Stupid

Oxforddictionary.com tell us that the word stupid is derived from the

Latin word stupere, which evolved into stupidus, which eventually became the French word stupide .  In Latin the word means, “be amazed or stunned.”  It later evolves to mean (1) lacking in intelligence or common sense, (2) dazed or unable to think clearly, or (3) used to express exasperation or boredom.

The history of words is very interesting.   Today I might use the word stupid to express the fact that, as I age, my brain increasing takes a small vacation.  Actually, I am not sure that this phenomenon is related to aging. I suspect that my brain has taken brief vacations for as long as I have been living.   As I age I am more relaxed about noticing and admitting that my brain has taken a vacation.  It may be true that as I age I cannot always retrieve information as rapidly as I did when younger. At least it seems that way.   I would not use the word stupid to describe this process. I do often use the word stupid to admonish myself when I have an accident because I am not paying attention.   For example, I may react to somebody or something without thinking and say something, which I do not believe or which was not kind.  More often I use it to describe myself when the common sense part of my brain takes a vacation.  For example, I picked up the flour canister the other day when my hands were greasy and, of course, promptly dropped it breaking the canister and spreading flour everywhere or so it seemed.  This is not an aging behavior so much as it is a lifelong habit. I have often forgotten to slow down and breathe so that I am “thinking” when I am doing or about to do a task.

I also use the word when noticing the behavior of we humans. Furthermore, I often use it in a way which conveys amazement or a state of being stunned as if I cannot believe that we humans are human.

So what is so surprising about the fact we humans are human?  Do I expect to wake up and find that we humans are now only engaging in behavior which makes sense to me? Naturally I get to define what makes sense notwithstanding the fact that part of what makes us humans is that we humans can look at the same body of information and arrive at vastly different conclusions.  For example, if I look up information on the relationship between gun violence and the laws supporting the increase in concealed gun permits, I interpret the information differently than a number of my friends.  If I read about drug addiction I do not see this behavior any different than that of people who seem more concerned about making money, amassing power, or spending money on clothes when their closets are already filling to the brim or buying a 10,000 square foot house, or any other attachment to things, people or situations at the expense of health or family.  Yet, others see drug addiction as much different.  I might raise the question, “How can others not see what I see?  It is so obvious.”  Yet, I “know” many factors affect what any of we humans see, feel, hear, or think.

In my chosen profession in health care, I sometimes hear myself or one of my colleagues talking or writing as if shocked when a sick person acts like a sick person. Really!  That conclusion defies common sense.   It is “stupid.”   Yet, this sort of “stupidity” is also very human.

I am not at all sure that it is our “stupidity” as humans which defies common sense as much as it is our seeming inability to accept that our brains and, thus, our conclusions as humans, are not at all consistent and do not match from brain to brain.  Perhaps our failure to accept our stupidity as humans is more stupid than the original surprise of humanness.   Can we say stupider or stupidest? 

What is the difference between being stupid and being silly?  Surely I could say that I am silly for thinking that our human brains are like computers which are all programmed to process information the same way and, thus, reach the same conclusions.  In fact, if I goggle the word silly I find the following:  “having or showing a lack of common sense or judgment; absurd and foolish.” Stupid is listed as one of the synonyms.

Interesting that it seems as if it is “easier” to smile when saying the word silly than it is when stupid.  Hummm….  I wonder why that is. The actual shape of my mouth is different when I say silly versus saying stupid.  Try it!  The word silly automatically spreads into a grin.  If I attempt to say the word silly with the same mouth and breathe movements it does not work.  Interesting. 

So here I am sitting in Panera’s typing on my computer while playing with the shape of my mouth and my breath while saying different words. I wonder if I look stupid or silly.  It will, of course, depend on the viewer.  One could do a little scientific study. “Excuse me, would you mind observing me for the next three minutes and labeling my behavior as stupid or silly!”  What factors may affect the response?

When we humans or when this human can arrive at the state of mind which allows for laughing at or with myself or when I am not taking myself or others so seriously I might be stunned or amazed that we humans do occasionally have a moment of shared clarity; a moment of simple, joyful acceptance of our shared humanness.  Ironically from this space our lips will morph from the serious stupid to the amused silly. 

It is really this simple to change our dance with each other?   Perhaps when the people in 12-step programs say, “Keep it simple stupid” this is what they are implying.   Perhaps it is this simple!

Professional Elitism

One of the professional organizations to which I belong is the National Association for Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors.  I belong to several other professional organizations although fewer than I formerly did.  Part of the reason for this is that I am semi-retired and simply cannot afford to pay annual membership dues and/or no longer work for clients associated with that organization.  One such organization is the National Employee Assistance Organization. 

All of the organizations to which I belong  hold annual national or state conferences.  Some are associated with international organizations, which host professional conferences. Such conferences offer the:

·      Opportunity to take courses, which help one to keep one up to date about changes in knowledge and resources, related to one’s profession. These courses also allow one to get the continuing education credits one needs to maintain one’s license or certifications. 

·      Opportunity to meet with and discuss professional issues with colleagues.

·      Opportunity to network with colleagues to whom one might make or receive referrals.

·      Opportunity for some to recruit new staff or find a job.

The professional conferences last at least two days and may be as long as a week. Very often they are located in a city, which will be close to an airport, which is relatively easy to access from many other cities. Frequently it is also in a location which offers conference attendees the opportunity to also have an individual or family vacation.

There was a time in the 1980s when several professional organizations to which I belong made a commitment to:

·      Choosing a relatively inexpensive venue such as a college which had unused dorm rooms, i.e. e. during summer months or spring break.

·      Using keynote speakers and presenters from the ranks of those who were attending the conference.

·      Providing inexpensive meals in the dining hall of the college/university

·      Providing free childcare.

·      Insuring that facilities were accessible to the differently abled including hearing and sight impaired.  All conference presentations included, for example, a professional sign language interpreter.

·      Coordinating room sharing to further reduce costs.

·      Making a significant effort to recruit staff that would exchange their labor for free tuition and/or accommodations.

The result was that professional conferences tended to satisfy all the traditional needs of attendees, be representative of a broad group of professionals, and be affordable. This meant that low budget organizations and individuals in private practice or those committed to serving people regardless of income or insurance status could attend such conferences.

Another benefit to conferences, which were designed to be affordable and accessible, was that the needs of a board spectrum of clients and potential clients were represented in the education and the research interests of the professional organizations.  Often service recipients were included in the conference program.

It has been a long time since I attended a national or international conference which seemed to be planned and executed with the same objectives.

For example, I just got an email notice from the National Association for Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors for their annual conference, which will be held for three days in Washington, DC in October of this year, 2015.

The costs associated with the conference are:

·      Tuition - $425.00 (+50.00 but not $100.00 for lobby day),which is relatively inexpensive for these types of conferences.

·      Hotel – discounted rate at very nice hotel - $149.00 (plus, I assume, taxes and fees) per night -  $447.00 plus

·      Travel – Approximately $500.00 – airfare, subway or taxi, parking at airport.

·      Food - $50.00 day (if really careful and eat in hotel room with food bought at store, $50.00 total)

·      Misc. expense  - child care if needed – At this stage of life I do not need this (but some attendees would need).

·      Missed income because of not working.

·      Annual membership fee – NAADAC - $135.00

It quickly becomes obvious that the total cost will beyond the budget of a person such as myself now semi-retired. Even when working full time this was a lot of money, especially since I had a commitment to work for/with individuals regardless of their ability to pay or for what they could afford to pay.  I was fine and lived well, according to my standards. I usually made too much to feel okay about asking for financial assistance from conference planners and too little to afford most conferences.

To NAADAC’s credit they do ask on the registration form about special needs or accommodations. I also want to stress that in terms of conference fees, this one is “relatively inexpensive.” 

At the same time, the expense for this and similar conferences insures that the profession is planned, run by, and represented by a very elite sub-group of the members of a particular profession.   Merriam-Webster defines elite as:

a.    The choice part:  cream

b.   The best of a class

c.    The socially superior part of society.

d.   A group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence

e.    A member of such an elite

f.     A typewriter type providing 12 characters to the linear inch (I had forgotten about this use of the word.)

In essence when an elite group of people attend professional conferences, they tend to be the ones who get elected to office or get hired by the organization, represent the profession to those making laws or passing other legislation affecting the profession, and decide what issues are most important for the profession to address. Thus, in the area of addiction, the groups of people whose needs are most likely to be addressed, understood, and effectively treated are those of the middle and upper class. The fact that there may be speakers who are addressing the needs of representatives of other sub-groups does not insure that   research and resources will be primarily directed to these sub-groups.

As is true of all systems, the system tends to be self-perpetuating.  It is no secret that if one has money or very good insurance one can get more effective treatment for one’s addictive disorders at facilities such as the Betty Ford Treatment Center. Although advertised as “Treatment you can afford” and is clear that it takes Medicare, Medicaid, and other insurance, all the people who I know who have gone to treatment there are those who are either poor enough to qualify for Medicaid assistance or those with enough money and/or decent insurance to cover the costs. Since it is a residential care center, one also has to be able to cover costs of being off work for that period.  There are some employers who will provide paid time off, but I do not personally know of many.  I do know a number of employers who will give unpaid time off.

I use the Betty Ford Center because it also has a staff of highly trained and credentialed employees.  This is not true of many treatment facilities.  For example, one for which I temporarily worked had one part-time doctor, an off-site clinical supervisor, and myself who were credentialed staff. The rest of the staff were post-recovering non-professional staff.   This fact did not significantly lower the cost of treatment. 

It needs to be acknowledged that continuing education for professionals is affordable if one does not want or need to attend conferences. In fact, for members of NAADAC a number of free courses are available via Webinar or other formats.  This is very laudable and helpful. At the same time the leadership that, in term, affects the research, funding, and direction of treatment will be most influenced by the elite who are able to participate in professional conferences and/or who are employees of organizations such as NAADAC.

The bottom line is that we tend to, often unwittingly,  create a system of elite professionals in most fields.  If we want to change that system we are going to have to have a commitment to explore the practical issues, which determine that system; issues which were beginning to be addressed by some in the eighties and which have fallen by the wayside.   Although laudable, offering scholarships to a few individuals, such as students, does not change the basic dynamics of the organization or direction of the profession.

There are a few organizations such as the West Virginia Certification Board for Addiction and Prevention Professionals who make an effort to make conferences more affordable and available.  Sadly they are the exception. Even they need to re-examine such needs as childcare.

Written August 27, 2015

Contempt for Colorado Shooter by Judge

1. Sadie Gurman in and article entitled “Colorado theater shooter gets life plus 3, 318 years, published in The Tampa Tribune on August 27, 29015 on page 4, reported the contempt expressed by Judge Carlos Samour, Jr. at the conclusion of the trial.  She further reports that “The gallery applauded the remarks by Judge Carolos Samour, Jr….  
   

She says that Judge “Samour was scrupulously respectful toward Holmes throughout the long trail and months of pretrial hearings. On Wednesday he made no attempt to hide his contempt.”  She reports Judge Samour to have said, “The defendant does not deserve any sympathy…For that reason, the court imposes the maximum sentence it can impose under the law.”

Readers will undoubtedly remember that Mr. Holmes killed 12 people and wounded 70 others when he opened fire in the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado in 2012.   Obviously, no one can argue that opening fire on a group of people in a public theater is a tragic act.  I think it was a tragic act. I also think it a tragic act that since the invasion of Iraq by the United States somewhere between 151,000 and 500,000 Iraq people have been killed. (There is a huge disparity in the estimates but none are less than 151,000.).  Despite the admission that the reason given for invading that country were based on inaccurate information, we in the United States continue to justify these killings as something which was necessary to protect the interest of many people including those in the United States.  The estimate of the number of Iraqi people killed during the reign of Saddam Hussein range from a quarter to a half a million.   Thus, depending on whose statistics one consults the numbers is roughly equivalent. Yet, according to the official stance of the United States one set of killings can be attributed to the evil action of a regime and one set of killings can be attributed to brave Allied service people liberating the people of Iraq.  There seems to be no question in anyone mind about the evil nature of the shooting and subsequent deaths and injuries of people in the theater.

Some set of killings deserves our praise and thanks and one set deserves our contempt.   Really!  How is it that we humans arrive at such disparate opinions about similar behavior?  We seem to base our opinion solely on the motive even if the basis of that motive is later determined to be spurious.

I have no idea of how the mind of Mr. Holmes works.  It would appear that he felt as if his behavior was justified at the time he acted.  It is very clear to me that the motives of the average Allied combatant is very honorable  - feels that he/she is engaging in a right action.  It is also very clear that the motive of some of the Allied combatants may be due to their personal values and histories.   I can find no studies, which attempt to diagnose the motives of the average combatant in this or other wards waged by the United States and its allies.

I am going to posit that in order for one to have contempt for Mr. Holmes one must:

·      Be convinced that we “healthy” humans have such control over our minds that we could never commit such a violent act.

·      That the arguments we give ourselves for our individual or collective use of violence is more valid than that of people such as Mr. Holmes.

·      That the teachings of Jesus, the Buddha or other who advocate forgiveness do not apply to people such as Mr. Holmes or those we determine are the “enemy”.  Those teachings only apply if the person(s) asks for forgiveness.

What would constitute the opposite of contempt in this case?  Consulting thesaurus.com gave the following options for antonyms for contempt:

         Approval; esteem; flattery; friendliness; honor; like; liking; love,

         Loving; obedience; praise; regard; respect; sympathy; care;

         Compliment; admiration; affection; approbation; endorsement

None of those seem to fit. It is interesting to me that the word empathy was not on the list.  I think that is the word that I would choose. Although I would hate it if my mind became so dysfunctional that it thought that getting a gun and going into a theater where I would start shooting made sense. I would also hate it if I was drafted and asked to go to Iraq or Afghanistan 
to kill people or support the killing of people. I would find it no more acceptable if I were sitting in some Southwestern state, sending a drone in to do the killing instead of me doing it directly.  Yet, I know that I am no different than any other human. My brain is subject to a seemingly random connection of synapses leading to a thought as inconsistent with my stated values as going getting a gun and going into a movie theater or a theater of military operations and opening fire. 

I would like to believe that if Mr. Holmes was sitting in front of me that I could open my arms and embrace him or offer him an embrace.  I would like to believe that I would continue to offer an embrace to those who have served as combatants as representatives of the government of the United States or one of its Allies. 

If I am going to posit that possibility I must, if I am going to be consistent, posit the possibility of offering an embrace to Judge Samour.  I cannot say how I would feel or what words I might hear myself saying if I had been sitting in that courtroom listening to the relatives of victims, victims and others describing the graphic bloody remains left in the wake of the action by Mr. Holmes.

Written August 27, 2015

This past Sunday, August 23, 2015 I listened to “On Being” with Krista Tippett. Her guest this week was the neuropsychologist, Rex Jung, whose particular interest is the interplay between intelligence and creativity.  His extensive background as a business person, a person who worked with individuals who were labeled limited in terms of intelligence, a person who is a parent, son, teacher, therapist, and a neuropsychologist combine to leave him uniquely qualified to explore the relationship between creativity and intelligence.  

Not surprisingly – to me at least  - my brain immediately began to wonder about and question the terms intelligence, creativity, wisdom, interaction, and playfulness or humor.

Dr. Jung’s working definition of intelligence seems to be the ability to acquire knowledge.  But then, of course, we must ask, What is knowledge?”  Technically, it is what I understand to be a a statement about “reality” which may or may not be shared by others.  If we are attempting to measure intelligence, we have to focus on what is currently the accepted shared perceptions or agreements.  For example, there may be shared agreement on how to decline a certain work in a particular language.  There may be shared agreement that George Washington was the first President of these United States and was sworn into office on April 30, 1789. There may not be shared agreement on what sort of president he was, what he actually accomplished or did not accomplish as a president, what sort of person he was, whether he was a good husband, or how many places he slept!

If I check the Merriam-Wesbster dictionary for a definition of intelligence I get:

Medical Definition of INTELLIGENCE. 1. a : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations b : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) 2. : mental acuteness.

This definition thus expands the concept to include more than the ability to  memorize certain information which is presented as “true” or “fact.”    According to this information, one has to be able to apply what one is learning to change something in one’s environment or to think about changing something in a more abstract manner.  

Still, even with this expanded definition, we humans do not rise much above the level of computers and, in fact, may be much less efficient than a computer at many tasks.

So, thus far, we have this concept of knowledge which is a shared reality gained by using a certain portion of my brain more than other parts to access, memorize, and store information.  At one time, a shared reality was that our universe was the only one in existence and the planets in this universe were the only ones in existence.   Another shared reality might be, for some, that we humans on this planet are the only so-called intelligent beings in this or other universes. However, as our understanding of the so-called laws of physics and our ability to explore the application of those laws change, the content of our shared reality might change.

Dear me! My brain is getting tired already!  Let’s go on to the definition of creativity.  Dr. Jung suggested in his discussion with Ms. Tippett:

“Well, I'm pretty humble about this because I'm a newcomer to the field. So I'm an expert in intelligence, but I'm a carpetbagger to creativity [laughs]. So I've adopted the definition that I found when I got here, and the definition of creativity is something both novel and useful. And I like that dynamic interplay of novelty and usefulness. If something is just novel, it could be useless. It could be the word salad of a patient with schizophrenia. That's novel, but it's not particularly useful within a given context and utility — mere utility is not enough. It has to be something new. It has to be useful.”

If I again check Merriam-Webster  I get:

Full Definition of CREATIVE. 1. : marked by the ability or power to create : given to creating <thecreative impulse> 2. : having the quality of something created rather than imitated : imaginative <thecreative arts>

Well, that is not very helpful is it?  Recently I was at an exhibit of the works of M. C. Escher whose work includes such fun drawings as “Waterfall” which initially appears to be this very fanciful building which one could build.  Closer examination reveals that it is partly an optical illusion in the sense that it a drawing of a building which would be impossible to build. There are many other examples of this in his many works.    The drawing is not useful if we think of using it as a basis for making the building.  It is useful In the sense that it is fun and makes me think about all that I perceive.  Thus, it fits Dr. Jung’s definition. 

Of course, there are those who would argue that nothing fits Dr. Jung’s definition.  They would maintain that we do not learn in the traditional sense but rather retrieve information that we already know; that, in fact, there is nothing “new” to discover.  But let’s not go there just now.

Perhaps we can think about the concept of wisdom as opposed to intelligence or creativity. Perhaps it will be easier on this poor old brain! What is wisdom?  That which the wise person knows or understands? Humm.  Then what is wise?   Oxford suggests:

wise 1

adjective

1

Having or showing experience, knowledge, and good judgment:

Oh dear.  This gets even more confusing. What is good judgment?  Is deciding to put more and more people into jail in the United States good judgment?  Is the use of violence to deal with violence good judgment even though if we look at its long-term success rate, it is not very successful? 

Dr. Jung would say that people such as Jesus and Ghandi were wise people. What was “wise” about them”?   Perhaps the fact that they truly believed that learning to treat each other with love as equals  - as one unit  - was wise? If that is true, we seem to not value wisdom very much in our society.  Does wisdom need to be appreciated  to be considered wise?

Oh! My poor brain is really hurting now!  This is all too, too much.  I can well understand why I drove my teachers throughout my school experience to tears or drink or ….  Bless their hearts.  I had questions on top of questions on top of questions.  No wonder that the perfect major for me was not engineering after all but philosophy. I could “philosophize”  for pages and pages and pages about almost any subject.

It is not surprising that when discussing creativity, Dr. Jung introduced the subject of humor  We might think of humor as that ability to  see the absurdity of  life, of our ability to complicate this life journey, of taking ourselves so seriously. What Dr. Jung noticed often about those who had brain damage or who had been born with so-called limited intelligence was that they often were wiser in their simplicity than those of us who test high on the IQ scale.  (At least this is what I heard him saying.  I am well aware that this matches my experience and, thus, affects what I hear which becomes part of my store of knowledge!)

It is not surprising that laughter is often the best medicine for our physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, and intellectual health. 

Laughter helps us suspend what we think we know and opens the connections to that part of our brain which is capable of being creative. The  bottom line is that if we are not in touch with both the absurdity of thinking that we know (have knowledge) while we necessarily have to act as if we know we will not be creative enough to gain the state of wisdom!!

Written August 23, 2015

School Bells – To dress or not to dress

It is that time of year again.  For those school that are not on a 12 month schedule in the United States school has started or is about to start for most students who are not being home schooled.

One of the issues which many school have been grabbling with since they first began to think of the fall schedule has been uniforms versus non-uniforms. If not uniforms, what should the dress code be?  In the county in which I am now living, Pinellas County of Florida, the school board has published the following requirements with the additional caveat to students that “individual schools may have additional requirements if supported by a majority of School Advisory Council (SAC) members and if they are placed in the school handbook or planner.” (PCSB.org):

Requirements for student dress in all schools are listed below:

1. All shirts and blouses must cover midriff, back, sides, and all undergarments including bra straps at all times. All shirts, tops, and dresses shall have sleeves and cover the shoulders.

2. Shorts, skirts, divided skirts, dresses and culottes are allowed. They must be hemmed and be mid-thigh length or longer.

3. All trousers, pants or shorts must totally cover undergarments, including boxer shorts.

4. All clothing, jewelry or tattoos shall be free of the following: profanity; violent images, wording or suggestion; sexually suggestive phrases or images; gang related symbols; alcohol, tobacco, drugs or advertisements for such products.

5. Safe and appropriate footwear must be worn. Inappropriate footwear includes, but is not limited to, roller skates, skate shoes and bedroom slippers.

Further clarification/other requirements:

a. Form fitting leotard/spandex type clothing (including sport bras) is not allowed unless proper outer garments cover it.

b. See through or mesh fabric clothing may only be worn over clothing meeting requirements.

c. Clothing must be appropriate size, with the waist of the garment worn at the student’s waist.

d. Clothing not properly buttoned, zipped, fastened, or with inappropriate holes or tears shall not be worn.

e. Clothing and footwear traditionally designed as undergarments or sleepwear shall not be worn as outer garments.

f. Sunglasses may not be worn inside unless a parent provides a doctor’s note to the school.

g. Bandanas or sweatbands are not allowed to be visible on school grounds during the regular school hours.

h. Hats or other head coverings may be worn during outside P.E. activities and may not be worn during any portion of the regular school day without the expressed permission of the principal.

Many schools in the united states have arrived at or reverted to a simpler solution –

That of a prescribed uniform.   Even then, of course, creative students will find a way to alter the prescribed uniform.   I recall that even in a prestigious ivy league graduate school at a time when graduate students were required to wear an academic gown and cap these very same brilliant, young adults found a way to obey the letter of the law while subverting the spiritual by defacing the gowns in various ways.

Still, for the most part, uniforms are a much simpler solution for the school staff, the parents and the students. Of course there are those who will argue that uniforms prevent the young people from learning to express their individuality.  Still others may argue that the initial cost of uniforms strains or breaks the family budget. For a few individuals fabric sensitivity or other issues such as fasteners, style not suited to shape and size of student.  At some school, females are required to wear a skirt, which may be a personal, cultural or religious concern.    There are of course, other cultural issues, which must be addressed by any school system.

I found it ironic that a group of activist women around the world, including a group in New Hampshire, chose this time of year to demonstrate their right to go topless anywhere men are allowed to do so. Their states goal generally seems to be related to their sincere desire to de-sexualize the mammary glands of females.  Audie Cornish of NPR reported:

On Sunday, female activists in nearly 50 locations around the world went topless. Their goal - encourage women to go topless anywhere men do. New Hampshire Public Radio's Emily Corwin was at Hampton Beach on the New Hampshire coast for what turned out to be a pretty strange day at that beach.

Not all cultures in all times have sexualized the female breasts. In many so called primitive cultures it was and may still be common, weather permitting, for women and men to be bare breasted. In these cultures it is also common for women to breast feed in public.  In still other cultures it is still common to require women to cover their entire body, including much of their face and/or head, as well as arms and legs to insure that there they do not present themselves as sexual objects.

Some would, of course argue that from an evolutionary standpoint there was a time in history when it was very important for the woman to be able to non-verbally signal her preparedness for sexual contact in order to procreate.  Often when a woman becomes sexually arouses her nipples become erect which may be seen as a signal that she is receptive to an invitation to sexual contact.   There may have been a time prior to the advent of human language when it was important to signal in this way.  The advent of human language allowed for more communication options.  It is also true that, as society as evolved the primary purpose of sexual contact does not need to be procreation.  Obviously there was a time when the rate of infant mortality, death during pregnancy or at birth made it imperative that procreation takes place as often as possible. Despite the official pretense of some religions and cultures to the contrary, over population are more of issues then not having enough children to help “till the fields” and do other labor-intensive jobs?

Certainly in the culture of the United States we do not want school children to be signaling sexual readiness before, during or after school hours.  We know, of course, that many of our children are going to be sexually active with the opposite and/or same sex at that age but we may not want those “children” to spend school hours focused on sexual stimulating body parts or costumes designed to titillate potential sexual partners.   We do know, of course, that no matter what the costume or dress young people will find a way to community there interest in each other.

It is true that in nudist colonies individuals rely of signals other than costumes or body parts to indicate interest.  I am NOT suggesting that we offer the option of nudist public school!!  Let’s do be very clear about that.

I do think that schools are going to have to continue to attempt to have some sort of dress codes. I do, however, suggest the following:

1.   As much as possible let the students via student councils make decisions about dress codes, uniforms choice, etc.

2.   Keep a sense of humor.

3.   If the decision is to have uniforms make sure that purchase and care of uniforms are financially possible for all the students.

4.   Keep a sense of humor.

5.   Incorporate issues about cultural and religious thinking regarding dress into classroom instruction.

6.   Keep a sense of humor.

7.   Remember that it is the job of the young people to object to limits while often secretly being glad to have adults set them.

8.   Keep a sense of humor.

9.   Educate young people about how costumes are used in various cultures and situations. Just as we teach them which eating utensil to use, they need to know what the customs and rules are.

10.Keep a sense of humor

Written August 25, 2015

Embarrassment

I have been thinking a lot about the experience of being embarrassed.  In my experience, if I or someone I know is saying that they are embarrassed, it usually means that they are fearful that they have done something which may appear foolish, dumb, or inept.  It may also mean that someone else – usually someone they are with or will be perceived to be with does something which may be perceived to be socially unacceptable.  I suspect our feeling of embarrassment, when it is the behavior of the other person or ourselves, may arise from (1) wanting to shield the other person from the feared reaction of others, (2) somehow being responsible for the behavior of the other  (3) being perceived to be equally fooling, dumb, inappropriate, or just inept.   I am at the age where I know a number of people who have a family member or a close friend who is  experiencing age-related conditions or diseases such as dementia.   We know that this condition affects how the mind works or does not work. The person may increasingly say or do things which would not normally  (in a healthy person) be considered socially appropriate.  No matter what we might have said to other people – other people – who have had similar experiences, when it is our family member we may find ourselves ashamed to be seen with them or wanting to make sure that everyone knows that their family member/friend has a serious medical condition.

We may also find that even if we are not with a person who is exhibiting symptoms of dementia or other conditions which result in behavior which “stands out” in social situations but simply observing them, we get embarrassed for that person.  

Oxford dictionary’s primary definition of embarrassment is: “A feeling of self-consciousness, shame, or awkwardness.”

Just this past Sunday I saw a production of the play, “Nerd.”   In this play, Rick Stedman saved the life of Willum when they were serving in Vietnam.   In the play, Willum is initially excited when he learns that Rick is coming to his 34th birthday celebration which will also be attended by his soon to be ex-girlfriend, his good friend, a movie critic, and a man, his wife and out-of-control son who has hired him to design a hotel.  Willum’s excitement soon turns into fear and embarrassment when it quickly becomes obvious that Rick has no idea how to behave in a social situation.    Willum is embarrassed for Rick but also for himself.  He is fearful that Rick’s behavior might somehow jeopardize his contract to design the hotel.  

I found myself wanting to take Rick aside and tell him how to behave. I felt bad for Rick and was embarrassed for him or at least this is what I told myself.  This is a common feeling for me when I see a production or even if observing someone I know or do not know in a social situation.  I suppose one might say that I over identify with the character and want to protect him or her - make sure that others know that the person who is being inappropriate cannot help themselves and are not to be made fun of. 

These feelings frequently arise even while I am telling myself that I am not responsible for the behavior of the other; that I am not responsible either if the folks who act as if the person is dumb or less than in some way.  After all, everyone knows that we are all human and, thus, vulnerable to not being able to control speech, behavior, movements, or even other body functions. If we are not now wearing our humanness for all to observe we could be at any moment.   If other folks are too frightened of being “like that” or have somehow convinced themselves that only “other people” will ever behave in that way that is not something I can change. I may, in one of my unkind moments, hope that they lose control over some function in public so that they know what it feels like but that is not a thought of which I am proud.

What can we do in these situations?  They are going to happen.  God willing that we live that long, these situations will happen to most of us as we age.  Either we or someone we care about will begin to lose control mentally, physically, or both.  Unless we are going to hide away or hide our loved one away, we are going to have to decide how to deal with our feelings of embarrassment without constantly stressing ourselves which will affect our own health.

While at the play this past Sunday, I practiced “just noticing” the feelings when they arose.  One of my esteemed teachers, Pema Chodron, explains how most of us are in the habit of feeding the story we are in the habit of telling ourselves. For example, I may be overtly or covertly telling myself, “This is terrible. I need to protect this person.  What will people think? I am so embarrassed.”  The negative messages we give ourselves feed the original feeling of embarrassment, which, of course, then makes it worse.   What Pema advises and what I advise myself and others is to  (1) breathe (focus on breath in and out) and (2) say to myself, “That is interesting. Or How interesting.”  Now I am not labeling my behavior as good or bad. I am not telling myself that I need to do anything.  I am not judging the behavior.  I am just noticing it.  “How interesting.  Hummm.”    When I do not feed the story I am telling myself, the original feeling and accompanying thoughts will always die a natural death.  If, on the other hand, I feed them I will feel worse and worse – get more and more stressed.  Then, if not careful, I am likely to say or do something which is not consistent with my values.

The bottom line is that I am going to be human no matter how much I “know” that we humans  and our ability to function are very fragile. We never need to apologize for our humanness.  “Hello. I am so sorry I am human” is much different than, “Excuse me/us.”  Excuse me simply implies that I know that my behavior affected another.  It does not imply that I am ashamed, embarrassed, or worthy of being shot at sunrise. It is simply “excuse me.” No big deal.

If not feeding the story of embarrassment or shame, I may still be left with a feeling of sadness as I see my loved one less and less able to function. I may also get tried, impatient , frustrated, and sad for myself. That is okay.  Again, I just want to notice those feelings without feeding them or the thoughts - without fussing at myself or  otherwise commenting on my feelings or thoughts.

Evil?

Friday morning, my friend Becky, mentioned that she had watched two shows Thursday evening,  Evolution of Evil  which featured Saddam Hussein and an episode of the primetime news magazine show 20/20.  The 20/20 episode, featuring Becky Babcock, daughter of Diane Downs, caught her attention because when Becky worked in Oregon, she supervised faculty who were teaching in the women’s state prison where Ms. Downs was being held and had been in classrooms where Ms. Downs was a student.  Both shows seemed to have a common theme – that of ‘evil.’   Since I only see television when watching news at the gym to distract myself while on the treadmill it was not surprising that I had not seen the program. Sometimes I do read about programs and occasionally I will watch a television show via Netflix.  I have no negative feelings or thoughts regarding television; it just does not occur to me to turn it on.  At any rate, I had not seen the program Becky was telling me about. If I had seen it I would have known about this episode of 20/20 that featured Becky Babcock, the youngest daughter of Diane Downs.  A brief search on Wikipedia reminded me of the following regarding Diane Downs:

“On May 19, 1983, prosecutors contend that Downs shot her three children, Stephen Daniel (born 1979); Cheryl Lynn (born 1976); and Christie Ann (born 1974). Downs drove the children in a blood-spattered car to McKenzie-Willamette Hospital. There was blood spatter all over the inside of the car but none on Diane. On arrival at the hospital, Cheryl was already dead. Danny was paralyzed from the waist down and Christie suffered a disabling stroke. Downs herself had been shot in the left forearm. Downs claimed she was carjacked on a rural road near Springfield, Oregon, by a strange man who shot her and her three children.

Investigators later discovered she bought the handgun in Arizona; and, although they were unable to find the actual weapon, they found unfired casings in her home with extractor markings from the same gun that shot her children. Most damaging, witnesses saw Downs' car being driven very slowly toward the hospital at an estimated speed of five to seven mph, contradicting Downs' claim that she drove to the hospital at a high speed after the shooting. Based on this and additional evidence, Downs was arrested on February 28, 1984, nine months after the event, and charged with one count of murder and two counts each of attempted murder and criminal assault.”  Her youngest daughter (Becky Babcock) was born in prison and adopted immediately after her birth.

She has been in prison since 1984. In 2013 she was denied parole and will not be eligible for another parole hearing until 2023.    It was never determined that she was legally insane.   The evidence suggesting that she committed the act of which she was charged and convicted is very convincing. 

In the case of Saddam Hussein, I can find no evidence that he was innocent of all the horrendous acts of which he was accused. People may disagree about exact numbers but all seem to agree that he was responsible for the torture and deaths of many people.

I am sure that the television program Evolution of Evil will have no problem finding scores of examples of individuals or groups of individuals who have been responsible for injuring and even killing other humans.  Daily, we can pick up newspaper and find reports of we humans hurting each other in very cruel ways and, seemingly, at times, doing so very deliberately without any feeling of remorse, but also without being legally insane.

As near as I can determine the word evil or has been in use since about the 12th century.    Dictionary.com gives the current definition as:

Full Definition of EVIL

1

A:  morally reprehensible: sinful, wicked <an evil impulse>

B:  arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>

2

A archaic: inferior

b :  causing discomfort or repulsion :  offensive <an evil odor>

c :  disagreeable <woke late and in an evil temper>

3

a :  causing harm :  pernicious <the evil institution of slavery>

b :  marked by misfortune :  unlucky

If one just accepts this general definition one would not have any problem labeling a number of events or actions as evil.   I want to focus on that part of the definition which refers to acts committed by people – acts which are “morally reprehensible, committed from “actual or imputed bad character or causing great harm,” i.e. e. slavery.

All of these definitions imply that the person or persons who commit such acts act out of free will.     If I look up the definition of free will I find:

“The ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily. For many philosophers, to believe in free will is to believe that human beings can be the authors of their own actions and to reject the idea that human actions are determined by external conditions or fate.” (dictionary.reference.com)

Free will implies the absence of insanity.  As I recently stated in another blog, legal insanity has a very narrow definition but minimally states that a person was unable to tell right from wrong.  In other words they were unable to access that part of their brain which “should” remind them that, for example, hurting another person, putting the needs of self above the needs or rights of self is morally wrong. Yet, as in the case with active addiction, we humans sometimes make allowances for a person who is legally sane, but impaired. There has been no evidence uncovered which would suggest that all of Saddam Hussein’s or Diane Downs’ actions were due to being impaired with alcohol or some other drug.

How then to explain the we humans – all of us – continue to behave in ways which are ultimately self-injurious as well as injurious to others? Whether we hurt another because we are distracted while driving, too busy to notice them because we are focused on our important task, fearful of how they will respond if we tell them the truth, fearful that they are going to take something valuable from us such as the affection of a friend, or simply convince ourselves that they deserve to be mistreated.  There are as many reasons for judging another person, as there are people.  We generally, however, reserve the word evil for those “crimes’ we decide are beyond the scope of the average humans being.  In recent years, much of so-called civilized society has been particularly concerned with the “evil” business of using children for sexual exploitation.  Those who use children for sexual exploitation may be the ones who actually force children to perform sexual acts or use the resulting videos or images to stimulate or aid in the stimulation of our own sexual behavior.  We have gone so far as to accuse professional photographers such as Sally Mann who photograph their children nude of sexual abuse of children. In the case of Ms. Mann there were no legal charges filed but she and her family were treated as if they were terrible people. Many would so far as to say that she was evil.  Yesterday I wrote to a man in prison because child pornography was found on his laptop, which was accessible to others. In fact, another man is in jail on the same charge for the same laptop photographs. Furthermore, when the second one ran from the authorities he was also charged with that crime.

Daily, we judge the actions of other people as morally bad, arising from bad character, those that makes us uncomfortable or as those, which are bad due to luck.  We generally reserve the word evil for those we find morally bad or morally reprehensible.   Often, if we can convince ourselves that we are serving a larger or long term good,  an act we might otherwise find morally reprehensible might be labeled as either one of great patriotic duty or one regrettably necessary.   The act of rendition by the United States Government  - the act of taking people to another country to torture them in an attempt to gain information which would assist us in fighting “evil” – was such an regrettably necessary action according to many in our government.  Two presidents stated as much.   Killing people with drones even if it involved the collateral killing of so-called civilians is also a regrettably necessity and not evil.   Forcibly stealing property and killing people in the process was not considered evil when done by the early Caucasian settlers in the United States.  Slavery was eventually labeled as evil.

Some might consider having sex with an underage teenager, even if the teenager is one year younger than the legal age and even if the legal age is different in each country and state, a heinous crime or even evil.  First trimester abortions or abortions at any stage following conception is considered evil by some and an unfortunately necessity by others.  Killing another while driving drunk may be classified as an unfortunate manslaughter and still be punished by the legal system or it may, depending on the jury, judge, and prosecutor be considered a reckless and irresponsible act.  Violating the agreed upon sexual boundaries in a marriage by be considered morally bad by some and even evil by some and just a sad part of being human to others.

Being labeled as evil requires that the degree of hurt inflicted on another by the use of one’s assumed free will to hurt other for one’s immediate personal gain is more harmful in some case than in others.  Evil thus is one of degree of hurt or the degree of defenselessness. Children are assumed to be defenseless, especially when a parent or other caretaker inflicts the hurt.

To label someone else as evil also requires that I rationalize or somehow justify that behavior in which I engaged without considering how it affected others.  That behavior might be as simple as eating a Twinkie (remember the Twinkie defense by Dan White’s attorney in his trial for the murder of Harvey Milk and George Moscone?) without considering the long term effect on one’s health on the health of  others.  Assuming that my consumption of Twinkies does not lead to the murder of other people, we might  say that what I eat or drink  does not affect anyone else. Some officials in cities such as New York have argued otherwise.  Anyone who had had responsibility for someone who was unable to change their eating and exercise behavior thus aggravating their diabetic condition might argue otherwise.   In fact, one might argue that all of us consciously or unconsciously – knowingly or unknowingly  - engage in behavior which affects others.  We also ignore or discount the fact that we are all interdependent. Thus, any action, which hurts you, hurts all of us and any action which long term hurts me hurts everyone else.

There is some truth to the fact that all food, including Twinkies and other so called junk food, can have an adverse effect on my brain which, in turn can affect my ability to exercise free will – my ability to consistently make decisions which are considered moral by me or the larger community.  Most of us daily deny or understate to ourselves and/or to others the extent to which our personal health decision affects others. We can do this because we have convinced ourselves that degree of hurt is not even close to the degree of hurt, which we might label as evil.

Thus, in order, to continue to label some behavior as evil we must:

·      Convince us that our brain is always going to function in a way, which prevents that sort of extreme hurtful behavior.  We might still allow for the effect of such conditions as brain tumors or acute mental illness.

·      That my way of hurting is much less harmful than that of the person I label as evil. Thus, paying very high, multi-million dollar salaries to top executive while paying minimum or less than living wage to even one employee is not evil because we are adding to the overall good by helping to ensure a healthy economy. Likewise, paying the executive staff of an utility company huge salaries while turning off the electricity of poor people who cannot pay their bill is a necessary part of running a business in the modern world.

·      That we good people perform hurtful behavior such as killing in war (or authorize them) as a sad necessity while others who kill for their beliefs are evil.

Could it be that evil is more a matter of who is doing the labeling of a behavior and whether that person(s) doing the labeling has as argument which is more “acceptable” to the larger community?

Do we pay a price for such delusional thinking and, if so, is it an acceptable price?

Am I over complicating a fairly simple process of labeling people such as Saddam Hussein and Diane Downs as evil?  Do I need to attend to the teachings of philosopher John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham who maintained “that we ought to maximize the good, that is, bring about “the greatest amount of good” for the greatest number” (standford.edu/utilitarians) or should I attend to the more complicated teaching of John Locke or Immanuel Kant, or should I just simply accept that the distinction between good and evil is axiomatic to anyone who is paying attention?

I have been thinking a lot about the concept of empathy lately.  Although it sounds like a very admirable quality, I also think that I could and might sometimes delude myself into thinking I can actually put myself in the shoes of another person.   I am not convinced that I can ever do that. I can certainly often identify with certain aspect of a person’s condition or situation but I cannot bring the same history to that condition or situation which the other person brings to it.   I can, as Merriam-Webster suggests in the following definition attempt to be sensitive to the fact that the other person may be having a feeling, which I have also experienced.  Their definition:

Full Definition of EMPATHY  Merriam-Webster dictionary

1

:  the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it

2

:  the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also :  the capacity for this

Dr. Jeremy Sherman suggests in an article entitled “Empathic Intelligence:  To put yourself in their shoes, unlace yours. (Ambigamy).   He also quotes and F. Scott Fitzgerald and then adds his own poignant comment:

“F. Scott Fitzgerald said “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”

To which I’d add that the test of a first-rate capacity for empathy is the ability to hold two opposed positions in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to think for yourself.”

Dr. Sherman in an article on Jon Stewart in Psychology Today (psychologytoday.com) states:

“But if you’re a one-trick phony you can ignore all, that thanks to the availability of synonyms for your favorite virtues that make them sound bad. Serenity is defeatism, denialism, spinelessness. Courage is stubbornness, aggressiveness, being overbearing. Love is good but being a suck-up is bad. Freedom is good, but recklessness is bad. Same denotation; opposite connotation.”

This reminds me that for me there is no way to leave myself and actually put myself in the shoes of another. I will bring my life experiences, expectations, biases and  emotional history to the meeting with another.  Thus I might mistake courage for stubbornness or stubbornness for tenacity.  Depending on my experiences and emotional history I might set boundaries on my willingness to join the other person where they are at or where I think that they are.

Three people recently reminded me of my illusion of empathy.  One is a young man in his forties – the same age as my son – who, because of a fall several years ago – has been unable to get himself out of bed or have control over the lower half of his body. He also has some impairment in the use of the upper part of his body.  It is important to note that he is an African American who has lived with racism all his life. His personal history includes a history of alcoholism and a history of being a professional musician.

Another of the people who I have been attempting to identify with is a man who is being tried for the murder of his wife.  Both he and his wife were recovering alcoholics/addicts who had relapsed.

Third, is a man who I think may also be in recovery, is in his forties, has recently gone back to college, and is working at a janitorial job? He cannot afford an apartment on his own and, thus, has to share an apartment. For some reason he was recently asked to move out of the apartment he was sharing with two other men.  He also does not have a driver’s license. Again, I do not know the circumstances of his losing his drivers license. 

In each of these situations I have wanted to be supportive and, yet, challenging in a respectful way. I expect that from people who care about me.  Yet, I also know that I can sometimes experiencing people as patronizing, condescending and thinking they understand when they do not have a clue.  I can also experience them as discounting of my feelings or assuming that I just have to accept my lot in life.  None of those reactions feel empathetic to me no matter how well intentioned that they wanted to me.

Certainly I can and have put myself in learning situations such as workshops where I am blindfolded for the day.  That may be helpful in a limited way, but I still know that the end of the day I can take off the blindfold. I have also been in workshops where I was put in a brace, which prevented me from moving my lower body. Again, that is helpful in getting a sense of what it means to be differently abled, but it is only for a day.

If I want to approach empathy I am going to have to be a good listener without getting sucked into the depth of depression or hopelessness which the other person may be experiencing.  It will not be helpful if we have two hopeless, depressed or angry people.  This is never easy.  My friend who is paralyzed and who has been feeling and believing that he is a helpless victim I want to challenge to think beyond these feelings.  Yet, I have to think about what it might be like to be so dependent. I know that being dependent has been a fear of mine.   It is much easier for me to give help than it is to accept it.  In order to put myself in the shoes of the man who is paralyzed I have to be willing to face my fear of being dependent. I have to honestly ask myself if I could move beyond my anger and disappointment. I might and probably would talk about how emotionally and physically painful it would be to challenge myself to think of myself as differently abled instead of disabled.   It is one thing to say to this man, “You are differently abled.  You are not disabled.  For God’s sake, it has been several years and you are focused on what you cannot do instead of what you can do.”  It is quite another to truly allow myself to get in touch with my own feeling of helplessness or emotional pain. 

The same issues present themselves with the man in jail charged with murder or the man without a car and driver’s license and little money who might soon be homeless.

Empathy for me means that I have to face parts of myself, which might very well be uncomfortable, frightening, or even painful.    The most difficult challenge for me to be a friend, a therapist, or a father is to do what I am recommending that the other do.  Although our particular situations may be very different, the fact remains that we all have emotional and spiritual challenges.  If I stay in the “helper/father” role I am doing something for another and not doing something with them. 

If my memory serves me correctly it was Mark Twain who suggested that the truly educated man was one who could spend all day with a hobo or homeless person and be comfortable learning something and then later that day be at a state dinner at the While House, be comfortable and learn something.  (I tried to verify this but goggle failed me.) The short version is to say that being educated means that one is comfortable knowing one has much to learn from everyone, being willing to learn. and yet confident about being oneself.

Is this empathy?  I hope so. It is the only way I know to approach it.

Written August 22, 2015

A lot of my work these days is done via email, phone, skype/face time, or snail mail.   I do see a limited number of clients for coaching in my home office. Prior to moving, when I had a very busy psychotherapy practice operating in my home office, I saw most of my clients in person. They used email, phone, and Skype but in most cases, it was to augment in-person sessions.

My home office was in my large Victorian home which had sliding doors known as pocket doors with which one could use to close off the living room from the entrance hall and the rest of the house.  Clients would enter the house in the vestibule and, if the pocket doors were closed, go to the kitchen, which was also a waiting room.  There they knew to help themselves to tea, decaffeinated coffee, juice, freshly baked cookies, or after school snacks.  Most of the clients felt safe and “at home.” A few who had very bad memories of home needed an office which was more clearly an office.

After the last client would leave in the late afternoon or evening I would vacuum, dust, fluff all the couch cushions, clean up the kitchen, and make sure all the flowers were fresh looking. In other words I prepared the house to welcome tomorrow’s guests.

Most days the living room was used solely for those special guests whom the insurance companies thought of as clients.  When I was relaxing during the evenings or when not working on the weekends, I would read and listen to music in the second floor den.  Casual personal guests were also entertained in the den. Occasionally a family member of a client would ask to watch television in the den as they waited.

In essence, the first floor room where I saw clients were more like the room my grandmothers called the parlor.  The parlor was a room seldom used for immediate family, although an immediate family member might be permitted to pick a book from the extensive library in my Grandmother Pickett’s home or enter to play the piano, which was also housed in that room. The parlor might be opened to allow extended family members on holidays or on the occasion of a post-funeral gathering or wedding celebration.

If there was a young man or woman of dating age they might be allowed to receive their date in the parlor although never with the doors closed or unsupervised.  

The parlor (parlous) according to dictionary.reference.comwas:

Parlor

or (especially British) parlour

[pahr-ler]

noun

1.

Older Use. a room for the reception and entertainment of visitors to one's home; living room.

2.

a room, apartment, or building serving as a place of business for certain businesses or professions:

funeral parlor; beauty parlor.

3.

a somewhat private room in a hotel, club, or the like for relaxation, conversation, etc.; lounge.

4.

Also called locutorium. a room in a monastery or the like where the inhabitants may converse with visitors or with each other.

adjective

5.

advocating something, as a political view or doctrine, at a safe remove from actual involvement in or commitment to action:

parlor leftism; parlor pink.

I did not attempt to do further research on the 5th definition meaning “advocating something.”   I am mainly interested in the concept as applied to the private home.

The parlor in the home of both of my grandmothers and in the home of many other family members was always ready to receive guests all of whom were to be treated as well as the most important person in the world.  Every guest was  to be treated as the equivalent of the prodigal son returning home. It was important that guests be made to feel special and know that one was prepared for them. In the parlor, one might make use of a tea or coffee service which was not used for normal family gatherings.   Not all homes, of course, boasted a parlor or a formal tea or coffee service. I grew up in a three-room house without running water, indoor plumbing, or electricity.   There were seven of us who lived in this very tiny house. We certainly did not have a parlor or a formal tea or coffee service.  The front room of the house was the kitchen, living room, dining room, sewing room, and project room.  The middle room was a very small room with a full bed and a twin bed. As my two sisters got older they took over the twin bed while the boys slept in the double bed.  The third room was my parents’ small bedroom.

Despite the lack of a parlor in my parent’s home, I was raised to know that guests were always to be treated special. 

When I became an adult and had my home it was not until I was older that I had a room which was largely reserved for guests and later clients who were, of course, sacred guests.

I am now living in two-bedroom condo/villa.  The living room is my den, parlor, project room, and general use room. Still, I occasionally see clients in this home office. Thursday was such a day. When I had finished breakfast dishes I dusted, washed windows, cleaned the floors (tile with only area rugs), checked the condition of the flowers, and made sure that all was ready to brew coffee or tea.  Sadly I no longer always keep homemade cookies in ample supply since I do not often have guests who eat cookies.  In other words, I prepared for my special guests. The goal was not and is not to impress the guests. The goal is to do all I can to let guests know that they are sacred – very honored visitors.

Preparing for guests on Thursday reminded me of the formal parlors of my grandparents and other family members.  Obviously, whether or not one had or has a parlor/formal living room or whether, like me, one just has one all purpose room, the ideal of insuring that guests feel important and welcomed – as if they are the most important person in the world – is one which I think we would do well to hold on. I often advise families to try to have a family dinner at least once or twice a week. I suggest that during family dinners cell phones get shut off, televisions not be on, and if one has special company dishes and table linens that one use them.  In other words I suggest that families and even individuals living alone create a little island temporarily cut off from the rest of the world.  Without the television or the cell phones, family members are more likely to visit with each other.  The purpose of using good china and linens is to create an atmosphere in which one is invited to slow down and be present.  Not only will family members be more likely to nurture each other but also if one is more relaxed food digests better. It is a win – win.

Even in the three-room house of my parents with a picnic style table in the kitchen and a mismatched set of dishes. my mother would prepare for my father’s arrival home from work by putting on a dress (no matter how old), high heels, and makeup.  Sadly, she still might have been angry but she made an effort to welcome her husband home. We children were also required to clean up in preparation for the evening meal.

The parlor or formal dining room can be anywhere.  For some people this is gathering at a table in the yard or  going on a picnic.  Some nights there will be no family gathering.  Dinner is going to be everyone grabbing something to eat so that they can get to their scheduled activities, but most families can set aside two or three nights a week to gather and let each other know:

1.      What they appreciate about each other.

2.      Their private or individual news.

3.      The thoughts on business decisions.

4.      What they are thinking, interested in, concerned about, studying, etc.

5.      Their expressions of apology when needed. Perhaps one got very angry or got frustrated or short with another a family member in the rush of the morning or forget to do something they had promised to do or …

The parlor is not a place, but an emotional cocoon - one’s comfort zone.  We can use rooms, things, special food to create this cocoon, but those are not necessary.  It is necessary to be present enough to treat each other as special, sacred guests.

I assume that most children have heard from a parent, most likely a mother, “Just tell me the truth.  I don’t care what you did. I just want the truth. I am going to be angrier if you lie.”  Every child knows that it is best to lie or at least give a lie your best effort!  If your parent/mother was anything like mine she “pretended” that all she really wanted was the truth – that it was ‘safe’ to tell the truth. Perhaps that is true with some parents. Perhaps some children only lie because they want to please their parents or teachers. Perhaps Eric Barker is right when he cites findings from NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children, which says that children (at least young ones) lie to try to please you or make you happy. So the first strategy to getting the truth out of them is to tell them you'll be really happy if they tell you the truth: Perhaps that is accurate for some although I have yet to meet a child who believed that.  Certainly I did not believe my mother when she said all she was concerned with was the truth. If one finally confessed one would get punished both for lying and for the deed about which one lied.   In other words my mother lied to try to get me and my siblings to tell the truth.  I did not lie to try to please my mother. I lied to try to keep from getting into trouble. The fact that I was not very good at lying did not deter me from giving it my best effort.

I was thinking about this Tuesday evening when listening to an interview with Ronnie Green, the journalist who wrote, Shots on the Bridge: Police Violence and Cover-up in the Wake of Katrina (published by Beacon Press).

Green says, “By now, most New Orleanians know the broad strokes of what happened the Sunday after Hurricane Katrina when those police officers – who wrongly believed officers had been shot at the bridge – killed two innocent people, wounded four innocent people, and immediately went into cover-up mode.”  Mr. Green details the long process for getting at the truth of what happened and helping to ensure that the police officers and others involved in the cover up were not only help accountable but punished.

My first question when listening to the interview with Mr. Green was  “Why would they tell the truth? They knew that they would be punished.”  Now, to Mr. Green’s credit, he does detail the enormous pressure under which the police were functioning following the devastating loss caused by Katrina as well as the slow government response and the resultant criminal activity.   At the time of the shooting, the police and other respondents were exhausted and subject to reacting instead of acting.   That is not to say that it was okay to shoot these innocent people. It is to say that it is understandable, at least to me, that they over reacted.   One could, of course, question why they were carrying the heavy firepower that they were – “two AK-47s, an M4 assault rifle, a .40 caliber Glock 22 semiautomatic pistol, and a Mossberg shotgun.” The question for another inquiry or debate is,   “ Why do we insist on using such powerful and deadly weapons in an age in which we know how to disarm people without, in most instances, killing them (I am thinking of the fact that a few people will die from the use of a stuntgun but my understanding is that the instances of death are very low)?”

The question I want to raise in this blog is why we should be surprised that we humans, including police officers and children, lie.  As a child I lied because I was hoping to avoid a severe beating for the original behavior plus a severe beating for the lying.   When my mother asked me, “Why do you lie?” if I had responded with the truth which was “Because you are a mean bully. Because it is not safe to tell you the truth.” she would have then punished me for my “smart mouth,”  Perhaps there are kids who lie just because they want their parent(s) to be happy, but I suspect that many other kids (and adults) lie because it is not safe to tell the truth.  Sure, it may be honorable to tell the truth no matter what the possible consequences, but in most cultures one does not get rewarded for being willing to be accountable. One gets punished.   Unless one is a member of a community, which has, a tradition of not punishing  (such as a 12-step program or the Tlingit Indian community) it is not enough to be accountable.  One needs to be punished. The belief is that one deserves to be punished and that punishment will normally reduce or eliminate the undesirable behavior.   Well, perhaps in some cases that is true. I do know of some people who changed their thinking and behavior because of or in spite of punishment.  I also “know” that I have always known and felt bad as soon I committed an undesirable or forbidden behavior.  On the other hand, if I had behaved in a way which was consistent with my values but inconsistent with the values of a parent, boss, or the larger community, I might resolve to find a way to be more effective in not getting discovered or in the case of getting arrested for such behavior such as anti-war demonstrations, resolve to be connected with an organized support system which would help when I did get arrested.

Certainly there are those whose internalized values are such that they will continue to find ways to try to get away with violating the rights of others.  These individuals have been conditioned by a sub-culture, which has a different set of values.  There are also those whose behavior will be determined by a mental illness or an acute addictive disorder. Those are not the groups of people whose behavior I am intending to address in this blog.

No, I am more concerned in this blog with the behavior of such individuals as the police officers in New Orleans or more recently in Ferguson, Missouri, Baltimore, or other places.  The questions, which I think we need to be asking, are:

 “How can we make it safe for you to tell the truth?”  Or “How can we learn to focus on accountability and finding a way to change future behavior?”

“How can we move from a punishment-oriented model to a model which helps good people change their future behavior?”  Naturally if one is going to use a new paradigm with police officers it has to also be used with everyone else. We cannot use a punishment model on one group of people and not another.  The approach has to be uniformed.

I have previously written about the difference between the parenting approach of my parents and that of my Uncle Harold (Uncle Happy) and Aunt Pleasie with whom I spent a lot of time as a child. When I did something, which was not safe or good for the whole family, Aunt Pleasie and Uncle Harold   always responded with:

1.    “Do you understand now why we did not want you to play with the loaded rifle or touch the hot pie plate or...”
2.   Let’s fix the window in the door or clean up the mess or bake a new pie or…

Their method was very effective. I never did the same behavior twice (at least this is my memory and I am sticking with it).

They made it safe to tell the truth. There was no reason to lie.  I still felt bad, but I was not frightened of being punished for the next three life journeys!!!  My parents, particularly my mother who was the primary childcare person, responded with anger and a resolve to punish.