About 100 people turned out for a Saturday night event in April that offered no booze, dancing, live music or political speeches. The attraction was a display of art created from military uniforms and war memories.

The event—called Healing from War Through the Arts, at the Puffin Cultural Forum in Teaneck, NJ—featured art and writings developed in Combat Paper and Warrior Writer workshops. As one of the curators, I took the liberty of creating a photo book of scenes at this remarkable gathering:

janbarryphotojournal.shutterfly.com/pictures/238

“Powerful. The one word that comes to mind after Saturday’s Exhibition and performance at The Puffin Cultural Forum in Teaneck. Simply Powerful,” Dave Keefe, director of the Combat Paper NJ program, wrote in a Facebook message. “Thank you to all that attended. We have something to say. And when we step out on that scary bridge to express everything inside…you meet us half way. Thank you.”

This week, Keefe and other Puffin participants and fellow artists are conducting workshops and presentations in Washington, DC and vicinity at a national event called Arts, Military and Healing.

On April 30, the New Jersey Combat Paper program was featured in a PBS Newshour report. Here’s what Morgan Till, one of the PBS journalists who visited a Combat Paper workshop at the Printmaking Center of NJ, wrote on a blog: “The veterans gathered around the cutting table, shredding uniforms and letting the stories flow. An unburdening that is itself a catharsis many have sought and, before now, not found.”

The next step, Till wrote, “is where the veteran can tell their stories through art and poetry. The paper provides the platform, the larger community of veterans provides the confidence and support to undergo this transformation.”

The weekend after the PBS Newshour report, a small crowd of people from a variety of backgrounds showed up at the Printmaking Center in Branchburg, NJ to help cut up uniforms to be turned into paper and otherwise aid the Combat Paper program. Family members and friends of veterans involved in the program dropped by.

Plans were discussed about future workshops, art exhibitions, readings and fund-raisers. These include the events this week in Washington, a Warrior Writers reading this Saturday at the Nuyorican Poets Café in New York City, a Combat Paper art display at Teaneck, NJ’s Memorial Day festival, a poetry reading and fund-raiser at the Newark Public Library on June 9, and a We R One-sponsored motorcycle run fund-raiser in central New Jersey on June 23.

For more information:

www.printnj.org/combat-paper/
www.artsandmilitary.org/pages/index.php
www.warriorwriters.org/happening.html
www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/04/combat-paper-ptsd-treatment.html
www.werone.info/causes-2/combat-paper-project/

(This article was also posted at EarthAirWater.)

Research has shown that when we experience a crisis, we regress back to our primitive ancestors; we go caveman! We fall back on most deeply ingrained instincts and habits that have served us well for eons by ensuring our survival, namely, by triggering the “fight-or-flight” response. This primal reaction produces intense physiological changes that increase our strength, heighten our senses, and bolster our endurance, all in the name of enabling us to fight more ferociously or run faster and longer. When confronted by a saber-toothed tiger or a rival tribesman, our ancestors had two basic options and we instinctively chose the one that we believed would maximize our chances of survival.

Unfortunately, this ancient reaction that worked hundreds of thousands of years ago in the face of a crisis, won’t work with the crises that we experience in the business world in the 21^st century. For example, if you have a conflict with a co-worker, hitting or running from them is not likely a winning strategy that will effectively resolve it. To the contrary, such a response will probably decrease your chances of survival in that jungle known as corporate life. Yet these primitive drives propel us to fall back on the instincts and habits of our forbearers.

In fact, is there any more important situation when you need to have all of your most highly evolved capabilities running on all cylinders than during crises in today’s business world? That’s when you have to respond in ways that go against millions of years of instincts. In a crisis, you need to be at our most evolved best, using your all of the extensive powers that your cerebral cortex can offer you. You must stay calm and rational. You need to be able to think methodically, flexibly, and creatively to discover solutions where the old rules and practices often won’t work. You must reason and problem solve. You need to think through options and make effective decisions.

Your Emotional Reaction to Crisis

In addition to the survival instinct that influences all of us, which emotions you experience and the intensity with which you feel them depends on a variety of factors. Your emotional hard-wiring influences the impact a crisis will have on you. There is clear evidence that temperament, that is, the characteristic ways in which you react emotionally, are innate. Some people are born highly sensitive and, as a result, are more likely to react emotionally to situations quickly and intensely. Conversely, other people are temperamentally stoic and, as a consequence, are less reactive emotionally.

Your past experiences with emotions in general and during crises in particular also influence your immediate reactions. For example, those who have years of experience and a history of success in confronting crises, for example, on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange or in the boardroom, are more likely to have developed constructive attitudes and effective strategies to react positively to crises. In contrast, those who have had little experience with work-related crises will likely not feel prepared or confident to respond to their challenges. Additionally, others who have struggled in crises will probably have developed negative attitudes and ineffective strategies that interfere with their ability to confront crises.

Your emotional reactions will also be dictated by the degree to which the crisis threatens you directly and immediately. The closer you are to the crisis in terms of impact on you, the more strongly your emotions will be. People who held aggressive investment portfolios, for example, were more likely to respond strongly to the Great Recession than those who had conservative portfolios.

The resources you have available will also contribute to the quality and quantity of your emotional reaction to a crisis. Whether in the form of experience, social support, money, or materials, the more resources you have, the less threatened you will feel in reaction to a crisis. These resources increase people’s confidence in their capabilities to manage and overcome the crisis. For example, the US Airways captain Chesley Sullenberger, who piloted the “Miracle on the Hudson” landing of a passenger jet on the Hudson river, used his years of experience and extensive flying skills to remain calm and save the lives of 150 passengers and crew. In contrast, lacking those resources, the passengers themselves were, presumably, terrified when they realized that they were going to crash into the water.

Finally, the amount of control that you have in response to a crisis will influence how much it affects you emotionally. Generally speaking, the more control you feel over a crisis, the less intense your emotions will be and the less they will interfere with your ability to respond positively to the crisis. Returning to the example of Captain Sullenberger, his well-trained and frequently affirmed skilled sets instilled in him the belief that the crisis was within his control, enabling him to stay focused and make rapid—and correct—decisions.

The next issue of Prime Business Alert! will explore the “crisis emotional chain,” which is comprised of four emotions that interfere with your ability to respond positively in a crisis.

(This article was also posted at Dr. Jim Taylor’s Blog.)

Realizing even then that a small nation would show the way during his first term in office, Candidate Obama materialized against a backdrop of sturdy Styrofoam Greek columns to accept his 2008 presidential nomination.

Our Great Leader President consistently understands the past as well as he anticipates the future. Even before 2008 Candidate Obama — previously known only vaguely as a junior Senator from a marginal state — knew that Greece would continue to dangle from a financial precipice and, unless decisive action were taken promptly, fall into oblivion. He also knew that as the time for his preordained reelection as our President drew near in 2012, Greece’s beautifully columned historic sites would be rented out on better terms than ever before to save her.  The United States — formerly undirected, befuddled and lacking exceptionalism because they did not have President Obama’s wise and historic leadership — now prepare under his calm but forceful command to bravely follow audacious Greece where no nation had dared to boldly go before. Having followed gallant little Greece to find a suitable precipice, President Obama will now follow her to deal with that opportunity problem. At his Chicago Summit where world leaders are expected to pay him the homage he deserves, he will urge the foundering European nations to follow Greece’s and now his very own path to redemption.

My Source and President Obama’s Plan.

One of my confidential sources, this one deep within the bowels of the Administration and known only as Bowel Source (BS), told me privately that executive orders are now awaiting only final presidential approval.  Churchillian in scope and bravery, his orders will authorize long term leases on favorable terms of the Washington Monument, the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials, the Congress and the Supreme Court to exemplary parties. Executive orders pertaining to all Federal departments and agencies are well along the way to completion, subject only to any reasonable claims the current lessees may make. It has also been learned that an Executive Order relating to the White House is already in gestation; when made public, it will demonstrate the heroic lengths to which President Obama is prepared to go, sacrificing even his own humble home, to save our once great nation from collapse.

Anticipating President Obama’s empathetic and brilliant move, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has already submitted a bid for the Congress and the American Civil Libertine Union (ACLU) is preparing one for the Supreme Court. The National Organization of Women (NOW) wants the Washington Monument for its very own phallic symbol, the Demagogic National Committee (DNC) will soon seek the Lincoln Memorial further to enhance its brilliant civil rights record and even little William and Mary College desires the Jefferson Memorial so that it can properly reclaim the title “Mr. Jefferson’s University” from a mere upstart, the University of Virginia. There will doubtless be bids for the White House and federal agencies when or even before President Obama has signed the pertinent Executive Orders.  All will provide win-win situations for the lessees and for the nation as a whole. These advances will be no less successful than the brilliant economic plan adopted by Greece upon which they are based.

Barack Obama, the Great and Better than Merely Excellent President.

There can be no question as to President Obama’s wisdom and economic sophistication. With his seeming infinity of transparent crystal balls and the insights into the future they still give him to deal unerringly with what he felt sure would come, his wisdom and economic sophistication are simply incredible.  Indisputably, we must give him at least another four years to bring his forward looking plans fully to fruition. Yea, the dead shall rise to vote for him!

Even to think of doing otherwise for our Dear Leader and Messiah would show that we do not deserve him; the consequences would be horrific. Happiness will reign throughout the world, but only if we all vote for Him.

Happiness for All!

(This article was also posted at Dan Miller’s Blog.)

In my last post [on this topic], I described the essential role that values play in the life you lead. I also showed how you can deconstruct values so you can really understand what values are driving your life.

But it is one thing to recognize what values you possess and to admit that some (or all) of them may not bring you the meaning, fulfillment, and happiness you had hoped for in your life. It is an entirely different thing to understand what values will actually bring you the life you want. This process is one of reconstruction of your values so that your values act as the basis for that “ideal life” in the future.

Reconstructing Your Values

There are several questions you can ask yourself to help you figure out what values will make you happy. First, what do you choose to do in your life? Assuming that you choose activities in your life freely, such as cultural, spiritual, or athletic activities, specifying these activities is a first step in identifying the values that create congruence between your values and your life. Second, what activities do you have a great passion for and that bring you true joy in your participation? There is no better clue to what you deeply value than activities such as these. Third, what activities, experiences, and people cause you to feel deeply engaged and connected with? This absorption can only occur when your values and life are one.

Having answered these questions, you can now dig beneath the surface of those activities, experiences, and people, and identify the values that underlie them. One client, Wendy, a financial analyst, had enjoyed the visual arts since childhood, but her parents had discouraged her from pursuing them because “they wouldn’t pay the bills.” When I asked Wendy to answer the above questions, she realized that her love of the arts was the only thing in her life that she felt a deep connection with. Through careful consideration of her values, Wendy discovered that the inspiration of creation and the physical expression of her creativity were fundamental values that she was never able to express in her career. With this insight—this epiphany!, as she put it—Wendy was able to more actively pursue this passion with greater clarity and purpose, and, for the first time in her life, felt greater alignment between her values and her life, and found a greater sense of balance and contentment.

An important part of this reconstruction process is to reframe success in a way that is consistent with your true values. Success for those whose values and lives are out of synch with each other often have bought into the definitions of success imposed by popular culture, for example, wealth, status, popularity, and physical appearance. In contrast, those who are able to align their values with their lives create their own definitions of success, such as living a life true to their values, setting and achieving meaningful goals, or making the world a better place.

Living Your Values

You may be thinking, “This whole reconstruction thing seems pretty easy.” Yes, recognizing the values you were raised with and coming to understand the values that make you happy is the easy part. The real challenge is learning to embrace your true values and create a life that is in synch with them. Your life to the present, though perhaps causing you dissatisfaction and unhappiness, is nonetheless familiar, predictable, and, in a perverse sort of way, comfortable. You have lived this way for many years and your life habits are deeply ingrained.

Living your life in accordance with your newly identified or clarified values means discarding values, beliefs, and ways of life that have been a part of you for your entire life. However unhappy you may feel now, the prospect of change and the uncertainty and instability that accompanies it can be intimidating, if not downright terrifying.

At some point though, you must tell yourself that your life as it is now is no longer acceptable. You just need to decide that enough is enough and that it is time for a change. Once you make that commitment, learning to live your new values will be easier because you will have, at that moment, exerted a new force on your life and begun the process of changing its course. It will also be easier because living your values will be self-rewarding; participating in activities and experiences, and being with people that are consistent with your new values will bring you freedom, balance, and happiness.

Once you make this decision to alter your life, you need to decide how much of a change you want to make. A part of you would probably like to throw your entire life away and start fresh, perhaps on a tropical island in the South Pacific or in a mountain cabin in Idaho. But living your newly realized values does not necessarily mean discarding your old life and beginning life anew. The reality is that few people can dramatically alter their basic life. Few people can afford to quit their jobs and become starving artists or some such equivalent. But that does not mean that you can’t make meaningful change in your life that will allow you to align your values and life and find happiness.

Instead, living your values means placing greater emphasis on and making a greater commitment to activities, experiences, and people that express those values. It also involves creating balance in your life. For years, your “life scale” may have been weighted heavily toward the unhealthy values that you adopted from your parents and popular culture. This imbalance may have enabled you achieve success, but at the steep cost of little happiness. Living your values means reducing the weight of the unhealthy values and placing greater weight on the side of the scale that holds your new values. By doing so, you place more emphasis on activities, experiences, and people that that you truly value and that bring you happiness.

A former client of mine, Andy, has always had a fascination with physics. As a child and teenager, he would read about the great physicists and explore the theories of physics. But Andy’s father discouraged him from pursuing the study of physics by saying that the only way to make a decent living as a physicist was to be Stephen Hawking.

In college, Andy majored in business while wishing he could study to become a high school physics teacher. In the ensuing 20 years, Andy became a successful businessman and, not surprisingly, a rather discontented fellow. Recently, I shared with him my views about aligning values and life in pursuit of happiness. I asked him to answer those three questions above. Andy realized that what he loved most about physics was the challenge of understanding the theories and making them comprehensible to others. He also recognized that he has always wanted to help young people, but, up to the present, had only done so by donating money to educational programs.

Andy knew it was time for a change in his life. At the same time, he realized that he couldn’t just quit his job and become a high school physics teacher. Andy had a family to support and a somewhat lavish lifestyle that he enjoyed—the proverbial “golden handcuffs.” So, he found a way to balance his family and career with activities that were in synch his newly realized values. Andy enrolled in a physics class in the adult-learning program of a nearby university. He also volunteered to tutor high school students one night a week. Finally, he signed up for a one-week stint as a counselor at a summer science camp. I saw Andy recently. I have never seen him so happy and at peace!

(This article was also posted at Dr. Jim Taylor’s Blog.)

It’s beastly and must never again be sung until changed. Then, we can finally be as proud of our country as we are of President and Mrs. Obama.

Here are verses from the disgustingly warlike Marine Hymn:

From the Halls of Montezuma
To the Shores of Tripoli,
We fight our country’s battles
In the air, on land and sea.

First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean;
We are proud to claim the title
of United States Marine.

Here’s health to you and to our Corps,
Which we are proud to serve.
In many a strife we’ve fought for life
And never lost our nerve.

If the Army and the Navy
Ever look on Heaven’s scenes,
They will find the streets are guarded
By United States Marines.

It is worse than merely passe. Alpha types are no longer needed and must just fade away into the dark night, heads hung in shame; only Beta types can be useful in the new military we need so badly.

Sickeningly jingoistic, reeking of violence and redolent of unhealthy sentiments from the thankfully rejected past — patriotism, religious symbolism and the violence they inevitably cause — the Unamerican Hymn encourages Marines to cherish their Alpha natures and to fight uncompassionate wars brutally. It prevents them from freeing their inner child in glorious Beta fashion and from submitting rapturously to worldwide peace and love.  It ill serves modern multicultural America and must be rewritten before it is too late.

Here are my proposed revisions, intended to encourage Marine recruitment from the superior Beta classes and to free any remaining souls of the unfortunates now in uniform:

From the Halls of Mother Harvard
To the bowers of Washington,
We reject our country’s horrors
In our nests, at sea and shore.

First to seek our inner childhoods
And the joys that they must bring,
We proclaim the joyful righteousness
Of every dream that we can sing.

Here’s joy to us and all our friends,
We are just too meek to fail.
To many a Librul we have proved our worth,
Never shall we act male.

When our Congress and our President
Come to sniff our fragrant scenes,
They will find the flowers are tended
by Multicultural Marines.

The video below demonstrates that military training is antiquated and hence extremist. It simply must no longer be permitted. Frightfully athletic, dangerous and politically incorrect, it leads only to unwarranted hatred and Alpha violence unbecoming a gentle-person.

This brilliant new training manual, recently adopted by the Department of Defense and integral to its bold new emphasis on demilitarization, is gracefully superior in every respect:

We must always honor our courageous leader:

Newsweek has again led the way with neither fear nor favor:

Even Germans, formerly militarily adventurous but now pacific and contrite, have shown their unrestrained solidarity with President Obama:

Dare we do less? We must all bend forward, away from the darkness of the past and toward the brave light of the newly fawning day! Yes, we can! Yes we must!

(This article was also posted at Dan Miller’s Blog.)

On May 9th, President Obama came out in favor of same-sex marriage; sort of.  Acknowledging that it’s a matter of fairness that remains up to the states, he was planning to get around to it if and when convenient.

There is already excessive Federal involvement in marriage, including multiple tax and Social Security consequences; we don’t need more.  Aside from that Federal involvement, I view marriage as an undertaking between two adults, often loving but sometimes not, that their friends and acquaintances can respect or not as they may wish.  Several of our friends have long been in heterosexual relationships, yet for their own reasons continue to “shack up.” Never having asked couples to produce their marriage certificates, we know the natures of their relationships only because they volunteered the information. It is irrelevant to our friendships with them and seems to be so as well to the relationships they have with each other and to the friendships they, as couples, have with others. We also have several unmarried friends in same-sex relationships. That their genders can be easily noticed does not affect our friendships with them. We would respect them no more, and no less, if they were married.

Would anyone disrespect them on the ground that they are not married? Some apparently think so. The word “marriage” was held to be of critical importance in the California Marriage Cases.  As I noted here, in his August 4, 2010 decision rejecting California Proposition 8 limiting marriage to one man and one woman, Federal District Judge Walker acknowledged that civil unions in California provide all of the tangible benefits of marriage that the state is capable of providing. However, he concluded that a mere civil union or other species of domestic partnership fails to

provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships. (Emphasis added.)

Can the “cultural” meaning of a word be changed by altering the way it is used in official documents? Judge Walker concluded that the withdrawal, but only of the name “marriage,” (available to same-sex couples for only a few months before Proposition 8 had become effective) had been the product of hostility toward homosexuals, stigmatizing them as inferior to heterosexuals and accordingly undeserving of the full benefit of recognition uniquely afforded by the word “marriage.” That hostility had not been sufficiently great to result in the withdrawal of any of the previously conferred benefits of civil unions. Apparently, those in homosexual relationships in California would deem themselves less subject to hostility, and perhaps even in more loving and lasting relationships, if they could have “marriage” certificates instead of civil union papers and be “married” rather than civil unioned.

On appeal, a majority of the 9th Circuit appellate court panel held on February 7, 2012 that Judge Walker had been right and that withdrawal only of a briefly held right to use the word “marriage” had lacked any legitimate basis. It rejected as irrational all of the various bases presented by Proposition 8 proponents, including historic procreational and child rearing interests, traditional religious views of marriage and of morality. In dealing only with the situation it claimed to have before it, the majority did not reach the constitutional question of whether states must extend the marriage designation to same-sex couples receiving all of the tangible incidents associated with marriage. Judge Smith dissented in parts here relevant, arguing that the majority had applied an inapplicable standard of review. For anyone interested in reading the opinions, it would probably be best to read the dissent first; the majority opinion does not, in my opinion, deal adequately with the points it raises and they should be considered in evaluating the majority opinion.

Against that somewhat remotely relevant background, President Obama made a “gutsy call,” flip-flopping in stiff headwinds. Not really a flip-flop, it was instead deemed an “evolution” because he at least appeared to transition to a “liberal” stance. According to Roger Stone,

Once Gay Americans are through celebrating President Barack Obama’s “personal” support of Gay marriage equality, they will learn that Obama’s “evolution” changes nothing. Obama’s new position is a bullshit cop-out.

This comes on the heels of an [sic] cynical Obama campaign pirouette where Team Obama trotted out first Secretary of State Hillary Clinton then Vice President “Crazy” Joe Biden to say they support gay marriage and imply that the President would too–after the election.

Now, incredibly, Obama says Gay marriage is a state issue. That’s what they used to say about abortion and before that, slavery. Now Obama tells us that gay couples should be able to marry but he doesn’t believe they have a right to do so. Obama would leave the question to the states–in other words -the status quo. This is like saying that public schools ought to be integrated but if the people of Mississippi disagree, well he says, “let the states decide”

Clearly, it was a form of evolution. Will it turn out to be one furthering his political survival?

Since President Obama claims to agree that same-sex marriage is a state issue, at least it’s a rare area where his (current) position can’t reasonably be characterized as extreme. Nor is it a bold new departure; a year ago, he had announced that his administration would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Nevertheless, according to Diane Sawyer of ABC News, President Obama’s announcement that he supports same-sex marriage was an historic event — an announcement that no other President had ever gone forth to boldly make before. I have noticed little more than perfunctory upset about it in the conservative blog-sphere, more intensely focused on other concerns.

According to former Speaker Pelosi,

President Barack Obama’s embrace of same-sex “marriage” on Wednesday was not political “at all,” nor due to concerns over fundraising from the LGBT community….

While campaign funds are unimportant (yeah, right) to President Obama, his announcement does seem (only inadvertently, of course) to have helped his campaign fund raising; his campaign promptly sent out fund raising appeals based on it. Within ninety minutes of his announcement, “the campaign received $1 million in spontaneous contributions.” Might Vice President Biden’s earlier “gaffe” of announcing his own support for same-sex marriage have been part of the choreography? Why no! Impossible! Surely, President Obama would never (well, hardly ever) stoop that low. According to Politico,

Obama aides fretted that delay would dent his new-breed brand, and likewise that plunging in could weigh him down in battleground states. They even hatched a plan to announce his support just prior to the Democratic National Convention — a characteristically all-in-good-time solution that acknowledged the minefield he was walking through.

The pace of events necessitated a bit of damage control.

Multiple top Democrats said senior Obama aides were deeply annoyed with Biden for forcing the conversation on same-sex marriage earlier than planned. These officials said Biden had, in the past, advised the president against coming out in favor of same-sex marriage because of the potential political downsides, making it all the more frustrating, multiple sources said.

Despite this, President Obama is a forgiving sort and is not unhappy that Vice President Biden preempted him.

“He probably got out a little over his skis, but out of generosity of spirit,” Obama told ABC’s Robin Roberts in an interview that aired Thursday on Good Morning America. “Would I have preferred to have done this in my own way on my own terms without, I think, there being a lot of notice to everybody? Of course. But all’s well that ends well.”

As Roger L. Simon argues here, the announcement is yet another diversion from our many (evidently trivial) domestic and foreign problems oddly seen by some as far more important. President Obama needs all of the diversions he can save or create. Along with with the current recession, President Obama may want us to forget about all distractions that could damage his reelection prospects and his legacy of great works such as ObamaCare. Still, his (possibly first, if one credits the source) “gutsy call” may attain historical significance right up there with such crucial efforts as Federal limitations on school bake sales and bullying (except for a good cause).

While the substantive impact of his announcement may be only transitory, this part of his historic statement will probably endure:

“When I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” said Obama. (Emphasis added.)

It may seem a bit odd to have claimed that military personnel had been fighting on his behalf, even for his previously announced, withdrawn and then re-announced support for same-sex marriage; however, in their hearts they must have known that he would get around to it if and when convenient. Having been personally in harms way, most recently in Afghanistan, President Obama knows full well how they feel.

Same-sex marriage per se is low on my list of major concerns. The Constitution does not mention same-sex marriage; nor, for that matter, does the word “marriage” appear there in any context. That suggests that if marriage was considered at all when the Constitution was written, or thereafter as it was amended, marriage was among the matters thought best left up to the States under Article X.  Another term in office for President Obama, with post-reelection flexibility to “evolve” without constitutional or congressional constraints, is pretty close to the top of my list of concerns.

The fruits of post-reelection flexibility to “evolve” may be abundant. The Washington Post observes,

[J]ust as President Lyndon Johnson became a champion of civil rights for African Americans with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Obama could become a champion of LGBT rights by endorsing legislation or signing an executive order that would forbid states from discriminating against LGBT couples. Marriage equality should be enshrined in our U.S. Constitution, which would take congressional action and public will and support. Obama can’t do it alone.

The Democrats and Obama should now capitalize on the increasing public support for same-sex marriage by taking the bold move of making marriage equality part of the Democratic presidential platform. This would send a clear and resounding message against “separate-but-equal” treatment of same-sex couples.

It will take federal and executive intervention to keep states like North Carolina from denying LGBT couples important entitlements such as Medicaid, Social Security, tax breaks and federal retirements benefits. It is of further significance that Obama, an African American, can serve as a bridge of understanding who could encourage greater tolerance in the black community — which highly regards the president — on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Obama’s action is historic on many levels. He should now give his public endorsement of marriage equality the legal weight, force and legitimacy of executive orders and party platform recognition. (Emphasis added.)

Perhaps if a reelected President Obama decides to bypass the courts and the Congress to go the already well trod executive order route, he might wish to use highly suitable American Flag doormats at the White House; they are available from Lowe’s, although at least one store removed them from display “because of complaints.” President Obama’s people can surely find enough somewhere; China would be honored to provide as many as might be needed. The American Flag chosen would probably not be the one shown at the right; it would be unpatriotic to walk on a picture of President Obama. Perhaps a Constitution-themed doormat could be made just for him.  He would probably not want it, however, because it would be more difficult to shred than the old fashioned parchment and paper versions.

(This article was also posted at Dan Miller’s Blog.)

Mother’s Day is on Sunday. Unfortunately, my own mother died some years ago, so I can’t celebrate the day with her (though I owe her an immense debt of gratitude for all that she gave me). There is, however, another mother in my life that deserves to be honored, namely, my bride Sarah (yes, after almost nine years of marriage, she is still my bride), the mother of our two daughters.

Mothers certainly don’t get the credit they deserve in our society. Did you see the recent kerfuffle between the political strategist Hilary Rosen and Ann Romney? Mothers work long hours (they are never off the “time clock”), are frequently exhausted (no time for naps or coffee breaks), have little time to themselves (it’s all about the kids), are terrified of screwing their children up (the bar is set so high by the “maternal-industrial complex”), and get paid nothing for their labors except, of course, with the gratification of raising their children (which doesn’t pay the mortgage or, often, the emotional bills). There is also some evidence that being a mother makes them less happy than women without children.

Sarah can certainly attest to everything I just wrote. There are days when she wonders why she is a full-time mom (she has great appreciation for the fact that she doesn’t need to work and recognizes that many mothers don’t have that luxury). Like all children, our girls can be difficult with some frequency and Sarah reaches her limits with almost as much frequency. Though she will tell you that there are many wonderful moments that remind her why she is a mother, there are just as many or more moments that cause her to seriously question her commitment to motherhood. And, with degrees from two Ivy League schools (I married up!) and a former (and future) career in the non-profit world, Sarah often jokes (okay, only half jokes) that she is overqualified to be a mother.

Then, of course, there is the constant pressure Sarah feels to be the “perfect mother” (as if that species exists). There are, in our social circle, some mothers who seem to not only be able to do everything that mothers are expected to do these days (cook, bake, keep a flawless home, sew, buy organic, volunteer at their kids’ schools), but who also seem to always be happy and love being a mother, and also are cool, calm, and collected even under the worst circumstances. And, like so many mothers, Sarah can be her worst critic (I tell Sarah that appearances are deceiving and we can’t know what goes on behind closed doors with families).

Yet, for all the challenges Sarah faces, all of the “moments” she has, and all of the angst that she can feel, I truly marvel at how she keeps it all together. She does so much so well for our girls (and me). Sarah is loving, patient, and calm. She is giving, supportive, and generous. Sarah is also tough, consistent, and persistent. She puts the needs of our daughters ahead of her own.

Sarah is so committed to doing the best she can for our daughters and, though she often sees only her small failures, Sarah does a remarkable job at everything she does. And it shows in our girls who are, at ages six and four, pretty good kids: loving, kind, respectful, and responsible.

As anyone who is married with children knows, family life is hard on a marriage. When children come along, the honeymoon ends and real life begins. It’s not all love and connection and harmony; there are conflicts and struggles. And it’s easy to get so caught up in life that you can forget to reflect on why you got married and had children in the first place and remember all of the joys of marriage and parenthood. So, when things get stressful and I begin to wonder why I am here, I always go back to one simple reality: I love Sarah madly and I love my girls just as much. And then I tell Sarah, “Thank you for all you do.”

Sarah isn’t that different from other mothers out there. So this post isn’t just a tribute to her, but rather to all mothers who get up every morning and do the hard work of raising their children. To Sarah and to all mothers, thank you and enjoy this one day each year dedicated to you.

Note to fathers: Sarah had only two requests for Sunday that I think apply to all mothers: no planning and no cooking. Make Mother’s Day the one day in which your wife or partner feels so appreciated that the memory of it will help take the edge off of those more typical days in which being a mother ain’t so great, but they do the job anyway.

(This article was also posted at Dr. Jim Taylor’s Blog.)

It is a proven technology and has many untapped potentials.

Wind power has been used successfully for many years; it may predate the employment of galley slaves (those who row, probably not those who cook in the galley). Even now, wind power has important uses.  It makes sailing, correctly known as the most expensive means of third class travail travel ever devised, possible. It also provides independence when sailing upon oceans, notoriously deficient in refueling stations. During seven years of sailing the Caribbean Sea my wife and I encountered not even one offshore gasoline station where diesel fuel for our auxiliary engine could be purchased. The wind, however, was free and (almost) ever present. True, on rare occasions it failed to oblige and came from what we could have deemed a wrong direction.  However, the wind in the Caribbean blows fairly consistently from the east at ten to fifteen knots, so traveling north, west, or south — or even east-north-east or east-south-east — was pleasant.  In fact, the fastest point of sail, and generally the most comfortable, is with the wind from forty-five to sixty degrees off either bow (but not both simultaneously or in rapid succession). We generally sailed in a direction favored by Neptune the winds and eventually got where we had hoped to arrive in reasonable comfort. Beating close hauled into a twenty-five knot wind and ten foot seas in a small boat such as ours could be uncomfortable.

Wind power has many appropriate uses even on dry land.  Windmills, for example, have been known to grind grain successfully as well as to provide fruitful targets for lances and hence for frustrations. Much of the frustration now endured due to the paucity of windmills would be assuaged were there many more. This could also encourage equestrianism and thereby stimulate employment in such critical fields as blacksmithery, stable management and veterinary medicine. In similar fashion, the widespread obesity that now plagues the world could be alleviated.

When used to produce electricity, land based modern windmills can also provide useful byproducts such as localized heating, soothing roars such as demons might make sounds and dead birds. The possibilities of recreational-use franchises to generate funds to reduce the cost of the generating electricity have not been explored adequately. On days when the ambient temperature is uncomfortably low, vast flocks of humans could enjoy napping in pleasantly warmed environments and then collecting bird remains to be cooked over solar ovens for late evening meals. The beneficiaries would be warmed, rested and well fed and the birds would die happily knowing that mere wild scavengers would not eat them raw. Since no other means of generating electricity can yield these important benefits, the high financial costs of constructing and maintaining such facilities should not even be considered.

It is to be hoped that advocates of sustainability and its cousin, green energy, will soon become more forceful in their advocacy of the wind power benefits summarized above; there are few others. Ways must be found to associate these benefits with offshore windmills so that they too can be competitive, at least with offshore coal and nuclear generating facilities.

(This article was also posted at Dan Miller’s Blog.)

El Presidente Chávez is probably dying and Fidel Castro has warned about blood (not Chávez’ blood) in the streets. He may well be right, for the wrong reasons.

Venezuela became a mess, gradually, after el Presidente Chávez took over the government in 1999. Change came slowly for a few years but eventually the pace accelerated; although spluttering off in different directions, that acceleration continues. As I noted here,

Chávez’ initiatives increased dramatically in number and in magnitude only when he was well into his seemingly endless terms in office. Maybe he had heard the story of the frog put into a pleasantly warm but slowly heating pot of water. The frog failed to realize until too late that he was being boiled for dinner. By then the frog had become unable to jump out of the pot.

The article linked above summarizes how el Presidente consolidated power to the point that his control over all mechanisms of governance became complete, albeit generously shared with Cuba. Unlike his power over things governmental, however, his power over his own body is limited and that seems to be the controlling force now.

When it was strongly rumored that Chávez had a serious cancer problem he denied it vigorously and chastised as liars those from the disloyal anti-Venezuelan political opposition who had said so. He finally acknowledged that he had had cancer but that, due to fatherly advice from el comandante Castro and the advanced medical competence el comandante had brought to Cuba, he had been cured and was cancer free. Then, he found it necessary to make multiple visits to Cuba for chemotherapy and later for radiotherapy.

He keeps going and coming back, briefly.

During a public spectacle mass in early April of this year while on a brief visit to Venezuela, he

wept and asked God to spare his life during a pre-Easter Mass after returning from his latest session of cancer treatment in Cuba. …

He says the latest surgery was successful, that he is recovering well and will be fit to win a new six-year term at an election in October. Yet big questions remain about his future, and on Thursday the strain appeared to show.

In a televised speech to the Catholic service in his home state of Barinas Thursday, Chavez cried and his voice broke as he eulogized Jesus, revolutionary fighter Ernesto “Che” Guevara and South American independence hero Simon Bolivar.

“Never forget that we are the children of giants … I could not avoid some tears,” the former soldier said, his parents and other relatives looking on from the church rows.

“Give me your crown, Jesus. Give me your cross, your thorns so that I may bleed. But give me life, because I have more to do to for this country and these people. Do not take me yet,” Chavez added, standing below an image of Jesus with the Crucifix. (stricken to added).

Perhaps he has found his God.

Chavez’s voice cracked with emotion as he bade farewell to aides and supporters in Caracas on April 30 before leaving for what he said would be his final round of cancer treatment in Cuba.

“I’m sure our Christ will do it again, continuing making the miracle,” Chavez said as he raised his cross to his lips and kissed it, prompting applause from an audience of aides.

If Chavez survives cancer, political analysts say his increasing religiosity could pay election-year dividends in a country where Catholicism remains influential.

“Given that he cannot hide the illness, but he can hide its characteristics and danger, he’s decided to take as much advantage of it as he can, and one advantage is the symbolic and religious issue,” said Luis Vicente Leon, a Venezuelan pollster and analyst. “He’ll present himself as the chosen one, the man who has been cured and healed by the Lord to continue governing the country.” …

“I have great faith in what we’re doing, in this intense undertaking against the illness that ambushed me last year, and I have faith, I repeat, in God,” said Chavez, who looked pale and bloated.

“It’s like a pact with God, with Christ my Lord,” Chavez said. “I’m sure he will lay on a hand so that this treatment, which we’re rigorously following, will have supreme success.” (Emphasis added.)

Currently he is back in Cuba seeking additional fatherly advice from el comandante, and now presumably from Jesus as well, along with the blessings of Cuban medicine. The Venezuelan bond market is rallying in anticipation of his death.

Debt traders are bidding up the bonds of state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela SA as they envision a nation without President Hugo Chavez that may free the oil producer from a tax rate as high as 95 percent.

The Venezuelan stock market has also been up and the “Market Index is now up 135.61% for the year to date.”

According to Press TV, Chávez now needs a wheelchair because of a “fracture in his femur” suffered during radiotherapy in Cuba. Quite possibly misdirected or excessive doses of radiation damaged some of his bones. Or perhaps the cancer of which he had been cured, having failed to hear that he had been cured, metastasized into his bones and weakened them.

US-based Venezuelan Doctor Jose Marquina, who reportedly has access to Chavez’s medical records, has also claimed that Chavez’s “incurable disease is a very aggressive cancer that is progressing very quickly.”

Chavez this week established a new Council of State, intended to act as an advisory committee, which has fueled rumors about his deteriorating health conditions.

Roger Noriega, a writer who has generally been correct or nearly so in his assessments of Chávez’ medical condition, claims that

When an imperious bully like Fidel Castro starts to fear, his instinct is to try to sow fear among his enemies. Today, with his student and benefactor, Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez, dying of cancer, what the Cuban dictator fears most is that his bankrupt regime in Havana is about to lose billions in critical aid and oil.

So, in an April 27 essay entitled, What Obama Knows, Castro conjures a “river of blood” in Venezuela if the Chavista movement is forced from power by the “oligarchy” or “overthrown” by the United States.

Neither the United States nor the “oligarchy,” a fragmented Venezuelan opposition with few means at its disposal, is likely even to attempt violently to overthrow Chávez.

It would come as a surprise to President Obama that he is advocating the overthrow of the Chávez government. The passive policy of the U.S. government is to maintain commercial relations with that country and to wish the Venezuelan people well. What has Castro so alarmed is the intensified effort of U.S. law enforcement — primarily the Drug Enforcement Administration and Department of the Treasury — to hold officials of the Chávez regime accountable for their complicity with drug trafficking and terrorism.

It is extraordinary, to say the least, that targeting drug kingpins in Venezuela is perceived as aggression against the government in Caracas. But that is an indictment of the senior leadership of the Chavista regime, hardly the fault of U.S. policy. (Emphasis added.)

That targeting drug kingpins is seen as aggression against the Venezuelan Government is hardly surprising; they have increasingly become leading figures in government and Chávez’ strongest allies.

If and when Chávez dies or otherwise becomes too incapacitated to govern or even to seek reelection, and if and when that becomes generally known — they may not happen simultaneously — what will happen?

Takeover of the state by a group of interdependent Chavistas?

With or without violence?

With or without Chávez’ blessing?

Emergence of a single Chavista head of state and the elimination of all rivals?

With or without violence?

With or without Chávez’ blessing?

Fair and peaceful elections?

The possibilities are listed above in the order of probability that I consider most likely. What does this sentence mean in Chávez’ radio broadcast on May 7th from Cuba announcing that he will soon return to Venezuela?

We have to keep strengthening our leadership, and… when I say leadership it’s not only the leadership I exercise, but rather collective leadership.(Emphasis added.)

In any event, something appears to be happening.

– In Chavez’ absence, the financial part of the Government is sitting there doing nothing. Giordani does not listen to Jaua, Merentes is ignored. The Central Bank needs a bond issue of either PDVSA or Venezuela bonds to supply its SITME foreign exchange system, but absent the All Mighty, nobody dares make the decision and he has paid little attention to the matter.

– Reporters in Caracas are seeing more contacts from high Government officials, curiously all of those with Presidential aspirations, than they have seen in thirteen years. Jaua sends half a dozen press releases every day, Ramirez has been calling reporters that he blacklisted in the past, Jorge Rodriguez thinks he could be anointed successor, while Diosdado has become the traveling President of the National assembly. Even Aristobulo has shown some interest. Only Maduro has been quiet on that front, which may mean absolutely nothing no matter what Bocaranda may say.

– After talking to many people, I came away with a feeling that Chavez may name a new Vice-President, Jaua is simply not liked, but he will not name a successor any time soon. This is better for the opposition and a very dangerous game for the revolution. If Chavez is not seen in public designating someone as the the heir to his revolutionary ideals, there will be a fight to death among various Chavista factions.

Is Chávez’ control over the Venezuelan press diminishing? How about that of his underlings seeking preeminence for themselves?

At least one thing has become clear: Chávez and his once merry band are economical with the truth. In 2008 P.J. O’Rourke said of France,

France is a treasure to mankind. French ideas, French beliefs, and French actions form a sort of loadstone for humanity. Because a moral compass needle needs a butt end. Whatever direction France is pointing in—toward Nazi collaboration, Communism, existentialism, Jerry Lewis movies, or President Sarkozy’s personal life—you can go the other way with a clear conscience.

The Chavista government is much the same although far worse because no matter what it may say it is prudent to consider the opposite as more likely accurate. The problem is that aside from simple statements such as “I do not have cancer,” there is no single opposite; there are many contradictory possibilities from which to choose and each has multiple permutations.

A well known principle of physics manifests itself in these circumstances: Nature abhors a vacuum. When sufficient lies and half-truths are told to shield the people from unpleasant reality and the truth is concealed, speculation fills the vacuum. That process is rampant in Venezuela. Incredible though it may seem, contemporary examples of that process can be found even in the United States.

(This article was also posted at Dan Miller’s Blog.)

Your values form the foundation of your life. They dictate the choices you make and determine the direction that your life takes. Your values will influence your decisions related to your relationships, career, and other activities you engage in. Despite this importance, few people choose their values. Instead, they simply adopt the values of their parents and the dominant values of society. In all likelihood, the values that you internalized as a child remain with you through adulthood (yes, in some cases, people reject the values of their upbringings). Unfortunately, these values may also have created a life that is carrying you down a path that is not the direction you want to go at this point in your life.

What were the values you were raised with? What values are you presently living in accordance with? Are they the same or different? Do your values bring you happiness? These are essential questions that you must ask if you are to find meaning, happiness, success, and connection in your life. Yet, finding the answers to these questions is a challenge and then changing them in a way that will lead to fulfillment is an even greater challenge.

Deconstructing Your Values

To truly understand what values you possess and live by, you must deconstruct them until you are able to clearly see what exactly you value and why you hold those values. Looking openly and honestly at the way you were raised is the first step in identifying the values that you instilled growing up. What did your parents value and what values did they impress upon you—achievement, wealth, education, religion, status, independence, appearance? Think back to your childhood and ask yourself several questions. What values were emphasized in the way your parents lived their lives? What values were stressed in your family? What values were reflected in the way you were rewarded or punished? For example, were you rewarded for being highly ranked in your high school class and for winning in sports, or were you rewarded for giving your best effort and for helping others? You might even ask your parents to reflect back on your childhood to see what they perceived their values to be and what values they wanted to emphasize in your upbringing.

Your next step in the deconstruction process involves looking at your present life and the values your life reflects. In responding to these questions, you should ask yourself what values underlie your answers. What do you do for a living—are you a corporate employee, a business owner, a teacher, salesperson, caterer, or social worker? A common question that people in social gathering ask is, what do you do for a living? Periodically, I have seen people get rather defensive in response to this question. They say, “Who cares what I do. What I do is not who I am.” I would suggest otherwise, at least to some degree. Assuming people have choices in the career paths they take, which they choose reflects on who they are and what they value. For example, though a bit of a generalization, it is probably safe to say that someone who becomes an investment banker has different values than someone who becomes an elementary school teacher. What those underlying values might be may vary, but one might assume that the investment banker values money, while the teacher values education and helping children.

Where do you live—do you live in a high-rise apartment in a city, in the suburbs, or in the country—and what values led you there? What activities do you engage in most—cultural, physical, religious, political, social—and what values are reflected in those activities? What do you talk about mostly—politics, religion, the economy, other people—and what does that tell you about your values?

Finally, perhaps the most telling question reflecting what you value is: What do you spend your money on—a home, cars, travel, clothing, education, art, charity? Because money is a limited resource for most people, they will use their money in ways that they value most. Over and above what people say and other indicators in their life, where they spend their hard-earned money says the most about their values.

You can then ask yourself whether your current values are the same as those you grew up with. Have you gone through a period of examination and reconsideration? Have you consciously chosen to discard some values from your upbringing and adopt new ones? My experience with people who live unsatisfying lives is the values they grew up with weren’t mostly unhealthy and that their present values haven’t changed since childhood. They never questioned their values and simply bought into them early in their lives and created their life around those values. In contrast, fulfilled people tended to grow up with life-affirming values or had a “crisis of conscience” in early adulthood that caused them to re-evaluate and modify their values.

Now that you have deconstructed your life and have a clear idea of what you value, you can see the values upon which you have created your life. You can see whether those values contribute to your dissatisfaction or bring you happiness. Look at which aspects of your life contribute to your unhappiness—your career, marriage, lifestyle—and ask yourself what values underlie those parts of your life. For example, if your career in the business world makes you unhappy—no judgment intended, but many of my clients happen to come from corporate life—you need to ask yourself what values you have held that led you to a career in business and how those values presently cause you to be an unhappy success.

Popular Culture and Values

A recurring theme that runs throughout my work is that inadvertently buying into the values that predominate popular culture, for example, winning, status, power, appearance, and conspicuous consumption, is a leading cause of life dissatisfaction. The popular culture in America today—as reflected in our various media—no longer has the time, attention span, or energy to devote to weighty and deep issues such as values. It is much easier to focus on the superficial “things” in our culture. Thus, the pursuit of wealth and material goods has become the dominant “value” in much of our society in the mistaken belief that these values will bring people happiness.

One of the most powerful ways in which this “value” was impressed on you was in how you learned to define success. Popular culture typically defines success winning, wealth, status, physical appearance, and popularity—the more money and power you have and the more attractive and popular you are, the more successful you would be. Growing up with these definitions, success was largely unattainable for most people. At the same time, our culture made losing even more intolerable to contemplate—being poor, powerless, unattractive, and unpopular is simply unacceptable. With these restrictive definitions, you may have believed, like so many others, that you were caught in the untenable situation of having little opportunity for success and great chance for failure.

Blindly having accepted society’s narrow definitions of success and failure takes away your power to decide how you wish to define them. By buying into popular culture’s limiting definitions of success and failure rather than choosing definitions based on your own values, you can’t become truly successful and happy because you are forced down a path that is, for most people, impossible to attain and that is not truly yours. You may become successful in the eyes of society, but you probably won’t feel like a success yourself. And this path certainly won’t bring you meaning, happiness, or real success in your life.

I’ll explore how to “reconstruct” your values in a future post.

(This article was also posted at Dr. Jim Taylor’s Blog.)

Governance of a free people requires their continuously earned trust.  Verification is needed to preserve that trust when it is justified and to destroy that trust when it is no longer justified. That is not solely the function of the principal media.

Governance with decreasing mutual trust requires the use of ever increasing compulsion if not physical force.  Of the many problems facing the United States, a well deserved lack of trust in Government may be the greatest.

In Unicorns We (Don’t) Trust

The media have been our principal source of information about the Government.

Governments can control the media by providing comforting but misleading information to get incumbents reelected. That can involve slanting information for political purposes. As noted in The Daily Beast, that seems to have been done during the recent China – Chen kerfuffle.  When, as commonly happens, the media fail to follow up governmental mendacity can be effective.

Is the White House trying to insulate the president from the unfolding drama in China? Of course they are. …

This latest compromise is unlikely to get substantial direct comment from the White House, save general approval of the ultimate result achieved, as the president has been all too happy to leave Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to deal with the fiasco and maintained his administration’s silence on Chen Guangcheng’s fate when asked about it at a joint news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda on Monday.

His silence is a political judgment designed to try to stem any erosion in his political position from a foreign policy snafu that casts a shadow over what had been a weeklong foreign-policy victory lap by the Obama administration — from the one-year anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s killing to the president’s surprise visit to Afghanistan.

Might the same SOP (Save Our President) mechanism have been involved in the killing of Osama Bin Laden? Should it turn out well, President Obama apparently was to get as much credit as possible for decisively masterful leadership; if it flopped, was he to be shielded from all blame? Does President Obama have an overwhelming compulsion to be loved and reelected? That is not a good thing in a president. According to Governor Christie,

When you’re looking for love in this job, that’s when deficits get run up…. When you’re looking for love in this job, it’s because you can’t say no to anything because someone somewhere won’t love you if you do.

Our culture also controls the media and to that extent the statement “whoever controls the media, the images, controls the culture” is tautological — i.e.,  whoever controls the culture controls the culture.  Our culture does in large part control the media because consumers decide what to view, listen to and read — and therefore what continues to be presented. If programming fails to get and to keep our interest and approval it eventually ceases to be presented. Many probably make their choices based on their perceptions of reality, a desire for popularity and/or desires for short, sensational stories. When the killing of Trayvon Martin became news, most media coverage was grossly distorted.  In some cases that may have been due to sloppiness and inadvertence but in others it was almost certainly intentional.

In a story for the “Today” show on March 20, Luciano used part of the George Zimmerman 911 call in which an entire phrase (italicized below) was taken from a later part of the conversation:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good or on drugs or something. He’s got his hand in his waistband. And he’s a black male.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher: Okay, we don’t need you to do that.

But here is how Zimmerman’s conversation with the 911 dispatcher actually went:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he white, black, or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black. (Emphasis in original.)

Why is that sort of thing done? Is hate what makes the world go ’round? Had that tape and others similarly edited been broadcast without deceptive editing they would have energized few. True, there was a concerted push for racial disharmony from the Reverend Mr. Sharpton and his colleagues, but the media did little to look behind (or even carefully at) what it was reporting. Some in the new media eventually did so and bits of their work are coming out; still, the harm done by our principal media lingers.

The paucity of readily verifiable legitimacy transcends the immediate Trayvon Martin inflammation. It seems probable that the number of conspiracy theories exceeds the number of actual conspiracies. All tend therefore to be impaled upon a dull sword of illegitimacy so that anything that can be labeled a “conspiracy theory” is likely to be rejected.  For quite a long time, the cry prevailed that President Clinton had not dallied with Ms. Lewinsky in the Oval Office or with anyone else anywhere else but was instead being persecuted by a vast right wing conspiracy. Then came the stained blue dress. More recently, former President Clinton shared his expertise with vast right wing conspiracies as they impact upon President Obama:

When asked whether the “vast right-wing conspiracy” is still present today, the former president answered without hesitation, “Oh you bet.”

“It’s not as strong as it was because America has changed demographically, but it’s as virulent as it was,” Clinton said today on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“Right-wing conspiracy” was the term used by former first lady Hillary Clinton to describe the tactics her husband’s political enemies used to attack his presidency after revelations of his affair with Monica Lewinski.

“I mean they may be hurting President Obama,” Bill Clinton said of the current attacks. “They can take his numbers down, they can run his opposition up, but fundamentally he and his team have a positive agenda for America. Their agenda seems to be wanting him to fail, and that’s not a good prescription for a good America.

“I mean, they’re saying things about him just like when they accused me of murder and all this stuff they did, but it’s not really good for the Republicans or the country, what’s going on now,” Clinton said.

The “birther” movement persists but is generally rejected as an extreme right wing conspiracy theory, even though less credible and extensive information has been provided about President Obama’s relevant background than an informed electorate should have; much of the little that has been provided has been of dubious provenance and legitimacy and has therefore been less than fully credible.  The “extreme, right wing birther movement” has been a result. Anything characterized as “extreme” is seen as bad. “Insane” could probably be substituted for “extreme” and child molester for “right wing” with similar effect.

The most recent “extreme right wing conspiracy theory” involves federal detention and reeducation centers. The ambiguity of President Obama’s March 16th executive order lends at least some credence to that theory.

Orders can be modified in facially innocuous ways to make them less ambiguous; that is often a good thing because it can limit the unbridled authority of those acting under them. However, orders can also be modified to make them more ambiguous.

Purposeful ambiguity seems to have infected President Obama’s March 16th order.

According to this post,

A leaked U.S. Army document prepared for the Department of Defense contains shocking plans for “political activists” to be pacified by “PSYOP officers” into developing an “appreciation of U.S. policies” while detained in prison camps inside the United States.

The manual outlines policies for processing detainees into internment camps both globally and inside the United States. International agencies like the UN and the Red Cross are named as partners in addition to domestic federal agencies including the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA.

The document makes it clear that the policies apply “within U.S. territory” and involve, “DOD support to U.S. civil authorities for domestic emergencies, and for designated law enforcement and other activities,” including “man-made disasters, accidents, terrorist attacks and incidents in the U.S. and its territories.”

The manual states, “These operations may be performed as domestic civil support operations,” and adds that “The authority to approve resettlement such operations within U.S. territories,” would require a “special exception” to The Posse Comitatus Act, which can be obtained via “the President invoking his executive authority.” The document also makes reference to identifying detainees using their “social security number.”

Here is the text of the lengthy (326 page) manual, written in bureaucrat-speak. The information provided above about the Posse Comitatus Act and presidential waiver of its provisions to permit federal military activity during domestic civilian disorders was taken from page 193 of the manual. Information about the functions of PSYOPS (psychological operations) teams within the camps is set forth at pages 194 – 201 of the manual. It can be frightening or perhaps comforting depending on one’s trust, interpretation and the degree to which evident ambiguities are ignored or penetrated.  For example, the manual provides,

The supporting I/R PSYOP team has two missions that reduce the need to divert military police assets to maintain security in the I/R facility. (See appendix J.) The team—

♦ Assists the military police force in controlling detainees and DCs. [Displaced Civilians]

♦ Introduces detainees or DCs to U.S. and multinational policy.

3-56. The PSYOP team also supports the military police custodial mission in the I/R facility. The team—

♦ Develops PSYOP products that are designed to pacify and acclimate detainees or DCs to accept U.S. I/R facility authority and regulations.

♦ Gains the cooperation of detainees or DCs to reduce the number of guards needed.

♦ Identifies malcontents, trained agitators, and political leaders within the facility who may try to organize resistance or create disturbances.

♦ Develops and executes indoctrination programs to reduce or remove antagonistic attitudes.

♦ Identifies political activists.

♦ Provides loudspeaker support (such as administrative announcements and facility instructions when necessary).

♦ Helps the military police commander control detainee and DC populations during emergencies.

♦ Plans and executes a PSYOP program that produces an understanding and appreciation of U.S. policies and actions.

Suppose (as now seems likely) that Mr. Zimmerman is not convicted of murdering Mr. Martin. In the event of riots beyond what local authorities may be able to manage conveniently, might civilians be relocated to federal detention facilities? Perhaps to help them over any perceived need to protect themselves? Might PSYOP personnel be used to reeducate them? What if the economy fails to the point that there are riots approaching those in Greece? Any number of scenarios can be imagined, and the natures of those to be imagined are functions of our own levels of trust in government; those levels are in turn functions of our perceptions of how much trust the government has earned and still deserves.

President Obama, along with his administration, has failed to deserve the trust of a free people and to an unsurprising degree it has been withheld. Will his campaign pleas that we continue to believe in him work?

Fighting to recapture the magic of his history-making 2008 campaign, President Barack Obama on Saturday laid out his fullest-yet case for reelection, pleading with struggling Americans to “keep believing in me” and hitting out at presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

“If people ask you what this campaign is about, you tell them ‘it’s still about hope.’ You tell them ‘it’s still about change,’” he told a cheering mass of supporters at Ohio State University in Columbus, six months and one day before the election. “I still believe in you. And I’m asking you to keep believing in me.”

It seems rather a narcissistic if not messianic approach. Will it work as well for President Obama as Tinker Bell’s plea that we believe in fairies worked for her?

While no president can earn the trust of all, President Obama’s efforts have appeared to be duplicitous and polarizing. Despite media efforts to help him along his chosen path, the transparency of his efforts has become manifestly apparent. As I observed here, should President Obama be reelected it seems likely that

he will do far more to advance his agendas than he has done thus far — after his reelection, he will have no need to campaign for reelection and will have no need to seek any consensus as to anything he can get away with “with or without the Congress.” There will be little to keep him from further weakening our nation and diminishing the rights of her citizens. Those are the only things I trust him to do.

A duplicitous and divisive president, lacking not only the trust of free people but concerns about being reelected, is unlikely to govern fairly, justly and well.  Lacking such a presidential trinity, Government must rely increasingly on compulsion and even, at some point, upon force.

Having rather transparently sought to divide the nation along racial, ideological, cultural and economic lines, there is little that President Obama can do to make amends. No need to make amends may even be apparent to him.

Arrogance begets arrogance.  The United States was born out of a reaction to imperial flunkies who truly believed that they could behave as vaingloriously as their monarch and his corrupt nobility.  The Bourbons were brought down not so much by their own actions (Louis XVI was in fact something of reformer) as those of their out-of-control bureaucrats.  It’s no different today.  We see it in the GSA scandal, the Secret Service hooker scandal, and above all in the Justice Department’s Fast and Furious scandal.  All these result from hirelings mimicking the activities and attitudes of their bosses, including their ultimate boss in the Oval Office.  Each is rooted, and obviously so to even to most blasé observer, in arrogance.  Fast and Furious reveals the blueprint: a crazy scheme (gun-running on one hand, ObamaCare on the other) that no commonsense individual would ever consider for a moment put into play despite protests, disaster ensuing by leaps and bounds, deliberately ignored because the scheme “has to work,” a climax amounting to complete collapse, with the protagonist (Holder, Obama) acting as if none of it has anything to do with him, as if he can simply walk off without so much as a word spoken.

Obama believes exactly that.  So pure is his arrogance, so exalted his narcissism, that he will do nothing to defend himself out of the conviction that no such thing is required of him.  That he, among all human beings alive in the second decade of the third millennium, does not need to respond under any circumstance.  This is the difference between Obama and previous administrations — Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan worked like stevedores to overcome Watergate and Iran Contra, Nixon with no success while Reagan at last put it behind him.  But Obama, exactly like his appointees, doesn’t think he has to make any defense at all.  He truly believes that he can’t be touched.  (The other difference between these scandals and earlier ones is that hundreds have died as a result of this administration’s activities.) [Links added.]

That fits well with President Obama’s new campaign slogan, “Forward!” We must not look behind at his past if he is to be reelected (it’s great to look back to the reign of George Bush the Wicked, however).

If President Obama succeeds in his quest for reelection without having earned the trust of a free people, he is unlikely to earn it during a second term.  We are then likely to have an even rougher four years, during which he will have fewer constraints and far more flexibility to do as he sees fit — and not only as to our nascent missile defense system that has Russia sufficiently upset for Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov to suggest the possibility of a preemptive strike.  President Obama’s post election flexibility will be at the expense of our freedoms.  Must we, as former Speaker Pelosi told us about ObamaCare, pass the bill reelect President Obama so that we can see what’s really in him and what he will do during a second term in office?

(This article was also posted at Dan Miller’s Blog.)

Even the most essential of our human rights are being withheld by “our” government. Unless we fix the problems ourselves soon, the U.N. Human Rights Commission must intervene to bring truth, fairness, justice and the American Way for all.

The United States Constitution Declaration of Independence states with great clarity,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Nowhere does that sacred writing require us to work, as do slaves, to pursue the happy lives we deserve and which are our right; we must have unrestrained liberty to work or not as we see fit. Those who, due to bad parenting, unqualified teachers or for other reasons strangely seek happiness in work must be allowed to pursue their perverted pleasure; they must not on that account be permitted to live better lives or to be happier than those who choose not to work. That would not be fair.

Fairness and self-fulfillment were the main purposes of President Obama’s marvelously popular and most successful initiative, ObamaCare.

Despite the powerful words of our forepersons, heavy chains of enslavement binding us at the mere whim of a stingy government prevent us from enjoying our rights; government ignores our most important rights and petulantly refuses to give us what we are entitled to is, as a matter of right, ours. The most crucial of these rights are summarized below; since all people are equal, everything in the list and much more besides must be provided free for all. With President Obama’s Fairness Under Benignly Assertive Regulation (FUBAR) policy in full bloom, everyone — even Julia — will live long and prosper in happiness.

1. The very best health care must be provided for everyone, even the poorest and least healthy, from birth until death. It will include preventative care including self criticism sessions, social indoctrination, mental health and wellness counseling, contraception, abortion, freedom from sexual deprivation and exploitation, cures for all illnesses and ailments, physical and mental, known as well as unknown, self inflicted and involuntarily incurred.

2. Not merely adequate or even good food but the very best must be given to everyone. It will be provided with the greatest care by highly qualified government experts.  As necessary and proper frugality measures, food production must be sustainable and will therefore be permitted only on designated lands and in other appropriate facilities by federally licensed and supervised technicians. The food they so lovingly produce will then be prepared multiculturally and in strict accordance with easy to understand multilingual instructions. Meal preparation and consumption will be accomplished only in rigidly inspected federal facilities. As befits a free and healthy nation, meat products, non-organic vegetables and all of the many unhealthy inedibles now sold at school bake sales and elsewhere by anti-wellness capitalist extremists who relish premature death and worse for consumers will be prohibited.

3. Free land — at least forty acres for sustainable development and a mule rototiller — must be confiscated and given to everyone who desires to occupy them. The new owners of this land and equipment, if they believe they will thereby be enabled more effectively to pursue happiness, will of course be free to combine their holdings to form hippy happy communes.

4. Public transportation promoting our happiness (contrary to the way it is now done) must be made readily available for everyone — urban, suburban and rural alike. It will be federally owned and operated and therefore efficient, fast, safe, frequent and free.  Carbon-spewing privately owned land vehicles, yachts and aircraft will no longer be allowed to be manufactured, sold or used and will vanish as did the ancient private railway cars with which robber barons once polluted our air so maliciously.

5. The very best education must be provided for all, with no interference from sadly misguided parents or state and local officials; they know nothing about the best subjects to teach or the best educational methods to employ. The vast expertise of the Federal Government will be deployed in its fullness by highly qualified unionized teachers.

As a horridly imperialistic force only for evil, responsible for the countless ills that still plague the peoples of the earth, the Government — our Benevolent Creator — must repent and ensure that the universal rights summarized above — and more — are equally available to all peoples everywhere. This will be done in strict but compassionate compliance with international law, as decreed at the upcoming Rio+20 summit in Brazil. In consequence, the greatest of all rights will be extended to everyone.

We, along with all in the rest of the world shall then be, all praise be unto President Obama, free at last.

(This article was also posted at Dan Miller’s Blog.)

PBS Newshour ran an unusual program the other night, providing an insightful look at the Combat Paper Project that I’ve been working with for some time.  “Finally tonight, transforming the wardrobe of war into art,” PBS Newshour anchor Gwen Ifill said in introducing this report aired on April 30.

“In 2007, a returning Iraq war veteran trying to make sense of his experience cut up his battle dress uniform and, together with a friend, made paper from the fibers. The Combat Paper Project was born. Five years later, in New Jersey, the project has launched a permanent workshop for veterans hoping to reconcile the good and bad of lives spent at war,” Ifill continued. “Here are four of them. Here are their stories…”

Besides profiling participants in weekly workshops hosted by the Printmaking Center of New Jersey, the news program added a slide show of vets’ art created in this project, blogs by PBS staffers Morgan Till and Teresa Gorman on various aspects of what they call “art therapy programs for veterans” and a creative way for war-singed veterans to “tell their stories through art and poetry,” a video tutorial on how vets turn old uniforms into art, and a forum for viewers to share their thoughts and experiences.

In an Art Beat blog titled “Veterans Changing the Arts,” Teresa Gorman placed the Combat Paper workshops in New Jersey into a larger, national context.

“The increase in the number of professional artists with military experience and therapy programs related to military service has been so pronounced that a new collaboration called Arts, Military and Healing states that veterans are changing the arts in America. The collaboration is a week-long event in May that will bring artists, art institutions and art therapists together with service members and veterans,” she wrote.

Combat Paper coordinators Drew Cameron, David Keefe and Eli Wright will be providing workshops at the Arts, Military and Healing event in Washington, DC on May 13-18, along with Warrior Writers director Lovella Calica. The Combat Paper Project grew out of Warrior Writers workshops and often works together in providing programs in various cities, on college campuses and at arts institutions, around the U.S.

Here are hot links to the various segments of the PBS report:

Art of War: Veterans Shred Uniforms to Create ‘Combat Paper’ Artwork

Combat Paper: Veterans Battle War’s Demons With Paper-Making

Veterans Changing the Arts: Share Your Story

Making Your Own ‘Combat Paper’: A Step-by-Step Tutorial

Photo Essay: Combat Paper: Veterans Repurpose Uniforms Into Art

(This article was also posted at EarthAirWater.)

Together, we must move forward toward a new dawn with President Obama showing the way. He must lead, not just some but all of us, as he has from the very beginning.

President Obama’s November 2008 election victory was foreordained by his passionate yet humble nomination acceptance speech from between majestic Greek columns formed of simple Styrofoam, emblematic of his presidency to come.

On November 7th, soon after after his triumphant election, President Obama heard the voices of oppressed masses everywhere and, in his uniquely humble way, promptly occupied Wall Street the Office of the President Elect. There was no constitutional or statutory provision for that office, but then even as now President Obama could not and would not wait.

With sad predictably, President Bush declined to take appropriate steps to relinquish the presidency and President Elect Obama was therefore unable to occupy the actual Office of the President until after his inauguration more than two months later on January 20, 2009.

During his time in Office, President Obama has nevertheless brought the nation great progress such as never seen before. First ObamaCare and, more recently, NASA’s announcement of an historic project to put a man on a bus to Cleveland, Ohio by early next year.

The complex and dangerous three-day mission, dubbed “Chariot I,” is expected to pass through six states and include two brief transfers in Atlanta and Louisville in both directions, at a reported total cost of $360 dollars plus taxes and fees.

“For almost as long as our nation has existed, man has gazed upon a map of the eastern United States and dreamed of traveling to Cleveland, the largest metropolitan area in Ohio,” NASA administrator Charles F. Bolden, Jr. said at a press conference announcing the agency’s first major initiative since the discontinuation of the space shuttle program. “Until now, the immense physical and psychological risks involved in any manned mission had put that dream sadly out of reach.”

That lofty goal is well on the way to accomplishment, as is getting in sync with China. His personal initiative in sending Bin Laden to his dubious reward rivals that of President Truman in developing the Atomic Bomb.  Once again President Obama, even though understandably weary, must move ever forward.

He must refuse to follow the treacherous path of former President Bush and announce immediately, or in any event no later than the fourth anniversary of his ascension to the Office of the President Elect, that he will promptly occupy a glorious new and equally unprecedented office.

Despite his heroic presidential efforts, he is only human (as incredible as that must be) and must be disappointed with us because we still do not deserve him! First Lady Obama, already immensely proud of him, will be overjoyed because she will be free at last to leave the dreary White House and, unlike the new occupant’s wife, become once again a working mom. Is it too much to hope for that President Obama will just say yes to this request? If not for the sake of the universe then surely for Mrs. Obama! He owes her that and more after her too many years of privation as the First Lady.

His time has come. He can’t wait and he must not wait to achieve the perfection he now acknowledges, with characteristic humility, that he has thus far not achieved; he must strive for his manifest destiny so that he will long be remembered for that achievement as well as for his countless other historic accomplishments.

Four more years! Go President Obama! We salute your incredible deeds and your compassion despite our failure to deserve them. History awaits as you march, for us, ever forward to the light you have shown us!

(This article was also posted at Dan Miller’s Blog.)

Fairness is good, unfairness is bad. Peace is good, war is bad. ‘Tis better to be rich and healthy than sick and poor.

Having brought us courageously from the dark and into The Light, President Obama is also leading us out of slavery begat of stingy unfairness and into the blessed promised land of milk and honey fairness.  When that task has been completed it will be a great gift for all of his creatures for all times, another important milestone for his legacy of non-narcissistic, even humbly generous, actions on our behalf.

Fairness is great and we shall have it.

Yes, of course. But, one must ask, what is “fair.” It is not an easy question but President Obama has given us the benefit of his wisdom.  Unfair means, for example, blaming instead of praising President Obama for anything the cautious restraint of his Senate in not passing a budget for three years. We should instead wish him and his Senate a Happy Third Anniversary today with hopes for many happy returns. That would be fair. Fair means taking even more money than at present from the few who have succeeded despite opposing President Obama and giving it to those who support President Obama and to the unsuccessful many, who deserve success no less and perhaps even more than do the ungrateful successful few.

Money is filthy, tainted stuff — the root of all evil — and the successful few should be grateful to him for relieving them of its burdens.  Some, incredibly, appear not to be. Plainly, they were successful due to unwarranted luck in selecting the right parents and in being born into the right culture, race and ethnicity; successful Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and all the rest are merely isolated exceptions who prove the rule. Those upon whom President Obama will bestow the fruits of the excessive luck of the successful will in turn themselves become successful. It might be like vaccination, injection of a virus-based vaccine to provide immunity. By inoculating the unsuccessful with fruits of the successful, the unsuccessful will become immune to the bad luck that plagues them. Or at least they will know for whom to vote; that’s no less important, because President Obama needs at least another four years to shower us all with his love, mercy and understanding that, indeed, passeth all human understanding.

As his redistributions succeed, those upon whom the fruits of the works of others are rightly bestowed will become successful without acquiring the antisocial tastes for hard work luxury and other amenities sadly desired by the successful. The Obamas shall lead the way, as always.

We need Peace in our time and shall have it.

Major General President Obama will also give us the unquestionable joys of peace and prevent the disasters of war.  As proclaimed here, local gun violence and military spending “rob our communities of needed investments in human needs, at the federal, state and local levels….”  We are well along the path toward arresting both of those thieves.  President Obama has done his best to cut military spending and to eliminate the domestic scourge of civilian firearms.

Despite his success, even his Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, evidently hopes to avoid having to cut military spending to the bone and through the bone as did Louis Johnson, one of his predecessors during the Truman Administration.

Panetta’s lecture against political partisans refusing to compromise is pretty rich coming from the guy who stubbornly refused making any meaningful cuts to defense budgets, which make up an inordinate percentage of overall spending. He said cutting the defense budget back to 2007 levels would be “catastrophic,” and instead would only agree to slight reductions in the rate of growth in military spending. …

Panetta, by far the loudest money-grabbing warmonger of all, described the sequestration cuts that were supposed to automatically kick in if the Super Committee failed to reach a deal as a “doomsday mechanism.”

According to Slate Magazine, shortly before the North Korean incursion into South Korea in June of 1950, President Truman

called Louis Johnson into his office and told him the economy-in-defense policy was dead….  The defense budget climbed—not just to beat back North Korea, but to tackle communism everywhere—and didn’t come down again for decades. From then on, U.S. foreign policy adopted the Manichean worldview that [Paul] Nitze laid down in NSC-68, viewing every local struggle as reflecting the “underlying conflict” between the “free world” of the West and the “slave society” behind the Iron Curtain.

My understanding is that Communist Russia under Stalin had much to do with the initial invasion of South Korea and that Communist China under Mao eventually took over the reins. However, Stalin and Mao are gone. Having pushed the reset button successfully we need no longer worry about the former U.S.S.R., those who support it or, for that matter, China.

Having no foreign enemies is one of the prerequisites for peace and President Obama’s administration has wisely arranged that we have none.  Hence, Islam is not an enemy and we are not at war with it. “That is not how we view this problem or the challenges we have in the world today.” Instead, our enemies are right-wing domestic terrorists (but not peaceful and devout Muslims who may sometimes stray and engage in mere workplace violence). The Department of Homeland Security is on watch but needs even our help.

If you see something suspicious, don’t act like a community watch volunteer!  Don’t be paranoid but do call the authorities. It’s our patriotic duty and that is only fair. Two words of caution: be particularly alert for environmental injustice but on no account attempt to find voter fraud. That would be a waste of time because the Department of Justice is already hot on the trail and needs no help at all.

Be healthy, wealthy and wise.

Our generous Federal Government has mandated social justice by requiring that the states and the undeserving luckily successful do their fair share to support excellent health for all.  As is true of all governmental investment, that’s what makes America great. President Obama’s signature legislation, the Affordable Health Care Act, made history and it’s only fair that it did so. Ignore those who claim that there are substantial archaic and therefore irrelevant constitutional problems with ObamaCare. It was carefully vetted before passage by a Congress fully familiar with all of its provisions so there is no basis for concern. Were it unconstitutional it would never have been enacted.

Not only that, it frees us from the trivial worries of the day and promotes true social justice.

The gravy train is on track and ridiculous unelected Supreme Court justices cannot and will not, in unprecedented fashion, be permitted to derail it; all will be well.

Now, as during all fair administrations, the country is in the very best of hands; even the rubes in flyover country know it.

(This article was also posted at Dan Miller’s Blog.)