had two situations yesterday which led me to feeling helpless I became very frustrated. Neither situation was life threatening or even that important in terms of my overall life experience.   Yet, I noticed myself getting tense, louder than usual and mumbling rather than speaking clearly.   Both situations were eventually resolved. I then was frustrated at myself for getting frustrated.  Even though I “knew” that I would be fine no matter what the outcome of each of these situations I, nevertheless, felt temporarily helpless which  is not a good feeling for someone who is very spoiled in the sense that I am frequently able to set and attain goals. 
 
My experience of being very temporarily helpless was not the same as those who come to believe that they are helpless and, thus, remain stuck in very abusive and/or situations which are emotionally and/or physically life threatening.  I first heard the term “learned helplessness”  when I was working with victims of domestic violence.  For many years, in additions to seeing such individuals in my counseling practice,  I was a member of a Domestic Violence Prevention Committee which helped to advise and oversee the services which were needed if victims of domestic violence were going to  reclaim a life for themselves and often for their children.    
 
I later discovered that Martin Seiligman and his colleagues at Cornell had done a lot of experiments and formulated theories about learned helplessness at Cornell University. (Seiligman & Maier, 1967, psychology.wikia.com)
 
Basically learned helplessness is a condition which occurs as a result of being in a situation in which one is treated and often overtly told that he or she is helpless and unable to take care of themselves and/or their children or others that they love.   In domestically violent situations one is often physically and emotionally abused, cut off from friends and  not allowed access to money, transportation or other means of survival.   Eventually the person who is being treated this way comes to believe that they are helpless, dumb, and generally dependent on their abuser.  
 
This is essentially the same process which scholars such as James Cone described in his theories about the psychology of oppression.     Eventually one is so emotionally dependent on “the master” that the slave quits trying to escape and  is only able to express gratitude to the owner/person who is oppressing them.
 
Two news items stimulated my thinking about these issues this morning.  One was a brief report on placebos which are being increasingly understood to work because of their ability help the brain remember when one was well and then to begin sending healing messages to the rest of the body.   In short, if we think that we are getting something to help us heal our brain will kick into the healing mode.  It turns out that the same process is true with regards to many other beliefs. If, for example, one thinks one is using a golf club which is superior, one’s golf game is likely to improve.
 
The other item which caught my interest was a May 9th article in the Washington Post  by Emily Badger (Wornkblog) entitled “White and Black Chicago are Living in Two  Totally Different Cultures” which discussed an opinion poll conducted by The New York Times and the Kaiser Family Foundation.  The pollsters asked questions of Chicago residents about city services, availability of places to purchase fresh produce,  place to raise children, quality of schools, public parks and recreations, potential gang membership of their children, potential for children going to jail, and other questions.  They divided the respondents into blacks, whites, and Hispanics.   What immediately stood out to me was the disparity between the response of Hispanics and Blacks.  On almost all questions, whites were most likely to have a positive answer. Responses by blacks were the most hopeless.   On most questions Hispanics were closer to the responses of the whites than to that of the blacks.    
 
Why is this?   Both blacks and Hispanics are people of color.  Both face some level of discrimination.   Both groups, on the whole, are likely to have an overall poverty rate much higher than whites. (google poverty rates in US by race on kff.org)
 
I want to propose that the difference is that Hispanics from South American, Mexico and Cuba have a rich background of strong family support and strong cultural history.   Although this is true for many black families, on the whole the history of the treatment of blacks over a long period in this country has been one of systematic denying the means and the consequent hope that they could achieve.   It is also very important that we realize, as with those living in domestically violence situations, but over several generations, the cycle itself breeds hopelessness.    The more one is denied equal emotional, educational, nutritional, and community support the more likely one is to lose belief in oneself. This leads to hopelessness and learned helplessness.   Obviously this is not true in all black families just as it is not true that all white families are able to raise their children in an environment which breeds hope. 
 
Hope breeds hope just as a placebo triggers the part of the brain which believes/knows that it can heal.
 
Shows on television such as Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers have had an enormous impact on the lives of many children, but it is obviously not enough.  We must do more to insure that all families have access to the resources to live in safe homes and neighborhoods.  We must do more to insure that all families have access to healthy food, libraries, and other essentials.
 
All of us we must do more to counter the lies that children and adults internalize - the lies which steal hope in one’s ability to believe in oneself and one’s talents and abilities.  
 
 
Written  May 11, 2016

​Twelve-year-old Paul asks about for profit and non-profit
 
I, of course, knew that eventually  my adopted niece and nephew – ages twelve and six – were going to want talk about the ethics of money.  Thus, I was not surprised when Paul, the twelve-year-old called last night and asked if he could come over and talk about money and values.  I am sure it was just the first of many such discussions with both he and his sister.
 
Since it was a school night I had already made the hot chocolate and gotten some of the cookies we had made last Saturday out of the freezer.
 
Paul:  Uncle Jim!
 
Me:  Hi Paul. Come on in. How  was your day?
 
Paul:  Good Uncle Jim.   How are you?
 
Me:  I am fine.  Here is your hot chocolate and some of the cookies you, Sam, and I made last Saturday.
 
Paul:  Thanks, Uncle Jim.
 
Me:   What can I help you with Paul?
 
Paul:  Our homework assignment is to write about the difference between a for-profit hospital and  a non-profit hospital.   There was an article in the newspaper about one of the local non-profit hospitals being sold to a profit chain in 2013. Since then they have been helping fewer people. 
 
Me:  I read that story. After the hospital was sold to a for-profit chain, charity care went from 5.1 per cent to 3.2 percent and from $63 million to $51 million in the same period.  Is that the case you are talking about?
 
Paul:  Yes, Uncle Jim.  I do not understand Uncle Jim.
 
Me:  What is you do not understand Paul?
 
Paul.  To start with what is the difference between non-profit and for-profit.  Doesn’t profit mean that you make money?  Does non-profit mean you do not make any money?
 
Me:  You remember when you and Sam had the lemonade stand Paul?  I loaned you the money to buy lemons, sugar, glasses, and straws.  Your parents and I agreed to rent you and Sam a table, an umbrella, and the juice machine.    All together you and Sam spent $48.00.  You sold 50 glasses of lemonade for $1.00 each netting $48.00.  You made a total of $2.00 profit because you and Sam were donating your time. The purpose of making a profit was donating money to the church Christmas fund for needy families.  
 
Paul: I remember. That was a lot of work for not very much money.
 
Me:  It certainly was. If you and Sam had been trying to make money to pay  for rent, utilities,  clothing and all the other things you and Sam want and need, $2.00 would not have paid for much.
 
Paul:  No kidding.  We just bought new running shoes and they cost  $60.00 on sale. Some of the gym shoes were over $100.00!
 
Me: So you and Sam would have had to sell a lot of lemonade to make enough profit to even buy the shoes.
 
Paul:  So a for-profit stand would mean that we were making enough money to buy shoes for both me and Sam.
 
Me:  Not exactly Paul.  A non-profit still can make enough money to pay the employees enough to allow them to pay for food, clothing, electric and other necessities.   A for-profit hospital would have enough left over to pay more money to some of the employees.  Your non-profit stand would do the same and make sure that me, your mom  and dad who invested in the lemonade stand make money.
 
Paul:  So you all would make money just by lending us money and equipment?
 
Me: That is right Paul.  We would be the investors and we expect to make money from helping you and Sam get started.
 
Paul:  Where does the charity come in Uncle Jim?
What if Maria is thirsty and really needs something to drink?
 
Me: Good for you Paul for remembering that this is one of the concerns we need to explore.  So, if this is a non-profit business we can share some of our lemonade with Maria. This means that we have to still pay the bills but me, your mother and dad do not have to have make any money. You and Sam just have to pay for the initial  investment or ask us if we could afford to donate it. 
 
Paul:  So a non-profit still has to make money or get money donated because they have to buy equipment and pay everyone a salary.
 
Me:  That is very good Paul.   So if you and Sam run the business well and manage and have some extra money should you pay yourselves a lot and buy a big house and a fancy car?
 
Paul:  Then we could not help Maria and others who were thirsty. 
 
Me:  That is right, Paul. A for-profit business might tell Maria she could only have something to drink once a month so that there was enough money to pay bigger salaries and to pay me, mom and dad some money.
 
Paul:  But you, mom and dad already have jobs and enough money to live don’t’ you? 
 
Me: Yes, we do but some people want more.  What if we wanted one of those big houses with a swimming pool and someone to clean and someone else to cook and someone else to do yard work? We would need you and Sam to make a lot of money and only help Maria and others a little bit if there was enough money.
 
Paul:  Isn’t Maria important?
 
Me: Well yes, but with the money we were making we would hire her and she would  have some money to buy something to drink.
 
Paul: So for profit is good Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  Well, not everyone thinks so because sometimes some people have a lot of money and some people have very little and still need help.   For example, medical care can be very expensive. Remember we started  with the example of the difference between for-profit and non-profit hospitals?
 
Paul:  Uncle Jim, people have to have medical care  but not lemonade.
 
Me:  Ah!  So perhaps some things could be profit and some things could be not for profit?
 
Paul:  It gets complicated doesn’t it Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  Yes, it does Paul.  Perhaps the teacher would be happy if we came up with a list of questions or issues rather than saying what is best. What do you think Paul?
 
Paul:  Will you help me with those Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  I sure will Paul.  Do you want to type or since it is late do you want me to type while you tell me what to type?
 
Paul:  Will you type Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  Sure Paul. Let’s get to work. We can do a draft and then work on the wording tomorrow since it is late.
 
Paul: Great. Thanks Uncle Jim.
 
Written May 6, 2016