​The attraction of tribalism
 
This morning I had an email from a  friend directing me to the book by Sebastian Junger Tribe:  On Homecoming and Belonging.
Previously I had listened to  Mr. Junger’s Ted Talk on the same subject and had intended to order his book. I have now ordered the book.
 
His  primary thesis is that the main reason for PTSD in not the trauma experienced during war, although that certainly plays an important role, but the fact that when in combat men and women are part of a tribe.    They work, sleep, eat, face danger, fight and are totally responsible to and for each other.  
 
While I want to acknowledge the academic discussion about the difference between tribe and community, it is not my intent to make that academic distinction in this brief blog.   If one wants to learn more about this distinction one can google such sites as tribebuilding.com  and look for article on Tribes vs Communities. For a history of the word and concept of tribe one can read the rather extensive discussion on Wikipedia.com. One will want to particularly note the work of  anthropologist Elman Service who “presented a system of classification for societies in all human cultures based on the evolution of social inequality and the role of the state.”
 
Recent events in the United States and Britain might shed some light on the attraction of such groups as the Taliban, ISIS and other radical groups.  In Britain,  a significant percentage of those who voted to leave the European Union blamed the bureaucratic structure in Brussels and the seeming lack of attention to the needs of the average Britain.   In fact, by every measure the bureaucratic structure and cost of that structure in Britain is far more complex than that of the European Union.  There is, apparently, a significant group of people in Britain who feel as if the Britain they knew and felt connected to when younger no longer exists.  In fact I have heard interviews with many who have uttered some version of “I want my country back.”  This has been interpreted as some as an anti-immigration, racist sentiment. In the United States Mr. Trump and his supporters have promised to reclaim the country or to “Make American Great Again.”  
 
Certainly one cannot argue with the fact that for a certain segment of the population of both countries the  sense of ownership and belonging with which they grew up or which they hoped to pass on to their children no longer exists. Whether we are looking at the loss of many of the decent paying factory or mining jobs, a less culturally diverse community, the domination of men in leadership role (the Queen not withstanding) or the absence of gender fluidity, it is clear that “the times are changing.”  For that segment of the population, the sense of who they are and the sense of connection with other like-minded people has been snatched from them.  Their sense of community, as they had either experienced it or envisioned it to be, is gone.   In Britain, at least temporarily, joining with others whose common enemy was the European Union or, in the United States, joining with others whose common enemy was “the establishment”  is providing a sense of community.   The shared passion for a common goal and the opportunity to use that passion to reclaim, for a time, a sense of community or tribe is life giving.
 
The attraction to ISIS, the Taliban, or other passionate, ideological groups offer a similar sense of community. There is purpose, passion, connection and the promise of reward.  It is, the same sort of attraction which Mr. Junger is attributing to combat units.  For discussion sake, I am going to refer to this sort of unit as a tribe.    I am also going to suggest that all of us can identify with, if we are honest, wanting to belong to a tribe.   Even those who may see themselves as less-traditionally social feel when they join other like-minded people feel a sense of home or tribe when they convene as did gamers in the eSports conference in Los Angeles recently. 
 
Britains who passionately disagree with those who wanted to leave the European Union, those in the United States (and even in other countries) who passionately disagree with the Trump community/tribe, and those who deplore radical groups such as the Taliban and ISIS seem not to have the same sense of tribe or community.   They may seem to be passionately against as opposed to.    Even though they may  think of themselves as having a common enemy I am not sure a negative goal creates the same sense of power and energy as does a positive goal.     I am not sure being against something or someone is as powerful as a positive goal. If the goal is to please Allah or even to reclaim a Britain or am United States which no longer exists, that is much different than stopping those who want to prevent that movement from moving forward. 
 
If the goal of the Democrats in the United States is to defeat the Trumpites, I fear that they will lose.  If the goal of goal of the Brits who wanted to stay in the European was to defeat those who wanted to leave they necessarily had to lose and they did.
 
I am not convinced that a strong sense of community or tribe can be created with a negative goal.   If the goal continues to be to defeat the radical groups such as ISIS, I think that victory will be elusive at best.
 
Perhaps the reader can consider the contrast between a marriage between two people who are passionately devoted to  and excited about creating a family together versus the marriage in which the goal is not to have to live alone or to not be less financially abled.   One could also contrast the sales person who has a product they passionately believe will make the lives of their customers better versus the sales person who believes that they have to convince you to give up the product you are now using.    I have worked with pharmaceutical company representatives who told me that they were expected to convince doctors to prescribe their products even if they did not believe it was always a better product.   Eventually these representatives became stressed and their sales went way down. 
 
My point is that it is not enough to be against something. One must be for something.  Even if what one is for is a delusion, if one believes it is possible and highly desirable one will expend 100% of their energy to achieve their goal.  If I believe that my action is going to please Allah and that pleasing Allah or the God of my understanding is the ultimate goal of this life journey  nothing else matters.
 
Right or wrong – good or bad – when someone is in combat and is convinced that they share a common goal of creating a more just or loving world, pleasing the God of one’s understanding or some other important goal it is nearly impossible to defeat them.  
 
If we want to defeat someone or some group we must offer something more positive.  If the end goal is to come home to a lonely, passionless, aimless life then one has no chance of winning long term.
 
Even though some of the proposals of Bernie Sanders were/are unrealistic financially they promised a community in which everyone was equally important and taken care of.    Mrs. Clinton offers what?  More of the same.
 
Mr. Trump offers to “make America great again” – to bring the steel mills (and good paying union jobs) back to Pittsburgh (even if Pittsburgh does not want them and the goal is unrealistic)  - to bring back a way of life where one could be the King in one’s castle, provide for one’s children and know what is right and what is wrong.  This delusion is just as attractive as any provided by crack cocaine or the most powerful heroin.   Dreams are very addictive.
 
It does not matter that the Empire, mostly Caucasian, superior, more educated, days of GREAT BRITAIN are gone and never were for the majority; it is a lovely dream and very addictive.
 
Mr. Junger’s message is worth attending to.  I highly recommend both his Ted Talk and his book. Apply the concepts to a wider group of people and one will be challenged to formulate and articulate a more positive message.   It is not, of course, enough that one has a positive goal. One must create a tribe.  One must go “viral” which will bring the tribe together.
 
 
Written June 28, 2016

​Telemedicine Concerns
 
This morning, Monday, June 27, 2016, I was reading a long article in the Wall Street journal about concerns of using telemedicine.   Some of the issues which seem to concern health care providers, insurance companies, and licensing bodies are:
 
·      What services to reimburse for and how to decide how much to reimburse.
·      Insuring that the rules of each state licensing agency are satisfied.
·      Possible misdiagnosis.
·      Continuity of care.
 
I have been to numerous meetings where the efficacy of telemedicine was discussed.  In my own profession of counseling, I am licensed by the State of West Virginia as a licensed professional and certified by both West Virginia and Florida as an advanced or masters-level addiction counselor.  I am not licensed by the state of Florida because they decided that I would need to take four more graduate level courses including one in substance abuse despite the fact that I had just retaken and passed the addiction counselor certification exam in Florida.   I cannot, in Florida, call myself a professional counselor although if I work for a federal agency such as the Veterans Administration, my West Virginia licensed is honored. 
 
For many years, one of the questions has been whether a person licensed in one state can provide services to a person via  the internet or even phone to a person living in another state.    In my former office in the panhandle of WV, I was less than a mile from Ohio and only a few miles from Pennsylvania. I saw clients in my office from all three states and, of course, was required by my professional ethics and insurance companies to be available by phone to all them, no matter what state they lived in.  Often, family members living in other states would join the designated clients for a family session.  As far as my licensing body and the insurance company was concerned as long as I was seeing the designated client in my West Virginia office I could  “see” other family members since they were not officially my client.
 
If had been working for an insurance company as a patient advocate or in the role of a doctor or nurse giving guidance about obtaining care I would not have been considered providing treatment. Thus,  the only concern would be whether I was licensed in the state in which I was physically sitting at that moment.
 
Licensing and certification bodies are theoretically designed to insure that individuals providing health care and other professional services are able to provide expert, ethical care to individuals and families  Yet, states cannot agree on licensing and credentialing  requirements which would then allow each state to honor the license of another state even though licensing and credentialing exams are frequently national exams.   A federal license with state branches to handle the logistics and to identify and oversee the treatment or rehabilitation of impaired professionals  could easily replace the current state licensing and credentialing bodies. 
 
All of these issues often overshadow the question of whether telemedicine can be used to improve access to care for patients/clients.    Often individuals are not able to travel to the office of a provider.  In my own case, my provider is at the Veterans Administration hospital in Pittsburgh.  When I lived in West Virginia, in order to insure continuity of care, I attempted to access my primary doctor whenever possible.  Since I was over an hour (more likely 1 ½ hours each way) from my doctor, the most efficient way for each of us to communicate was via email.   We also on rare occasions used both land line and cell phones. 
 
As a counselor I provided services in an area where people often lived some distance from my office.  Time, gas money, and access to a safe and reliable vehicle affected the ability of individuals and families to make and keep appointments with me in my Wheeling Office.   Also, some of my clients traveled for work.  Emotional/psychological needs did not always limit themselves to a time when it was convenient for them to meet me in the office. In fact, I have always been required by insurance companies to be on call 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.  Many physicians had the same requirement.   We have been providing telemedicine via phone for many years without calling it telemedicine.   Generally, we not able to charge for those services and, thus, had to insure that our office fees covered the cost of the time spent on the phone.  During those days, no one questioned whether the confidentiality of the conversation with client/patient was in “earshot”  of other family members.  Yet, some professional agencies are now questioning telemedicine’s ability to keep a conversation private.
 
In my mind it is not a question of whether we are going to continue to use telemedicine.  It is a question of the extent to which we can afford to use high quality video, phone and written tools to provide the best possible service for the lowest possible cost to the patient/client and the insurance company.     
 
Let’s take the concerns one by one.  The first concern is:
 
·      What services to reimburse for and how to decide how much to reimburse?
 
Attorneys and some other professionals  long ago figured out how to track and charge by the minute for telephone calls.   With some clients who need frequent service, attorneys are paid a monthly retainer.  Some health insurance companies are now exploring paying a monthly or annual fee per patient to provide whatever services are needed to keep them healthy.  Of course, specialized  or intensive care can be billed separately.    Studies will, I believe, prove  overall health care cost will be reduced if patients/clients are given easy access to their health care provider and do not wait for a crisis which often means more intensive, expensive care.   Will some patients/clients need to be given some boundaries?  Certainly.   We health care professionals can be trained to do that with love and respect while still insuring that people can the care we are reasonably provide.
 
The second concern is:
 
·      Insuring that the rules of each state licensing agency are satisfied.
 
I have already addressed this issue. I think that we need to move to a federal licensing and credentialing system  or federal guidelines of requirements.  I realize that some state licensing bodies and agencies will fight this because they are convinced that only they have the best or necessary rules. 
 
The third concern is:
 
·      Possible misdiagnosis.
 
There may need to be local general health clinics where high quality telemedicine equipment is available.  Already there are emergency clinics in drug stores, grocery stores and other local facilities. Perhaps health insurance including the VA, Medicare and Medicaid could form alliances with them.  Will there still be misdiagnoses?  Of course there will be.   Are there misdiagnoses now?  Yes there are.   Many studies have shown however, that, as we health care professionals practice our listening skills, stay open to the fact that we are almost always making educated guesses and  use more internet tools to remind us that similar symptoms can point to a variety of diagnoses, we will improve our diagnostic ability in the office and via telemedicine.
 
The fourth concern is:
 
·      Continuity of care.
 
My guess is that there could be more continuity of care with telemedicine than is now possible.  My primary care doctor, if he is in the office , traveling on business or “out of the office”  can easily communicate with me. If he is out of the office and I get a message that he will return on such and such date I can then decide if I need to see another doctor at the emergency room or the doctor on a telemedicine call.  I still have more frequent and easier access than if I have to see the doctor in his office.  Again, coordination with drugstores and other local clinics may also be possible.  Eventually we will also have access to our medical records and will be able to share them with other health care providers.
 
I am very fortunate to have health care providers whom I trust to provide competent, holistic,  loving care.   I am delighted when I can see them in person, but they and I are busy, professional people.  We have used the tools available to us. Fortunately my primary care doctor is in a salaried position.     I am not salaried but have managed to combine telemedicine with office visits for fees which are affordable for all my clients and which allow me to eat.   Since I am now semi-retired I do not have to be concerned about insurance company reimbursement but I know that just as many insurance companies have realized that providing gym membership is cost effective, the will discover that using telemedicine is good for their bottom line.
 
The final question is whether a small percentage of health care providers will abuse or cheat the system. Of course; there are some unhealthy providers.   The majority are, however, committed to providing respectful, competent  healing services to everyone for/with whom they work.  Some are not yet comfortable with telemedicine but if  the issue is getting comfortable with the tools of telemedicine, perhaps we can hire a four-year-old mentor!
 
Written June 27, 2016

​Meaning as purpose
 
It was Victor Frankl, survivor of four Nazi camps the death of parents, a brother and a pregnant wife, who wrote Man’s search for meaning in 1946.   He maintained that, for we humans, meaning is not, as Freud postulated, to be found in pleasure but will be found in finding a purpose.   It is not surprising that Dr. Frankl’s name comes up when Krista Tibbett is having a discussion with Dr. Pauline Boss on June 23, 2016 during the taping of the show Oh Being.  Ms. Tippett and Dr. Boss, author of Ambiguous Loss among other books and a family therapist, discussed “The myth of closure”. 
 
It may be easy in these days of instant and continuous world-wide news to think  that that we are the first humans to daily experience personal, community, national and international loss. There seems to be no time to grieve one tragedy before we are made aware of the next one.  In some cultures, such as in the United States, we seem determined to live  as if there are definite beginnings and endings.  We seem fond of telling ourselves and other to move on or get over it.  Whether it is the disappearance of a loved one who might still be alive or might be dead, the death of a child from a drug overdose, a car accident, a mass shooting, or combat we seem determined to distort the work of such learned teachers as Dr. Kubler’s Ross by telling ourselves and others to move through the grief process in a linear manner ending in acceptance.  When we fail to do this, we may be labeled as pathological or as the very least be given the diagnosis of “complicated grief”. 
 
We speak of the loss of the car keys, a marriage, a child, an idea, a dream,  a beloved pet, or a thing such as a house or a favorite painting, as if they were all equal.  Indeed a “thing” such as a painting might be a memorial of sorts which keeps us, at some level, connected to an individual in the same way that the Vietnam Wall memorial, or the memorial to honor the bombing victims in Oklahoma City gives us a tangible way to  feel connected to those who are dead or who have disappeared at sea or somewhere else.
 
Freud is right. We do seem to look  for meaning in momentary pleasures – shopping, gambling, alcohol, drugs, sex, power, roles,  appearance, education, color, neighborhood, cars or other transitory pursuits or labels.  Yet, none of these work for a long period of time. 
 
In the Book of Common Prayer which is used by the Church of England is found a version of the confession which is used in many Christian churches, 

      A general Confession to be said of the whole Congregation after the Minister, all kneeling.
ALMIGHTY and most merciful Father, We have erred, and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep, We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts, We have offended against thy holy laws, We have left undone those things which we ought to have done, And we have done those things which we ought not to have done, And there is no health in us: But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us miserable offenders; Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults, Restore thou them that are penitent, According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesu our Lord: And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake, That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, To the glory of thy holy Name. Ame
 
“A golly, righteous, and sober lifer” whatever that entails. No wonder we return again and again to those things, behavior or substances which brings temporary satisfaction or numbness.  If our meaning or our purpose is  to live a godly, righteous life, we know we will  fail. Miserably! We will fail party because it almost seems as if this goal is to obtuse and illusionary.  It is difficult to grab on to.   Yet, many of us will borrow, adopt or formulate a set of rules by which we will judge the outcome of effort to live a Godly, righteous and sober life.  Every religion lends itself to the temptation to self righteously judge the meaning of the life of our self and others - by the extent to which we obey a set of rules and, thus, please Allah, God, Elohim, Buddha or some other higher being.  The meaning of life is now contained in the ability or lack of ability to obey rules for the sake of obey rules.  Indeed there is no joy in this process. Our consolation for loss is our ability to trust that the God of our understanding has taken our loved one to his  (or her) bosom which “should” please us, but which we may  in our less Godly moments see as a selfish act.  After all, how many souls can one God need to hold to his or her bosom.
 
Indeed, we are left with the only real purpose of life to love and let go.  To love and let go!  And, oh, we must not forget to let go with faith and joy. 
 
Often we utter words meant to be comforting. Words such as:
 
[if !supportLists]·     [endif]Sam or Susie or Pam is now with God. (Isn’t that wonderful.)
[if !supportLists]·     [endif]It was his or her time.
[if !supportLists]·     [endif]Time will heal.
[if !supportLists]·     [endif]Your anger is a normal stage of grief.
[if !supportLists]·     [endif]All things work together for good.
 
These words are much different than the simple “I’m sorry.” which Dr. Boss suggest is appropriate even if the disappearance or the death occurred many years ago. 
 
I have often said to clients for/with whom I work. “Dead is dead. It is very permanent.  We don’t get over it. We may or may not make some temporary peace with it. We may or may not find working for gun control, raising money for more drug abuse treatment, becoming part of a group which works for non- violent conflict resolutions or some other cause does bring a sense of purpose, but we  still grieve. We  still have a hole.”
 
Is the meaning or purpose of this life then to find a way to speak our truth which may then resonate or bring comfort to others who can identify with that truth?   Perhaps our meaning is to return to a state of, as some Buddhists would suggest, of being present with love absent of any judgments. Perhaps being present is the use of whatever senses we personally have available to us (sight, smell, touch, taste, hearing- we may only have one or two of these available) to align with the universe with no purpose other than to be aligned.
 
If we are lucky, we will experience moments when it seems good to be alive; when it seems enough to be alive.  Recently, following a long absence, I viewed the Blue Ridge Mountains. Ahh.., home I felt for a moment.  My son recently wrote to me that when we attended a convention/gathering of other gamers/geeks he felt like he had found/come home. 
 
Perhaps at times our purpose is just to be present with grief – the profound sense of loss.  Perhaps it is to be both profoundly sad and profoundly grateful.   Perhaps it is never either or.  Perhaps it just is.
 
One thing for sure. We humans will continue this seemingly elusive search for meaning.  We continue to search for temporary escapes or diversions. We will, if lucky, refuse to pretend to obey the linear rules leading to acceptance.   We humans are, at our best, very curious beings – always searching for that elusive experience or attachment which will confer more than momentary meaning to this journey.   We must, I think, continue that search and resist the labels which other may apply to us – even the labels of those learned doctors who preceded Dr Frankl and have found meaning in formulating a code book of medical labels knows as the Diagnostic Statistical Manual – edition V if  you please or if you do not please!
 
Written June 26, 2016

Trauma and play
 
Yesterday I wrote about some of the benefits of play for children and adults.  It is beneficial in the development of the brain which, of course, controls other parts of the human body.   I also mentioned that it is beneficial for workers who need problem solving skills to perform their job.  Actually this includes just about every job I can imagine. Even that person who is hired to function as a line person on the assembly line is going to need problem solving skills to deal with sudden malfunctioning of the equipment or issues with a co-worker.  Certainly we all need those skills in our roles as parents, spouses, friends, sons, daughters, neighbors, community members, co-workers and environmental overseers.
 
As a counselor trained in clinical psychology who works with those who have survived living in a combat area, being raped, a tragedy such as 9/11, mass shootings such as the recent one in Orlando, Florida, the recent flooding in France and in parts of the United States or even the fallout from the vote by Britain to leave the European Union.  Specifically, how is it that some people, although scarred for life, survive trauma with a modicum of psychological issues while others, even with intensive counseling or other assistance cannot seem to recover or heal?
 
I first was made acutely aware of this phenomenon when I first started working with veterans of the Vietnam War in which the United States interjected itself.   These veterans had not only the trauma of living in combat – facing constant danger, losing friends, often feeling that as a leader they had made the wrong life and death decisions for the men (and women) for whom they were responsible, they had the trauma of returning home to find that they were considered  bad people for having fought in an unjust war in which the United States should not have been involved.  Often they were treated as enemies rather than as returning heroes who had done their duty to their country.  Previously, I had met survivors of the death camps in Nazi Germany or others who had escaped the Nazi regime. Often, without denying the horrors of what they had experienced they had created a new, joyous life.  The grief and the sadness never left them, but also did not prevent them from embracing the blessings of the present.
 
I set up to read as much as I could about this phenomenon.  Authors, researchers and journalists such as  Dr. Jay Lifton, Gloria Emerson, Dr. Alice Miller and a host of others helped me to gain a better understanding.     Veterans themselves who were friends, colleagues and clients were also enormously generous with their time and patience. To all of these people I owe a debt of gratitude.  
 
I discovered that there were several factors or abilities which those surviving combat and remaining emotionally healthy had in common.
 
·     They had learned to play and enjoy life prior to going into a combat situation.
·     They had a history of being problem solvers.
·     They did not run from sad or other uncomfortable feelings.
·     They did not use alcohol or other drugs to run from/hide from their feelings.
·     They had the ability when combat did not occupy their full attention to take a moment to enjoy a sunset, a sunrise, a letter from home, the gift of friendships, a package of goodies from home or other positive events, but could immediately return their attention back to combat related danger or other necessary task  any time.
·     When they returned home they believed that they had a purpose whether that was helping other returning veterans and the family members of veterans still serving, working at a profession/job they thought was important or teaching their children or others what they had learned.
·     If needed they could ask for assistance. Dealing with the issue(s); a test of their toughness as a male (or a female).
 
When I begin to work more with those who had lived through the trauma of rape, domestic violence,  or oppression because of race, sexual orientation, gender, culture or other factors  I asked some of the same questions.  Again, although scarred,  I was curious  about what distinguished those who were able to claim or reclaim a life of joy and purpose without denying the deep wounds and scars they would carry throughout their lives. For the most part, the same habits, abilities and overall life dance carried them through and beyond the trauma.
 
As I discussed yesterday, play allows all of us to explore the world and our dance with the world around us.  In play there is not generally a lot of rules (other than basic safety) and curiosity is free to roam around. Since there is no time clock or preconceived outcome one is free to be patient, fail, and try another hundred times.   I imagined artists such as Georgia O’Keeffe  who  long after establishing herself as a well-respected artist commanding huge dollars for her work, painted the same flower over 100 times in a very experimental and playful manner. The first 99 might were not wrong but not what she was attempting to achieve.  In my mind she was having enormous fun.
 
I can imagine the composer who first worked with dissonant chords.  No one seems to know who first explored them.   Could it have been Sergio Rachmaninoff, Samuel Barber, John Travener,  Eric Whitacre, a jazz musician or someone fooling around on an instrument in a remote section of Africa?  Someone had the courage to explore and dare to call it music.
 
Most, and I suspect all, of we adults and our children are going to experience major trauma in our life journey. In fact, we and our children are probably going to experiment trauma a number of times.  We need  to prepare our children for a dance of life which allows for healing, scarring and embracing the next phase of the dance.   We can encourage our children to explore some of the skills I have outlined above.  We can model the necessity of playing to sharpen or to keep sharp our problem solving skills.
 
Written June 25, 2016


​

​A serious time. Time to play.
 
This morning, June 24, 2016, I woke up to the news of the results of the vote in Britain to leave the European Union.  Shortly, I was also reminded of the presidential election campaign in the United States, the ongoing violence in the world including the recent mass shooting in Orlando, Florida which is close to my current home and other very serious news.
 
Obviously, it is a time in the history of we humans (and all the rest of creation) when we need to devote a lot of our time and energy to all the ways we humans are continuing to destroy each other and the environment.   We need to do some serious problem solving.
 
In the early seventies, even prior to the worsening of the epidemic of addiction to drugs which is destroying so many lives, I was enrolled in a residential training center in the San Francisco Bay area.  This program required that professional counselors who were working for/with those dealing with alcohol and other drug addictions attend a six or nine week (I cannot recall for sure but it seems like six or nine weeks) training program which required the attendees to attend intensive educational sessions in which we looked at our own psychological histories and surreptitiously attended treatment programs as clients.  It was often a very tense and emotionally draining program.  One of the requirements which sometimes produced the most tension was to work with the staff of a company which “taught” adults how to play.  Many of us were very bright, educated, responsible people who had long ago forgotten, if we ever knew, the essential role of play in stimulating our minds and, thus, opening them to being more curious and more creative problem solvers.   
 
Several years later I would take professional dance classes, hire a movement therapy therapist, and later study movement therapy.   This was prior to discovering and working with Mark Taylor and the Mind-Body Consciousness organization.    Mark, a professional dancer, and his wife have a son who was born developmentally challenged. Mark and his wife searched for techniques for helping their son to maximize his abilities and discovered the mind-body connection.   There were able to learn the connection between particular body movements and stimulation of parts of the brain such as the part which is responsible for speech development.   In fact, they discovered that every movement stimulates a part of the brain.   Later Mark would begin to become a certified mind-body teacher and  conduct workshops for professionals in many countries.   I was fortunate enough to study with him.   
 
When I first started studying with Mark I did not immediately make the connection between movement and play, but at some point “the light bulb” went off.  As a person who had taken a lot of undergraduate and graduate courses in child psychology I was familiar with the important of play for children.    Little did I realize that the play and movement was just as important for adults.
 
Some corporations who are looking for individuals who problem solve will now look for people who are skilled at working with their hands.  Some even look for adults who play well.  They now realize that hand movement and movement in general  stimulates problem solving skills.  I am not sure, however, that using one’s fingers on the phone and the computer keyboard to the near exclusion of other movement completely meets the daily minimum requirement for an maintaining an active mind.
 
It may have been serendipitous that on this very serious day that, while at the gym, I turned to Ted Talks and “happened” on one by Stuart Brown entitled Play is more than just fun.   Dr. Brown is a medical doctor and founder of The Institute for Play.   He is well aware of the importance of the connection between curiosity, creativity, play and movement.  
 
I have many in my life who remind me of the importance of play. For example, my young friend Gloria, age 3, was born a budding scientist.  As the youngest child of playful parents she has been inviting them to rediscover gravity, energy, the relationships between liquids and other materials, sound, and dance since she was just home from the hospital.      She, like her siblings, is curious about the world and her relationship to it.   Her parents appreciate and indulge her curiosity and adventurous spirit.    
 
My friend Becky, an educator, appreciates the role of play for humans and for her feline relatives.   Playtime is incidentally bed making time.  She recently did a workshop on the health benefits of giggling. 
 
It is easy for this human to get sucked into the seriousness of this life journey.   After all, I am a very busy man.  Yet, I go to the gym to play with folks while also exercising (others say I am just socializing).  I go to Panera’s after the gym to laugh and joke with the other regular staff and customers and, hopefully, manage to get some work done.   Many of us use Panera’s as our office.   
 
There are those who are convinced that I need to conduct myself more professionally and to approach gym time more seriously.  In fact, there are those who are convinced that my leprechaun approach to life is not very respectful of the tragic times in which we live and, yet….
 
I do not  have the creative talent with my hands which was the birthright of my father and was given to siblings, especially my brother. Yet, I grew up, as did my siblings, learning that if one wanted to eat and be housed one had to perform all the requisite physical chores of hauling water, planting and maintaining a garden, caring for the chickens and other animals, and chopping wood.  Now I have running water, electricity, indoor plumbing, the green grocer and both a car and a bicycle.    Now I go to the gym and make intentional decisions to ride my bike. Fortunately, I also clean my own house although even that chore is not as onerous as when living in the country with wood burning stoves and a well from which to fetch water. 
 
I am blessed with friends such as Gloria and Becky who are just as silly and playful as am I.    They will remind me that if I if we are going to tackle serious issues such as physical and emotional violence, hunger, immigration, racism, radicalism and other life issues we best remember to play – to open up those channels of curiosity and creative problem solving.
 
Tomorrow I will let me mind wander around the relationship of dealing with trauma and the ability to play.
 
 
Written June 24, 2016

​Six-year old Sam is anxious
 
My six-year old adopted niece and I have not seen each other much recently  She, her 12-year old brother Paul and their parents were on  vacation and then I was gone for a couple of weeks.  I was delighted when she called and asked if she would come over this morning.   I have defrosted an English muffin which she loves.  I also have poured her a glass of milk. 
Here she comes know.
 
There is a light knock on the kitchen door.
 
Me: Come in Sam.
 
Sam comes in and gives me a big hug.
 
Sam:  Hi Uncle Jim.  I have missed you.  Did you have a good time?  We had a really good time.
 
Me: Hi Sam. I had a very good time, but I missed  you a lot.  I am glad you, Paul and the family had a good time.  Where did you go?
 
Sam: You know where we went  Uncle Jim. We went to visit grandma and grandpa on the farm in Ohio.   I like seeing the chickens and the cows.  Grandma tried to teach me to milk the cow, but I did not do well.  I also got to get the eggs in the morning. At first I was frightened the chickens would be mad at me, but  they did not seem to mind when I got the eggs.
 
Me:  That is great Sam.   I am glad you had such a good time.    Are you ready for your English muffin and milk?
 
Sam: Thanks Uncle Jim.  Could I have butter and honey on my muffin?
 
Me: You sure can Sam.  Here you are.
 
Sam:  Thanks.  Uncle Jim, grandpa and dad got into lots of arguments about  the political candidates and about guns and stuff.   Dad is still angry at grandpa.   I get scared when they argue or when dad is angry.
 
Me:   Why do you think you get so scared Sam?
 
Sam:  I don’t know Uncle Jim.  Dad says that grandpa is stupid and grandpa says that dad does not realize how bad people are.  Then they stomp off and do not speak to each other.  I get scared when people fight.  Sometimes people get angry and shoot each other. 
 
Me:  You do not think that your grandpa and your dad are going to shoot anyone do you Sam?
 
Sam:  I know that grandpa and dad love each other  but sometimes people get really angry and someone gets killed.   We heard about that shooting in the club  where a lot of people got killed.  The man was very angry.
 
Me:  There are no guns in your house Sam.
 
Sam:  I know but grandpa and grandma have guns. 
 
Me:  Yes, they live on a farm and sometimes hunt.  Occasionally they also have to protect the other animals.
 
Sam:  But if they will shoot an animal to protect another animal would they shoot a person if they were mad at them?  Would grandpa shoot dad?
 
Me:  That is what you are afraid of?
 
Sam:  Well, I don’t really think grandpa  would shoot dad, but I still get very scared when they fight.
 
Me:  Yes, I can understand that. 
 
Sam:  I am glad we do not have guns but grandpa thinks we should have a gun for protection and that all of us should learn how to shoot it.
 
Me:  Really!  What do you think Sam?
 
Sam;  Mom and  I say we do not need a gun for protection.  They told grandpa if someone came in to steal stuff that they could just have it. They do not want to shoot another person.
 
Me:  What did grandpa say?
 
Sam: Grandpa said that sometimes people come in to hurt children and then you need a gun.
 
Me: What do you think Sam?
 
Sam:  Well, someone could come in to hurt one of us but dad says he still would not want to shoot someone.  Grandpa said that sometimes you do not have any choice.  Is that true Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  Even at six-years old, you know that sometimes some sick person does break into a house and hurts the people living there.
 
Sam:  Yes, there was that girl in my class whose mother got killed and the girl hid in the closet.  That would be really scary.
 
Me:  Yes, it would me.  Do you think if the mother had a gun she would be alive?
 
Sam: The girl in class said that the police told her that often someone cannot get to the gun or the robber just takes it from them.
 
Me:  Yes, I understand that is often the case. So having a gun does not always make people safer does it Sam?
 
Sam:  I guess not Uncle Jim.  Mom and dad said we have to know what to do if someone we don’t know tries to get into the house.
 
Me: Such as what Sam?
 
Sam:   Well, things like, keep the doors locked, always let  mom, dad or the sitter open the door,  keep our cell phone with us and call 911 if we think someone is in the house who should not be.  Even if it is a mistake it is better to call  911.
 
Me: That is great Sam.  I am glad that you and the family have a plan. 
 
Sam:   I still get scared, especially when people  scream at each other.
 
Me:  I know. I also get scared when people scream at each other.  I wish no one got that angry, but I think that a lot of people are going to continue to have very strong opinions until after the elections.
 
Sam;  I wish it was over tomorrow.
 
Me:  I do too Sam.
 
Sam:  How come I always feel better when we talk Uncle Jim?
 
Me:   I am glad you do. I do too.   It does seem to help to talk when we get scared.
 
Sam:  Why is that Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  I suspect because it makes us feel less alone.  We might have to have a lot of talks between now and the election. 
 
Sam:  Thanks Uncle Jim. 
 
Me:  You are welcome Sam.
 
 
Written June 23, 2016

​Duty and right
 
I was not surprised  that my recent blogs regarding the role of guns in the life of we human, the role the second amendment of the constitution of the United States, and forgiveness stimulated a lot of passionate comments and some discussion.    Actually, it seemed difficult to engage others in discussions.   Individuals made such comments as:
·     It is my right to have whatever guns I choose to have.
·     Those people associated or even saying that they are associated with ISIS or other radical groups are terrorists, are engaging in evil behavior and do not deserve forgiveness.
·     We have to protect ourselves from evil and dangerous people.
 
Obviously, there is no argument which is sufficient to counter the statement that someone has a right to do something.  Someone has the right go naked, but in most public places it is illegal to do so (besides not being particularly attractive for most of us).  We have the right to sabotage our health, engage in self-pity or a host of other behavior.    When we talk about having the right to engage in some behavior perhaps it would be help to distinguish between:
 
·     The legal right.
·     The moral right.
 
The extent of the legal rights conferred by the second amendment to the U. S. Constitution for United States citizens to own any gun and keep it on one’s person is going to continue to be a matter which is addressed by courts, the lawyers and individual citizens for many years to come.   Whether the question is what the second amendment authors or those who voted for it intended or whether the ongoing history of the United States changes the definition of militia it is going to be passionately debated.  The limits of the word right as used in this amendment may hinge on the definition of militia. 
 
For most of us moral right overrides what is legal or illegal.  The ongoing discussion of what is morally right in terms of such issues as birth control, same sex relationships, access to health care, the use of military force, the option of choosing when to die and a host of other issues can and does engender very passionate discussions.  What one may considers his or her moral right might or might not interfere  or affect the ability of another person(s) to engage in behavior which they consider morally right.
 
Many of us believe that it is our duty to engage in behavior which we believe is morally right even if it adversely affects the ability of another person to engage in behavior  which they feel is morally right.  I was listening to an NPR program yesterday while driving.  I believe it was Terry Gross interviewing Ben Taub who recently published an article in The New Yorker entitled “The Shadow doctors – The underground race to spread medical knowledge as the Syrian regime erases it.”   In this article and during the interview he discussed the decisions of doctors such as David Nott to dedicate their medical services to train others and to provide care to many in Syria despite the fact that they are in constant danger of being killed or being acutely injured themselves. When he asks one doctor (I believe it was David Nott but did not find the quote in the New Yorker article) why he continued to daily risk his life, the answer was, “It is my duty.”  It is obvious that he was referring to moral duty. 
 
For many, this life journey only has meaning if we are engaging in behavior which is consistent with more moral values.  Often, it seems, the source of those moral values is the God of one’s understanding.  I do not know if the sense of duty for Dr. Nott comes from a belief in a higher power or if it just seems to him axiomatically true that we humans have certain duties.
 
I could list many other examples of moral duty. Among those I heard discussed on NPR  or those I read about recently include:
·     The moral duty of doctors responsible for training resident doctors in abortion procedures in Texas in light of recent laws and/or practices of particular hospitals in that state.
·     The moral duty regarding the treatment of animals, including the rights of fish who, according to the results of many scientific studies, are able to experience pain and other sensations.
·     The moral duty of how to respond to various religious groups/factions in Syria, Iraq and other countries.
·     The moral duty of those who believe that Allah demand that they destroy the infidels.
 
It is our “duty” as parents, mentors, teachers, clerics to teach by example and to guide our children  in how to grapple with these issues.   The easiest way to do this is to impart a set of very dogmatic, clear  “moral” rules which one must obey no matter what the circumstances.    The more difficult task is to model and teach that it is very difficult to know what one’s moral duty is. Very often a decision affects more than one person or group.  Very often there are conflicting moral rules or duties.  The decision of Dr. Nott and others affects not only him but his extended family as well.  I do not know whether he has children, a partner, or others for or to whom he has some responsibility.  One could ask what his moral duty is to them.  If he dies, other than money from an insurance policy and a powerful example of “doing the next right thing”  how does he help them if he gets kills or injured so badly that they need to care for him the rest of his life?   How are they affected if he drowns in guilt and anguish because he could not do what he thinks is his duty?
 
Is it ever okay or enough to make a decision and engage in an action because one has a legal right or one is legally forbidden to do something?
 
What is my duty in listening to and responding to those who passionately disagree with me regarding our moral responsibility regarding gun “rights,” the second amendment, or the action of radical extremists whether they be those who have sworn allegiance to a radial Allah or a radical Christian God?
 
These are not issues which will be adequately addressed in political sound bites or hurling nice, smooth, perfectly round stones at each other.  These are tough, emotionally charged issues which, I believe, I have a moral duty to address in a way which is enormously respectful of those with whom I disagree.  
 
Written June 22, 2016

​Rags to riches
 
This phrase popped into my head this morning while I was thinking of the following:
 

• A wonderful arts festival in Wheeling, WV organized by such creative and giving folks as Susan Hogan which brought together the art of music, books, pottery, painting, metal creations, story-telling, play, wood carving and much more.
• Discussion with a wonderful artist friend Jeff Forrester about the hours and hours of intentional play/experiment with movement, lines and all that make up the interplay of all that exist - including our human dance.
• A new children’s book by Marc Harshman which is illustrated by Sara Palacios entitled One Big Family
• A Ted talk by Andrew Pelling who plays with garbage which gives him the parts for robots and other fun creations as well as vegetables which have the structure for exploring  such possibilities as replacement ears.  The title of the talk is “This scientist makes ears out of apples”     If one listens one get excited about the structure of apples and asparagus - the roles they could play in treating we humans
• A Ted talk by Jamila Raqip entitled , “The secret to effective nonviolent resistance”.  In her talk she discusses  the fact that if non-violence is going to be effective we must formulate and put into action long term strategies and not just marches.  One has to offer realistic alternatives.
• A comment on Sunday’s blog from my friend Dorene alluding to the fact that I need to have a refresher lesson about the use of nominal and objective pronouns.  This means that I need to devote as much time to the basic rules of grammar as I do in the gestalt of the writing I do.

 
Even though the various events might, at first glance, seem unrelated, I think that there is a theme or possibly two themes shared by all of the events.  The themes which come to me mind are:
 

1. Creativity requires a suspension of the belief that we think we know someone or something.
2. Creativity requires the hard word of consistently paying attention and a willingness to practice, practice, practice.  For example, for Jeff to depict the movement of an amazing bird sculpture he had to spend hours exploring and attending to his own movement, balance and dance and them establish a relationship with his tools and the metal which allow him to recreate the dance of the bird.
3. Creativity requires courage to see what others might not see.
4. Creativity requires the willingness to invite and listen to the critical eye of others without allowing one’s ego to get in the way.
5. Creativity require the Grace to fail well  - to find what does not work.
6. Creativity requires the risk of sharing one’s dance of music, words, sculpture, or other forms of expression – the risk of being emotionally, intellectually and spiritually naked.

 
Daily I must examine whether I am willing to do what it takes to not only exercise my creative mind but to sharpen the tools which  allow the written word to awaken a new dance in the mind of the reader.  The hidden richness of the rags which someone has tossed into the trash will not be reborn into gold cloth without a lot of tedious, often unexciting work.
 
As parents, educators, aunts, uncles, mentors and friends we must support the creation of spaces such as Ms. Hogan and others brought together which will invite children to explore all the excitement and discipline which creativity demands and offers. 
 
 
Written June 20, 2016
 

​Discussion about the second amendment
 
The second amendment of the United States constitution states:
 
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
 
One can google terms such as well-regulated militia and second amendment and find numerous opinions about the intentions of the framers of this amendment.  Some might interpret this to mean groups of citizens who organized to protect them and other citizens from some individual or group who wants to take over control of the nation.  Some seem to interpret it more narrowly. A good example of those individuals might be those who took over the Oregon national wildlife refuge. Still others might interpret it to mean a group which is formed to oppose the legalization of certain behavior such as gay marriage or other behaviors which some might think is inconsistent with what was intended when this nation, the constitution and the amendments were formulated. Yet another group might be concerned that there are too many laws restricting behavior in these United States.
 
The question of the interpretation of the second amendment is certain to occupy the minds and “pens” of numerous citizens of the United States and possibility the Supreme Court of the United States for many years to come.    There is no doubt that many citizens of these United States are very serious about what they consider their right to own a variety of weapons, including some which was designed for military purposes.   It is also commonly known that United States manufacturers make and sell a great many guns to United States citizens and to other countries.  As I have pointed out in other blogs it is an enormous business.  If it would cease to exist the effect on local and national economies would be enormous.
 
There are a variety of weapons which can be used to main or kill some living creature.    Guns are clearly the most controversial.   As near as I can determine although guns can be designed to temporary halt a person, for the most part they are intended to kill.  They are used primary for:
 
·    Killing those we define as the enemy of the United States.  These are normally used by a person who is a legal, active service member of one of the branches of the U. S. military.
·    To assist local, state and national law enforcement individuals in insuring that folks obey the laws and apprehending those who are suspected of not doing so.
·    To assist prison  and jail guards/correctional officers in carrying out their duties involving those imprisoned for committing a crime or awaiting trial for an alleged crime.
·    Hunting to provide food for oneself and one’s family.
·    Big game hunting for sport.
·    Other sports, i. e. target practice.
·    Personal protection against those who might potentially assault or steal from an individual or a  family member/friend of that individual.
·    Committing criminal activity such as robbery which is frequently related to drug addiction or some other dis order.
·    Committing criminal activity such as mass shootings.
 
The gun that the Orlando shooter used was a Sig Sauer MCX and not an AR-15.
 
In an article in the Washington Post on June 14, 2016 Thomas Gibbons-Neff wrote:
 
“The gun the Orlando shooter used was a Sig Sauer MCX, not an AR-15. That doesn’t change much.”
On Monday night, officials clarified that the rifle Omar Mateen used in the shooting was not an AR-15, but a Sig Sauer MCX rifle.
 
While aesthetically similar to and just as lethal as an AR-15, the MCX is internally a different beast, thus all but removing it from the AR-15 family of rifles. Yet while the weapon is different, the MCX and the AR-15 share the same design purpose: providing a highly portable, customizable, easy to operate, and accurate rifle for the individual who possesses it.
As Bob Owens from the blog “Bearing Arms” points out, the MCX is a modular rifle designed to be able to change between a variety of calibers and “otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form.”
Originally designed for U.S. Special Operations forces, the MCX was built from the “ground up” to be lightweight and short, and it accepts “a broad array of accessories, enabling you to build a complete weapon system for any scenario or environment,” Sig Sauer’s website says.
While able to shoot the same caliber ammunition — .223 —  as an AR-15, the MCX was initially meant to fire a round called a .300 Blackout. The relatively new caliber, according to Owens, was designed to provide Special Operations Command with a bullet that was as quiet as a pistol round but packed the range and lethality of a rifle cartridge. A side effect of the bullet’s design is that the it mimics the size of the round fired by AK-47-type rifles.’
 
Leaving aside the question of the justification for war,  I fail to understand why any private citizen would need such a gun.  I do understand why someone from an engineering or mechanical standpoint might be able to appreciate such an amazing creation.  I am personally fascinated by the fact that men and women can figure out how to engineer such a device.  I can admire engineering or creativity of many of the weapons, machines and other systems used by the military.    
 
I can also accept that people and not guns kill.  Obviously, in order for a weapon to operate in a hand from a remote location a human has to physically shoot or program the weapon.  I get it.  I also get it that there are so many weapons being manufactured that  someone who is determined and knows how to  find them can purchase a weapon no matter what the laws.  Even if as of today no additional weapons were sold to the general public, it would take a long time to even make a dent in the availability.   I also know that weapons sold or given to other countries or even used by our own military forces “find” their way into the hands of those who may be tempted to use them to commit a mass, non-military-sanctioned killing.
 
I would  like to see we, as a nation, as a first step, focus on:
·     Continuing to do background checks and exploring ways of increasing same.
·    Selling rifles appropriate for hunting game one is going to use for food to be sold to those who  authorities can make an educated guess are safe to own same.
·    Continuing a dialogue about the attachment to hand  guns for private protection use.
·    Starting and/or continuing a non-judgmental, non-emotional debate about the role of profit in manufacturing and selling guns and other weapons.
·    Starting or continuing a debate about forbidding the direct or indirect contributions of weapons manufacturers to political campaigns or PACs.
·    Starting or continuing a debate about the long-term results of selling or giving weapons to various groups or countries.
 
There is, in my opinion, something to be said for making a positive statement. If we, as a nation, think it desirable that we humans find non-violent ways to argue a point, make a stance or resolve conflicts, let’s begin as  communities, states and nations to serious experiment with same.
 
I also think that we need to explore ways to treat mental illness rather than ignoring it or punishing those who suffer from it by putting them in jail.
 
It might behoove us to think of the second amendment in terms of who we want to be as a nation rather than as a way of proving that no one can take away our “right” to be violent and crazy.
 
Written June 18, 2016

​Many considerations
 
The other day I wrote about my belief that it is important to remember that Omar Mateen was a human being who apparently had some acute emotional issues.  I also wrote that I thought it important that, recognizing what we have in common with him, it is important to forgive him.   Additionally I wrote that naming him is an important step in this process.   In the days since I wrote this blog, I have listened to others such as the CNN Journalist Anderson Cooper, anchorman Kyle Clark and FBI director, James Comey who recommend that the name of people who commit acts of mass order not be used because of the concern that some behavior such as suicide and mass murders may be contagious. 
 
An article in Newsweek reported:
 
“In July, researchers presented a terrifying idea: mass killings and school shootings may be contagious. Using a mathematical contagion model typically applied to the spread of diseases, the study found that 30 percent of mass killings and 22 percent of school shootings appeared to have been inspired by previous events. One possible reason, says lead author Sherry Towers, is media coverage.
“What we found was, in ones that didn’t get a lot of media attention there was no contagion, and in the ones where we did see a lot of media attention, that’s where we saw the contagion,” Towers says.” (newsweek.com   Mass shootings and news media: A connection? By Max Kutner, 10/1/15)
 
I have previously discussed the work of a physician from Chicago, Gary Slutkin, who had worked extensively to stop the spread of contagious diseases in many places of the world. He used the contagious disease model to study and reduce violence in several cities in the United States.
 
The thinking seems to be that giving lots of media attention to the specifics of the event and the person(s) who committed the event might be copied by other disturbed individuals.  This may also be true with suicides, especially among teens.
 
Although I had previously read some of this material, I was not thinking that, for some, the motivation for not using the name of Mr. Mateen could be related to the contagious/copycat possibility.  This is largely the rationale for not only the FBI but the group No Notoriety started by Caren and Tom Teves.
 
Others who urge the media not to use the name of the killer are concerned about the impact of hearing about the killer over and over again on the family members of the victims.  Still others seem to be concerned about giving any fame or notoriety to the killer.  Consider the following:
 
“Most social media users agreed with comments from FBI Director James Comey that he is refraining from using the name of the shooter, who died at the scene, in order to avoid glamorizing his role.
"You will notice that I'm not using the killer's name, and I will try not to do that," Comey said during a news conference Monday on the massacre, which left 49 clubgoers dead. "Part of what motivates sick people to do this kind of thing is some twisted notion of fame or glory, and I don't want to be part of that for the sake of the victims and their families."
"I love this!" wrote Lisa Berry on Facebook. "He doesn't deserve a name or coverage of any kind. Instead, we should focus on the victims and the impact they had on friends and family. They had so much promise in life and it's a tragedy that it was stolen from them."
“The group No Notoriety, founded by parents of one of the victims in the 2012 Aurora, Colo., theater shooting, is asking the media and members of the public via Twitter not to repeat the name of the gunman so as not to "reward" him with infamy or notoriety. (FBI Decision to avoid Orlando shooter’s name gets thumbs-up   Melanie Eversley, USA TODAY, June  13, 2016)”
 
I was certainly remiss in neglecting to discuss the fact that there may be several very valid motivations or reasons for not mentioning the name of a killer and keeping details of the event to a minimum including an effort to not glamorize and reduce the changes of copycat events.   For this I apologize.
 
I continue, however, to be concerned about the tone of many who have commented about this terrible event. The comment by Lisa Berry on Facebook which I quoted above, “He doesn’t deserve a name or coverage of any kind. Instead we should focus on the victims and the impact they ad on friends and family.” 
I continue to believe that   Mr. Mateen was a very sad and sick person and deserves our sympathy, empathy and grief.
·    I question the need for anyone to purchase assault weapons.  I also question how it is that someone else whose behavior had already raised some red flags was able to purchase such a weapon. (Yes, I am well aware of the fact that there are so many of these weapons manufactured that it is also relatively easy to get such weapons illegally).
·    All of us need to know that the mind of we humans are amazingly resilient and, at the same time, very fragile.   The thinking of all of us can easily become distorted.
·    As I discussed in an earlier blog, we as communities and nations must model choosing non-violent means of resolving disputes, handling our fears and stopping the spread of destructive behavior.
 
I am also very confused about the seemingly disturbing and often contradictory comments reportedly made by Mr. Mateen’s father.   I have no idea what role his parenting played in the emotional disturbance of Mr. Mateer. 
 
Having said all the above, I still believe that our best chance of creating a safer and more just and  loving community is to follow the lead of teachers such as Jesus to love those we label as our enemy.   An article in Christianity Today states:
“I believe if this were a daily prayer for American Christians, it would help us to do that which does not come naturally to us: loving our enemies—and the enemies of all those we love. And it would shape us as a people to be Christ’s presence in a hateful and divided world—a world that needs to know of his presence more than ever.” (Christianitytoday.com, Mark Galli/June 12, 2016 A Meditation on the Orlando Shooting)
 
One of the dangers in writing and publishing a daily blog is that one presents only some of the important issues that need to be considered on such important topics. Another danger is that one (me) “throws out the baby with the bathwater.”   In other words, it is possible that someone or some groups say something which needs to be heard even if the tone in which it is presented seems to be mean spirited.
 
Written  June 15, 2016