Postmortem on Harvard's loss to Cornell (January 30, 2010)

Okay, so right after I wrote about Harvard's rise and a budding rivalry with Cornell, Harvard walks into Cornell and gets creamed 86-50. Cornell, a good shooting team, had no trouble shooting well against the Harvard defense (45.5% from the field and 12 for 27 from 3-point range), and did a fine job of avoiding turnovers (only 8) while Harvard was their usual turnover-prone selves (25), and it bit them because a) Cornell's got a pretty good defense themselves, b) Harvard could not force turnovers from Cornell, plus c) the Big Red managed an impressive 14 offensive rebounds, providing second chances galore during the relatively few times they didn't put the ball in the net the first time. Cornell managed 66 shots from the field while Harvard managed a paltry 36.

All this aside, Harvard was down by a relatively competitive 14 points at halftime, then pulled within 10 with under 13 minutes left, but Cornell shut them down over a 9 minute stretch and ran over them the rest of the way.

Harvard leader Jeremy Lin did manage a strong 19 point effort but matched a season high with 8 turnovers. Point guard Oliver McNally did not manage a single assist for the first time this season. Harvard wasn't dominated badly on the boards, losing that battle 30 to 27, nor did they run into particularly bad foul trouble (20 fouls to Cornell's 19, and only three players had 4 fouls).

But Harvard's bread and butter is their defense, and Cornell walked right over it. All five Cornell starters finished with double figure scoring. The starters shot a combined 25 of 47 from the field: Leading scorer Ryan Wittman actually posted the lowest scoring total among the Cornell starters with 11. Center Jeff Foote led the Big Red with 16, and 9 rebounds.

Basically, Harvard just had a bad day. Teams can have bad days and get lucky with a less than stellar performance from the other side, but being keyed on the game, Cornell seized advantage and finished with an emphatic rout. The odds were on Cornell to win the game anyway, being at home, and no matter how lopsided the score was, it's just one loss. Harvard gets another chance at Cornell next month, this time at home, and if that matchup happened today it would be a 50/50 shot. Unless it's a playoff or tournament game, one game doesn't make a season, and Harvard's got plenty of chances to put this loss behind them before season's end.

University of Winnipeg Part 2

Leave it to Lloyd Axworthy. He seems to be able to shake major donors of cash by the ankles to cough up for major projects.

The latest money extracted from a donor comes from the Buhlers. The $4 million donated by them for the new building at the site of the United Army Navy Surplus location is the largest private donation in the university's history.

The Buhler Centre is the future location of the continuing education department and the Plug In Institute of Contemporary Art.

Continuing Education has moved around the downtown multiple times, six at last count. This should finally give them the permanent home they deserve.

While all the building has been a good thing, I hope the university doesn't forget the need to keep programs running at a high level and watch for deficits in keeping the university running. Some of those deficits can be from not getting a handle on pensions, salaries and benefits.

Still, I don't want this post to be a downer. The University of Winnipeg has made an number of announcements in regards to expansion, programming and the like which deserve kudos.



myspace hit counter

The newest, hottest college basketball rivalry you didn't know about: Harvard and Cornell

Harvard's in Cornell to play the Big Red today in college basketball. "So what?" you ask?

Unless you're an absolute sports geek or an Ivy League fan (and outside of Princeton most people know nothing about Ivy League basketball), you probably haven't noticed that Harvard men's basketball is having their best season in decades, currently off to a 14-3 start. Harvard's schedule features a road win over Boston College, road wins over halfway decent Seattle U and Santa Clara teams (the Seattle win was a blowout), and their only losses being a close aberration at lowly Army, a reasonably close loss at 19th ranked Connecticut and a 16 point loss at 11th ranked Georgetown. Harvard has run the table at home and gone 7-3 on the road overall against a varied non-conference road schedule.

Jeff Sagarin's ratings currently has them pegged as the 59th best team out of 347 in NCAA Division I Men's Basketball. To give an idea of how impressive that is, the rating of the Ivy League's top team in most years is etched firmly in the 100-200 range. NCAA Tournament at-large bids usually dry up around the 35-45 range of rankings, so Harvard's not far from the talent level of teams that the NCAA lets in without a conference tournament title. Harvard may not have a power conference resume or a superstar talent, but they are legitimately good and this year's team could probably play .500 ball in most multi-bid major and mid-major conferences.

Harvard's emergence likely traces back to coach Tommy Amaker, who played and later cut his coaching teeth with Duke during the 80's and 90's. Amaker's first coaching gig with Seton Hall during 1997-2001 featured middling results (only one 20 win season and NCAA tourney bid), though his Seton Hall teams never finished under .500. Amaker then took over a scandal-tarnished Michigan program and struggled under the weight of sanctions and the always-competitive Big Ten schedule, never reaching the NCAA Tournament during his six seasons there, posting two losing seasons and eventually getting bought out and fired in 2007.

The biggest criticisms of Amaker to this point were that his teams tended to buckle under pressure, especially down the stretch of the regular season. Of course, he also had the pressure of trying to revive two once-proud programs that had fallen on hard times and fell behind their peers in their respective power conferences.

So he made a smart move and took over a team with much less history and much lower expectations in a much less competitive conference. Harvard hired him, figuring why the hell not, and in two seasons Amaker turned what was a typically uncompetitive Harvard squad into the competitive, defensively tough 14-3 squad they are today.

Harvard's led by Senior Jeremy Lin, whose 16.9 points, 4.4 rebounds and 4.6 assists per game is actually a slight downtrend from last season (17.8 ppg, 5.5 reb, 4.3 asst). From there, there's not a ton of scoring: Forward Keith Wright is the only other player who averages double digit scoring (10.7) per game. They struggle with turnovers on offense (23.9% of possessions), but they are tremendous at getting to the line (48.7 attempts per), and do a decent job of nailing their free throws (75.2%, 12th best in the nation out of 340+ teams).

Again, defense is Harvard's strength. Teams shoot 43.9% against them (15th best in the nation), commit a lot of turnovers, tend to struggle for offensive rebounds, struggle to nail their shots (44.2% field goals against, 27.8% on threes, both in the top 60). Harvard blocks 12.6% of shots and steals on 11.9% of possessions, both numbers in the top 50. Games with Harvard are sloppy, turnover ridden affairs where Harvard gets an edge by nailing inside shots, getting to the line, nailing free throws, then blocking out and putting down the clamps on the defensive end. If you beat Harvard, it's because you're nailing your shots and playing well. If you're sloppy, mistake ridden and can't hit your shots, Harvard's going to stay with and beat you no matter how good you are.

With no conference tournament, and overall Ivy League record determining the NCAA tourney entrant, the pair of games between the two Ivy League leaders (both of which are currently 3-0 in Ivy League play) becomes supremely important. With Cornell sitting in the low 30's in the Sagarin Ratings, they could get in at large if they hold serve. While Harvard is a relatively impressive 59th, they need to win out and win the Ivy League title to get in, and beating Cornell is the biggest step to doing so. These are easily the biggest guns in a traditionally weak conference, and the Ivy League's 2010 ticket to the NCAA Tournament likely comes down to these two teams.

Cornell's resume and history looks a bit better thanks to a gradually built program by coach Steve Donahue. A longtime assistant before taking over at Cornell in 2001, Donahue turned a crappy Cornell team into a average Ivy League team, but has put all the pieces together over the last three years: Cornell is the current back-to-back reigning Ivy League champ.

Like Harvard, Cornell has a modest but strong resume this season in their 17-3 start. Their only blemishes came in a close loss to highly ranked Kansas, a 15 point rout early this season at highly ranked Syracuse, and a 10 point loss at home to 12-7 Seton Hall... all good teams. Wins against middling big/mid conference teams like Alabama, UMass and St Joe's have buoyed their Sagarin ratings along, obviously, with beating 12 non-conference D-1 opponents overall to date.

Cornell is more offense minded and has more offensive weapons. Like Harvard they have a clear leader, in Ryan Wittman (17.9 PPG) but post man Jeff Foote (12.3 PPG, 8.4 rebounds) and point guard Louis Dale (10.5, 5.0 asst) also do damage. The Big Red's strength makes them Harvard's perfect foil: Hitting the shots they take, especially their 3's. Cornell plays decent defense, but their 54.9% effective field goal rate is 14th best in the nation, while they hit 42.1% of their 3's (3rd in the nation).

Like Harvard, Cornell nails their free throws (74.0%, 29th best) and their inside defense is good (43.4% on 2-pointers, with a decent 46.7% effective FG% against). But they take better care of the basketball (turnovers on only 20.3% of plays, around average), and their perimeter defense has issues as teams can nail 3's against them (36.5%, 272nd overall). Fortunately for Cornell, Harvard is not a good 3-point shooting team.

Harvard could still win the Ivy League if they lose this game, but it's not likely: They'd definitely have to hold serve on February 19 when Cornell comes to Harvard, and Harvard would not only have to probably run the table the rest of the way, but either hope that Cornell slips up, not as likely as you think: Ken Pomeroy's estimations indicate that Cornell has a 34% chance of running the table save for one loss to Harvard. Harvard, meanwhile, has only a 29% chance of running the table with a Cornell road loss, as Princeton matches up with the Crimson somewhat well. If Cornell runs the table, Harvard would have to win a playoff game with Cornell per Ivy League tiebreak rules to get the tourney bid.

Ivy League fans have some intrigue to this season even if they're not Cornell or Harvard loyalists, as this has the makings of a great new Ivy rivalry, no matter who comes out on top this season.

Negotiate or nonviolent action? Yes

Nonviolence is not shirking from engagement, and it's not an attempt to crush the opponent. It's a third way. It seeks dialog. It listens. But it also insists that it must be heard. When, for example, we tried to get Senator Ron Wyden to take some leadership on the occupation of Iraq in 2005, we did not threaten that we would shut down his office, that we would campaign against him, or anything so blustering. I prepared a little leaflet to explain that we simply felt unheard and we were determined to be able to voice our analysis and intentions to him. I titled the brochure, Nonviolence is negotiation. My inspiration came straight from Martin Luther King Jr's Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Here is an excerpt:

"You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue."

This approach is soft power but it is power. It is not power-over, but power-with. It seems to some as adversarial, but it actually seeks consensus and collaboration. The idea of a fine nonviolent campaign is that everyone is an ally or a potential ally.

There need be no contradiction between nonviolent action and negotiation. Indeed, it's best assessed and employed as a precursor, not a monological attempt to shout more loudly.

My friend Walter Bresette could really deliver a powerfully angry speech. When he and others used nonviolent direct action to stop trains carrying millions of gallons of acid across Bad River Ojibwe reservation in northern Wisconsin they were angling toward and achieved a seat at the negotiating table. They won their struggle. This is how we can Just Say Yes to both nonviolent action and negotiation.

How to end war with nonviolence: An ecological approach

War has existed since humans began to write history.

War is natural. But is it inevitable?

There is one way to end war. Build a culture of nonviolence. Create a system of nonviolent conflict management that meets the needs of humankind. Grow an ecology of nonviolence with nested and related ecologies that tend to help the greater ecology of nonviolence produce peace.

How do ecologies work? James Lovelock proposed that Gaia, Mother Earth, is a self-correcting organism, an ecology, that achieves homeostasis by filling in gaps, by evolutionary experiments that can succeed when the time and conditions are right, so that a change in one component can be balanced by another change, even if it takes some time to come into balance following a catastrophe. This Gaian Hypothesis explains how Earth recovered from the Cretaceous Debacle, even though entire species and ecologies were ended. Others rose in their place and the grand planetary ecology eventually righted itself. Natural fluctuations, such as ice ages, did not become runaway disasters. Earth--life--knows how to evolve to preserve an atmosphere, soil, water and other necessary elements for life. Positive feedback loops, or mutually reinforcing dynamics, are blunted by new or evolved lifeforms that can eventually produce ecological effects in the aggregate that preserve a planet's biosphere.

Another public intellectual, Barbara Ehrenreich, in her germinal book Blood Rites, posited that war is a meme that also adapts to humanity to self-perpetuate. Indeed, war is so robust that it may one day consume humankind. The possibility exists and we know it. Life would not end, but we as a species may. War may be our fatal flaw--or we may in fact prove that we deserve our self-annointed name, Homo sapiens, the wise ones. We are the only species capable of drastically affecting the outcomes of our largest systems, war or peace, death or life.

We can end a particular war with violence or nonviolence, abject surrender or refusal to continue. To do that we can look to the literature on strategic nonviolence and plug in the components--mass organizing, media work, lobbying, noncooperation, electoral action, general strike--and we can succeed. As Barbara Deming said during the war in Vietnam upon her return from her visit there, Let's not forget the general strike. We could end this war in a month. Ending a war requires will and willingness to sacrifice. Mass organizing in self-replicating strategic campaigns could produce enough pressure to finish off a particular war, and it's sad that we can find the will to sacrifice for war but not for peace. Civil society will go to the mat for war but what will they do to end a war?

So this is a national conversation that we need to continue to have. The question is never decided when we are shooting other people. Those who want peace ought to continue to press for it and never give up.

Ending war, of course, is a different and larger proposition. Again, humanity has so much free will that few, if any, questions are ever permanently resolved. But we can work to create an ecology of nonviolence that will end war on Earth and will keep it ended if we maintain that ecology.

To achieve this we need to work on each subsystem. This feeds a nonviolent output into the larger and to the connected subsystems--and in any ecology, all subsystems are somehow connected.

Teaching peace journalism would help produce a media system intent on producing a nonviolent outcome.

Massive increases in nonviolent parenting education offered freely to young adults and all parents would help us produce generations who understood nonviolence and who could learn constructive conflict management from a young age.

Building down a violent military and investing instead in massive de-escalation and interposition training of teams deployable in all parts of the world would transform militaries into forceful nonviolent crisis managers.

Redirection of training for police from the use of violence to the practice of verbal judo and non-pain compliance techniques would put our civil society on a stronger path toward nonviolent conflict management.

If the moral leadership of our communities were to stand for nonviolence--the imams, ministers, rabbis and philosophers, publicly committed to constructive conflict management--that would help turn our huge civil society energy to a committed force for an end to war.

Our teachers could be trained, our educational systems could start to teach peace education from preschool to postgraduate. Civics education that taught the history of peace and how to make it would produce generations with new frameworks, new starting points of what is possible, and new outcomes.

When we are finally able to learn and believe that nonviolence is in fact the new pragmatism--and our post-1906 history shows us that abundantly--we can finally begin to elect the new pragmatists who will vote to fund this transition and skill it up.

As George Crocker said, look, we're going to win this battle, and we must, because if we don't, no one is really going to be around to worry about it. War is anti-life and our conscious evolution is no longer an option if we wish to be members of this Gaian community of life.

We have the research, we know the history, we have learned many of the lessons, and nonviolence is the greatest latent force on Earth, just starting to make itself seriously known. Once we overcome the centuries of assumptions about war and nonviolence we can go through that gate together to a new way of life. Nonviolent communication, nonviolent mediation, strategic nonviolent action and nonviolent sanctions with real power are not mysteries any longer. We are massively committed to war. If we continue that, we die. The biggest polluters on Earth are the militaries and the industries that serve them and the wars they wage. The biggest consumers of oil and strategic minerals are the militaries. Adding the structural violence deaths from the opportunity costs of spending so much on war and we see the failure to make faster progress on disease control, malnutrition, bioremediation and other ongoing human problems, and we see some of the greater costs of war.

Nonviolence is our option, our new flinty-eyed idealism, our new pragmatism. It will take a huge effort--almost as much as our ongoing efforts to wage wars and clean up after them.

Howard Zinn and the State of the Union

Howard Zinn has crossed over. He was a mensch, a historian and an activist. He was not convinced that nonviolence was always the answer, but he often provided expert testimony for nonviolent resisters seeking help in conducting a robust defense of their actions in opposition to militarism and injustice.

At the same time, we are all listening to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address. It is both inspiring and chilling. He is justifying more military, more nuclear reactors, and more coal plants. His righteous rhetoric is great, and I hope more Americans understand that Republicans shame themselves constantly. But his actual policies are quite disappointing in many ways. Yes, he's a pragmatist, but he is also a brilliant orator. He builds up the citizenry's hopes in his integrity, and he seems to be working to honor his promises, but many of his promises are actually harmful.

Nuclear power is not a solution to any problem we have and will in fact exacerbate them all. They are the only power that is permanently poisonous.

An increased military budget is not wise, humane, or in anyone's enlightened self-interest. It squanders our resources and alienates our world neighbors.

Coal power is unnecessary and takes away sacred mountains, wild wooded creeks, our clean air and will worsen global warming.

There was no serious mention of disarmament, ecological protection, a drawdown of our 1,000 foreign military bases, energy conservation, cessation of small arms and light weapons exports, and no realistic plan for either ending our Afghanistan quagmire or making Rooseveltian strides toward full employment.

Barack Obama is possibly the only public speaker capable of telling us that he's going to violate us in the name of saving us and we all choke up with gratitude. He is truly charismatic, truly talented, and, I'm chagrined to say, truly unable to change the war system.

That all said, I am so very glad it was not John McCain speaking tonight. Bush was an emetic speaker, McCain would have been flogging a herd of dead peacenik horses. Obama, problematic as his policies are, is lightyears ahead of what we might well have endured otherwise.

Passive-aggressive or pacifist-assertive?

"Aggression comes in two styles--passive and hostile. Passive-aggressive behavior, like plain passive behavior, is failing to specifically address or make known your opinions and desires. With passive-aggressive behavior, however, rather than simply keeping one's feelings to oneself, one acts out. Fears, frustration, and anger are expressed in indirect actions such as sarcasm and other signals intended to be subtle expressions of conflict, dislike, disrespect, or disapproval. Being avoidably or habitually late for meetings and appointments, for example, is passive-aggressive behavior."
--Barbara Budjac Corvette, Conflict management: A practical guide to developing negotiation strategies, p. 155.

"I'm a combative pacifist."
--Grace Paley

Being passive aggressive is the style of those who are simply not confident in either their abilities to handle conflict or in their abilities to properly learn how to handle it. Most of us have some of those tendencies, and I think Corvette helps us most when she writes about healthy conflict avoidance accompanied by a clear explanation. When I tell a colleague that I am in disagreement with him and I'd like to learn more about why he feels the way he does, but now is not the time, then I've responded in a functional fashion that bookmarks the conflict without blurring the boundaries around our current work. He knows we will need to schedule a time to work through it; I have not been either passive or hostile, but I have avoided the conflict for 'a minute'.

If I just gunnysack my conflict it will come out at some inappropriate time and possibly toward some poor person who doesn't deserve my newfound 'courage'. Indeed, hostility is often merely analogous to referred pain and our failure to rise above passivity in the face of conflict with a more powerful party often translates into inappropriate hostility expressed toward some party who, in turn, we perceive to be less powerful than us.

Don't we wish we could all operate at a perfect conflict performance at all times? As I contemplate my own struggles to rise above the passive-aggressive or hostile-aggressive styles into the assertive and healthy realm I fully realize my own need to learn, relearn, self-forgive and get back on the horse and try that ride again with a better grip.

Now if our leaders could learn that we'd ratchet down our destructive conflict several notches. Sigh.

The confusion between passivity and pacifism is natural for anyone watching a passive-aggressive pacifist pretend to be above the fray. That confusion dissipates when a Grace Paley takes her pacifism to the party who is committing injustice or violence. Grace knew, and other assertive pacifists know, that engaged pacifism means going up to that thin but bright line demarcating assertiveness from aggression. Disengaged pacifism is sentimental and self-serving and rightly rejected by activists clamoring for action to stop militarism and injustice. But when they cross into aggression they learn that powerful oppressors will respond with brutality.

Grace showed that our ongoing challenge is to keep our eye on the line and stay as close to it as humanly possible, keeping the nonviolent and assertive pressure on the powerful, continuing to offer a healthy model to others. Of course, our methods of doing that vary and include developing alternatives as well as confronting the unhealthy power-over tyrants or tyrannical systems. Gandhi spun. Grace wrote poetry. Phil Berrigan built community. As Peter Maurin put it, our task is to build the new inside the shell of the old. Handling conflict in a healthy fashion is one of our most crucial and most difficult challenges if we wish to progress with nonviolence.

References
Corvette, Barbara A. Budjac (2007). Conflict management: A practical guide to developing negotiation strategies. Upper Saddle River NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Gandhi GWOT

Mohandas Gandhi was devoted to Hindu-Muslim comity and based on that, he really launched the notion of what he called a 'peace army.' His love of Muslim-Hindu siblinghood is indeed what signed his death warrant.

As is often the case, his desire to get along with others caused those of his own group the most consternation. He was murdered not by jihadis but by a fellow Hindu who was acting on behalf of a larger Hindu fundamentalist organization. Yitzak Rabin was murdered by an Israeli for his role in the Oslo peace with Palestinians. Nonviolence is a very threatening concept to some, as is one element of nonviolence, forgiveness.

So Gandhi founded the Shanti Dals to try to bring peace to rioting Hindus and Muslims in India (Weber, 1996). Individually, he achieved remarkable success, going door-to-door in the poorest, most violent, most fundamentalist neighborhoods of both groups and begging them to abstain from further violence.

It is likely that Gandhi's final project, the formation of a Shanti Sena, or peace army, would have served two functions; it would have been organized toward providing internal peace in India and would have been a sort of civilian-based defense of the country from foreign forces. He may have also hoped that Shanti Sena would have been an international world police force designed to prevent war.

It is possible. It is the dream of those who believe in nonviolence. On a small scale, it is underway in some ways already, with valuable organizations like Nonviolent Peaceforce, Sri Lankan Sarvodaya, Christian Peacemaker Teams, Muslim Peacemaker Teams, and so forth.

Ultimately, however, we must choose. We cannot have Obama's increasing military and a nonviolent initiative in any way associated with the American government, unless we are willing to sacrifice the volunteers on the nonviolent side. We cannot show the world a fearsome and lethal military and expect that world to be loving and friendly toward any nonviolent parties who don't also oppose the US military.

This is part of why nonviolence is almost always going to be a challenger method. In our era of massive military, choosing nonviolence makes us a counter-hegemonic movement almost no matter where we are, in opposition to the terrorists who strap themselves with explosive belts or who strap themselves into military aircraft. Nonviolence means opposition and it's not an easy path, but it's the only one worth taking if you wish to live recognizing the only tyrant with legitimacy--your conscience.

References
Weber, Thomas, Gandhi’s Peace Army: The Shanti Sena and Unarmed Peacekeeping. Syracuse NY: Syracuse University Press, 1996.

Reality has a nonviolence bias

Most people hitherto have been skeptical of nonviolent resistance simply because they did not understand how it could possibly work. They might be less skeptical once they could see how the method could operate and be effective.
—Richard Gregg, colleague of Gandhi

How can nonviolence end war?

First, help educate people on the history of nonviolent success. They must know this or they will continue to regard nonviolence as counterintuitive, naive, wishful fantasy dreamt up by unrealistic utopians. When they learn that strategic nonviolence usually works and violence usually does not they may at least intellectually begin to consider it. Gene Sharp, Adrian Karatnycky, Maria Stephan and many more scholars offer just such research.

Second, help journalists--reporters, editors, commentators--learn that nonviolence has a growing track record of success and that the hidden stories are often newsworthy and provocative.

Third, teach children that they can always find an alternative to violence. This starts them thinking and problem-solving toward conflict resolution without destruction.

Fourth, challenge religious and moral leadership to be serious about promoting justice by peaceable means. If they do not do so, who will? If they do not promote a peace-oriented theology or philosophy, who will? If they do not square their actions and beliefs, who will?

Fifth, work with the business community to understand that peace is better for business than is war. Don't bother with the war profiteers; they seem so far from learning how to combine business and ethics that your effort is better spent with the business community that can truly benefit from peace as prosperity.

Sixth, help the human services organizations develop a structural analysis of the war system that induces them to take a pro-peace position. Opportunity costs alone are a cogent argument. If our methods of conflict management are taking the lion's share of the discretionary budget, they are far less capable of achieving the human needs goals.

In short, how does constructive conflict management--the nonviolence of mediation and the best democracy--help to reduce the chances of war? It does so as it might in any ecology; the output of each subsystem affects the output of the whole. Changing media, or education, or our spiritual organizations, or our business sector, or law enforcement, or the political system--changing ANY of the subsystems using nonviolence toward more nonviolence is how we will ultimately change the system so that nonviolence can in fact end war.


References
Gregg, Richard B., The Power of Nonviolence, second revised edition. NYC: Schocken Books, 1966 (original 1935). (43)

Teaching children to get it write

My students are often young parents, young teachers-in-training, or just students frustrated that they are just beginning to learn something about constructive conflict management as they take college courses. They want to know exactly how to teach nonviolent conflict management to children.

There are an enormous number of articles, workshops, trainings, curricula, activities books and both academic and trade books on this topic. I am only going to touch on one recent scholarly study that shows some research into one strand of this, how we can predict and affect children's abilities to respond to conflict in a nonviolent fashion meant to de-escalate it. The researchers looked at 364 urban 4th, 5th and 6th graders.

What they found, basically, was that when students are taught two skills that then seems to correlate with this ability.

One, strong narrative communication. They need to be able to listen to stories and tell their own stories with skill.

Two, they need to be able to specifically communicate to others about their own internal states.

The direct quote from their research findings:

"Qualitative analyses revealed a relationship between children’s response to conflict and their narrative skills, moral evaluations, and descriptions of emotion, intentions, and mental states. Children who reported the use of communication in response to conflict wrote stories containing very low levels of violence and also displayed attentiveness to others’ internal states and strong narrative form. In contrast, children whose narratives reported the use of retaliation in response to conflict were unlikely to report about internal states or to display strong narrative form."


What does this mean?

First, it's important to keep it all in perspective. Again, from the discussion of their specific research:

"Nine percent of the conflicts children chose to write about included acts of criminal or life-threatening violence. It is appalling, of course, to have such violence be a part of any childhood. However, it is important to note that the vast majority of the stories in our corpus described ordinary peer and sibling conflicts—the kinds of conflicts that have long been recognized as critical to moral and social-cognitive development (Piaget 1932; Shantz 1987; Shantz and Hartup 1992). Although these children lived in the middle of a city that was then third in the nation in violent crime (according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report), in neighborhoods where a majority of adults were afraid to walk outside (Kirby 2001), their lives did not appear to be defined or dominated by violence. For the most part, these children found good resources in their families and schools to help them understand and learn from interpersonal conflict."

That's the good news.

The bad news is the adults' role in many of the stories (these were true stories from the children's lives, according to the children). The response when kids did as they had been told, which was to seek adult help:

"There were relatively few stories describing the seeking of adult help, and they gave us a disquieting glimpse of how children assess the effectiveness of adult assistance. Several children reported being ignored when they sought adult help. (One-sixth grader attempted to tell the principal about being sexually harassed by a classmate in the haunted house, but ‘‘the principal was too busy.’’) In the large majority of stories that involved adult intervention, the adult role was to mete out punishment or to separate the antagonists. There were only five stories like the one in Example 5, in which an adult served as a consultant to help children solve interpersonal problems."

Some of these unresponsive adults were in the school system, some in the home. We have much work to do in both environments and we should do that work wherever we can.

The authors looked at the literature on this and at their own study and certainly recommend some measures for our educational system:

"Chen (2001, 2003) suggested to teachers of young children that although the first reaction to peer conflict in the classroom may be to squelch it, teachers should try to see conflict as an opportunity for social and moral development. When teachers view conflict as a manageable and important part of childhood, rather than as a threat, conflict can become a part of the learning that goes on within schools. When peer conflict threatens to disrupt ongoing instruction, teachers need to have an established classroom practice that allows them to postpone the conflict without suppressing it. By third grade, most students have learned enough self-control to be able to cooperate with a teacher’s instruction to ‘‘hold that dispute until we finish this lesson, and then you can take it up in the dispute center.’’ This can most reliably be successful if teachers have the support of a second adult in the classroom. Peer Mediation is a good example of a program that has given teachers support in implementing this kind of practice. Peer Mediation programs have been successful in helping schools to manage conflict not by attempting to suppress it, but by giving students the time, space, and assistance to talk through their conflicts with other peers (Johnson and Johnson 2001; Bell et al. 2000, Lupton-Smith et al. 1996)."

Finally, they had one last specific recommendation: teach children to be able to communicate about conflict:

"Conflict resolution interventions tend to encourage communication, sometimes with the use of a mediator (Johnson and Johnson 2001; Bell et al. 2000; Lupton-Smith et al. 1996). These programs, however, do not necessarily stress the development of children’s ability to communicate effectively. In the stories that children wrote for this research, they often reported unsuccessful attempts at communication as a response to conflict. Many of the children who described violence in their stories did not seem to recognize that the thoughts, feelings, emotions, and motives of the actors were relevant. We believe that children with strong narrative skills are well-equipped to solve interpersonal problems. They are likely to exercise social perspective taking skills and to make moral evaluations of conflict situations. Good storytellers will be able to explain their own motives and goals in ways that will be acceptable to their peers. Narrative is a site where meaning is constructed according to social and cultural expectations. Personal narrative writing and storytelling tasks can be used to facilitate the development of critical peacemaking skills."

One of the proven ways to enhance that set of skills is to work with children on keeping a journal. I'd recommend both Freedom Writers and Precious, two films that really show the power of the journal as both therapy and competency development.


References:
Harris, Alexis; Walton, Marsha. “Thank You for Making Me Write This.” Narrative Skills and the Management of Conflict in Urban Schools. Urban Review, Nov2009, Vol. 41 Issue 4, p287-311.

So, while this doesn't answer all our questions about teaching children to handle conflict in constructive ways, it does offer some researched guidance that can inform us as parents and teachers who hope that our children will grow up with more advanced abilities to manage conflict than those we were guided toward in many of our personal histories.

2010 AFC Championship Preview: New York Jets at Indianapolis Colts

New York Jets at Indianapolis Colts
Favorite: Colts (55.7%)



Jets Offense (with grade):

Points Per Drive: 1.56 (C-)
Drive Success Rate: .629 (C-)
Turnovers per: .165 (D+)

Last week the Jets did things a bit differently against the Chargers, trying to throw the football a bit more despite that being their offensive weakness, instead of playing to their strength and running the football. However, as the game progressed and the Chargers' front seven wore down, they went back to the run, and were able to string together two key touchdown drives to take control and seal what ultimately became a 17-14 win.

Offense Line Run Blocking: C+
Left End: D-
LT: C+
Interior: C
RT: A
Right End: D
Pass Protection: D+

Jets backfield:

QB: Mark Sanchez: F (Rushing: B-)
RB: Thomas Jones: C
RB: Shonn Greene: C

Should the Jets try a similar approach this week, they'll be happy to note that the Colts aren't that much better defensively, and that like the Chargers the Colts aren't especially hawkish for turnovers, which indicates Mark Sanchez can safely throw 20-25 passes provided a safe, solid passing gameplan. If they can wear out Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis, they can take control with Shonn Greene and Thomas Jones rotating carries. That said, Peyton Manning can probably engineer at least a couple of touchdown drives, and 20 points isn't out of the question, so the Jets will need a bit more on offense than they got last week versus the Chargers.

Plus last week's Chargers team ran a base 3-4 defense, which is better suited to stop the run than the pass-rush oriented 4-3 the Colts run. Expect the Jets to run the ball sooner, especially if the Colts front four gives against the Jets offensive line and allows them to run off the tackles. The Jets know their best bet is to keep the ball out of Peyton's hands, and the best way to do that is to run run run and try to hold the ball for 30-35 minutes.

Jets receivers:

WR: Jerricho Cotchery: C+
WR: Braylon Edwards: C
WR: David Clowney: F
WR: Brad Smith: F (Rushing: A)
TE: Dustin Keller: D

This is why running the ball is very, very important for the Jets.

Jets defense (Base 3-4):

Overall: A (Momentum Weighted*: A+)
Points per drive: 1.04 (A+)
Drive Success Rate: .591 (A+)
Turnovers per drive: .148 (C)

* - Weighed to emphasize late season performances over early season performances

Run Defense: B
vs left end sweeps: B
Right DE: C
Interior run defense: A
Left DE: B+
vs right end sweeps: D+

Pass Defense: A+
Defensive line vs rush: A
Pass rush: C
vs #1 WR: A+
vs #2 WR: A
vs Other WR: A+
vs TE: A
vs RB: A

The best secondary in the NFL gave Philip Rivers nearly 300 yards passing and he still couldn't manage more than two touchdown drives. Peyton Manning has the savvy plus the weapons to fare a bit better, but 20 points against the Ravens despite a ton of chances plus a season of relatively meager point totals under a one-dimensional offense indicates he can be contained. Peyton won't turn the ball over and don't be surprised if once again he doesn't take a sack or puts up 250-300 yards somehow, but he's not going to torch the Jets. He's going to have to work very hard for every completion.

Jets Special Teams:

Kicker: C (Kickoffs: C)
Kick returns: B
Punting: C+
Punt returns: C+

******



Colts Offense (with grade):

Points Per Drive: 2.43 (B+)
Drive Success Rate: .748 (A+)
Turnovers per: .140 (C)

Offense Line Run Blocking: D+
Left End: F
LT: C
Interior: B-
RT: C
Right End: C
Pass Protection: A+

Colts Backfield:

QB: Peyton Manning: A+
RB: Joseph Addai: B- (Receiving: B)
RB: Mike Hart: D
RB: Donald Brown: D (Receiving: A)

Like last week, don't expect Joseph Addai to be a huge factor versus the Jets' 3-4 front.

Colts Receivers:

WR: Reggie Wayne: B
WR: Austin Collie: B
WR: Pierre Garcon: C
WR: Hank Baskett: F
TE: Dallas Clark: A
TE: Tom Santi: B
TE: Jacob Tamme: F

The Jets are probably the only team that can keep a body on every single one of Peyton Manning's weapons, and as Philip Rivers had to do, Peyton's going to need to squeeze passes into wormholes to move the ball as the game progresses.

Colts defense (Base 4-3):

Overall: C (Momentum Weighted*: C+)
Points per Drive: 1.64 (C)
Drive Success Rate: .688 (C-)
Turnovers per Drive: .144 (C)

* - Weighed to emphasize late season performances over early season performances

Run Defense: C
vs left end sweeps: C
Right DE: D-
Interior run defense: C
Left DE: D
vs right end sweeps: F

Pass Defense: C
Defensive line vs rush: D-
Pass rush: C
vs #1 WR: C
vs #2 WR: D+
vs Other WR: C
vs TE: C
vs RB: C-

Once again, the Jets offense isn't facing a great defense, despite Freeney and Mathis' persistent threat on the ends. The Jets can wear this front down, and can certainly run on a 4-3 with an average pass rush (as good as the ends are at rushing the passer, the tackles and blitzers are fairly poor).

Colts Special Teams:

Kicker: C (Kickoffs: C)
Kick returns: C
Punting: C+
Punt returns: D+

******

So who has the edge?

I can't deny Peyton Manning's talent and adaptability, and I don't doubt he can string together a couple touchdown drives despite the talent on the Jets defense. The Colts are still the favorites... but not by much. The Jets can shorten the game with the run against an average defense, minimizing Peyton Manning's chances to pull the Colts away even if the Jets can't capitalize in the early going. Mark Sanchez doesn't have the ability to win this game by himself, but as always he won't need to. Rex Ryan's good old fashioned defense-and-rushing approach is going to keep this close, and only a Hall of Fame performance by Manning is going to put this game away before the final moments.

2010 NFC Championship Preview: Minnesota Vikings at New Orleans Saints

Minnesota Vikings at New Orleans Saints
Favorite: Saints (61.0%)

Minnesota cranked a shockingly rattled Cowboys team in Minnesota last week, indicative of their season: Easy wins against teams that are either bad or good teams that are for whatever reason out of their element and don't show up. But they're going into the hostile Superdome in New Orleans this week against a Saints team that does everything they like to do, and arguably better than they do.

The Saints did lose their last three regular season games but don't be fooled: A la the Colts, they essentially folded their tent in Week 15 once they reached 13-0 and were assured of the #1 seed, and gave the backups more playing time. As they showed in last week's 45-14 romp over Arizona, they are just fine, and just too tough to stop on offense when they're trying.

As always, all stats are courtesy of Football Outsiders. All their advanced stats give you a closer look at the marginal utility of all teams and players over (or under) their counterparts.



Vikings Offense (with grade):

Points Per Drive: 2.44 (A-)
Drive Success Rate: .724 (B)
Turnovers per: .092 (A)

Offense Line Run Blocking: C
Left End: C-
LT: B
Interior: C
RT: D
Right End: C-
Pass Protection: C

Vikings backfield:

QB: Brett Favre: A+
QB: Tavaris Jackson: A
RB: Adrian Peterson: C (Receiving: B)
RB: Chester Taylor: F (Receiving: B)

If it seems Adrian Peterson's slid a bit this season, well... he has, and his line hasn't been all that strong either. Go figure the team's best success has been running near the left tackle, right in the vicinity of all pro LG Steve Hutchinson.

But while they've ground out some yards here, a big run there, the tailbacks haven't been very efficient. Brett Favre leaned on the ground game early in the season, but go figure his passing numbers took off as the season wore on. They had to, because he had to do more with the passing game as the season progressed. Good thing he had....

Vikings receivers:

WR: Sidney Rice: A+ (Rushing: A)
WR: Percy Harvin: B
WR: Bernard Berrian: C
WR: Greg Lewis: C+
TE: Visanthe Shaincoe: A
TE: Jimmy Kleinsasser: I thought you did this for a living

Again, Percy Harvin is good enough to be split to one of the ends instead of the 3rd wideout in a 3-wideout set, though maybe the reason he makes so many plays is because teams blanket Rice, cover Berrian, put a good linebacker on Shaincoe and Harvin's often left against safeties and nickel backs.
However, the bad news is that Harvin is questionable for the title game after spending the week with migraines. He's improved and expects to play but there's no telling what he can give the Vikes on Sunday after little practice. The Saints are also fairly effective in containing opposing tight ends, so don't expect Visanthe Shaincoe and his strained quad to get open too often.

The good news is that, despite Rice facing better cover corners this week, Bernard Berrian may see more open space on the other side. The vanquished Cowboys were more consistent in covering a team's top two receivers than the Saints were. While the Saints do a fine job of containing opponents' #1 receivers, they don't do as good a job against the #2 or slot receivers. Sidney Rice did have a great game against good cover corners, but Jabari Greer and Tracy Porter will definitely key on him and give him a harder time. Rice can still ring up 4-6 catches, and he is indoors on a rug despite being on the road so he'll have every bit the speed he has at home. Don't count him out: Just don't expect a repeat of last week's dominance.

However, unlike the mediocre Cowboys pass defense, the Saints can contain some of the Vikings' pass weapons, which puts a greater onus on Brett Favre and his running game to make plays on their own.

Vikings defense (Base 4-3):

Overall: C (Momentum Weighted*: C+)
Points per drive: 1.52 (B-)
Drive success rate: .636 (A-)
Turnovers per drive: .118 (D+)

* - Weighed to emphasize late season performances over early season performances

Run Defense: A
vs left end sweeps: D+
Right DE: B-
Interior run defense: B
Left DE: B-
vs right end sweeps: A

Pass Defense: D
Defensive line vs rush: B
Pass rush: B+
vs #1 WR: D
vs #2 WR: B
vs Other WR: D
vs TE: D
vs RB: C-

There's a big problem looming, and it's not the crappy pass defense: Three of the Vikings' starting defensive linemen, Kevin and Pat Williams plus Ray Edwards, are all questionable with various injuries. Yes, players play hurt in the NFL all the time, but if you're questionable, your injury's bad enough to hamper strength and movement. Even if any or all of the above play, the usually great defensive line is going to get pushed around.

This not only will compromise the pass rush (and likely bottle up Jared Allen if he's the only healthy threat the Saints have to worry about), but the strong run defense as well. The linebacking for the Vikes hasn't been the same either since EJ Henderson's leg snapped like a twig a month ago. If the Saints decide to change it up and go with Pierre Thomas between the tackles, we may be surprised at how easily the Saints can stick their blocks and give Thomas enough space to get to the 2nd level of the front seven.

On top of that, the Vikings aren't particularly good at containing a team's #1 receiver, opting instead to balance their coverage and force that top receiver to make plays, and TBH the Vikes do give up an uncanny number of big plays in the secondary. They don't cover secondary receivers well, and the Saints love to use three wideout sets just like the Vikes do. Don't be surprised if some Saints receiver you don't hear much about, like Robert Meachem or Lance Moore, has a massive game. Marques Colston and Jeremy Shockey have a great chance at big numbers as well. Drew Brees shredded the Cards while last week's game was competitive, and chances are likely he'll shred the Vikings too.

Vikings Special Teams:

Kicking: B (Kickoffs: D)
Kick returns: A+
Punting: C
Punt returns: C+

Percy Harvin is typically the key to the return game, but his injury compromises that return game, unless infrequently used Darius Reynaud (4 decent but mostly unspectacular returns all season) finds a crease or two on returns. The Vikes did not return a single kick in their 34-3 romp over Dallas last week.

******



Saints offense:

Points Per Drive: 2.56 (A)
Drive Success Rate: .742 (A-)
Turnovers per: .148 (C)

Offense Line Run Blocking: A
Left End: C-
LT: C
Interior: A
RT: B+
Right End: A-
Pass Protection: B+

Saints Backfield:

QB: Drew Brees: A+ (Rushing: A+)
RB: Pierre Thomas: A (Receiving: A-)
RB: Mike Bell: C
RB: Reggie Bush: A (Receiving: C)

Saints Receivers:

WR: Marques Colston: A
WR: Robert Meachem: A+ (Rushing: A+)
WR: Devery Henderson: B
WR: Lance Moore: A
TE: Jeremy Shockey: A
TE: David Thomas: B-

Sure, the Cards didn't have the defense to pose much of a challenge last week, but the Saints have a ton of offensive weapons. Drew Brees is one of the top 3-4 QBs in the game today. Pierre Thomas is a workhorse relatively fresh since he doesn't have to carry a load... because fellow backfielder Reggie Bush is a freakish playmaker, and Brees has a full arsenal in the passing game: A rotation of Marques Colston, Devery Henderson, Robert Meachem (who is also hell on reverses and end arounds) and Lance Moore, as well as top-shelf receiving tight end Jeremy Shockey. No wonder nobody in the NFL has been able to contain this offense. The crappy Vikings secondary sure won't.

Saints Defense (Base 4-3):

Overall: C (Momentum Weighted*: D+)
Points per drive: 1.71 (C)
Drive success rate: .670 (C)
Turnovers per drive: .187 (A-)

* - Weighed to emphasize late season performances over early season performances

Run Defense: D-
vs left end sweeps: D-
Right DE: F
Interior run defense: C
Left DE: C
vs right end sweeps: A+

Pass Defense: C+
Defensive line vs rush: C-
Pass rush: C
vs #1 WR: A
vs #2 WR: C-
vs Other WR: C
vs TE: B
vs RB: C

One bad sign for the Vikes is that, with the exception of Pittsburgh, all the other teams that beat the Vikes this season sported a 4-3 defensive front. And the Steelers' linebackers are fairly big and tough, i.e. in some ways resemble D-linemen in size and strength. 4-3 defenses tend to generate a greater pass rush and give the O-line a tougher time in run blocking, though the weakness comes in pass defense (if the pass rush doesn't get to the QB) and when the rushers get past the trench as there are fewer linebackers to cover the 2nd level. Even if the line doesn't ring up sacks, consistently putting pressure on the QB is usually enough to disrupt the passing game.

Brett Favre's line in his losses:

4 games, 106 for 162 (65.4%, 40.5 attempts per), 1154 yards (228.5 per), 4 TD, 4 INT, 14 sacks (3.5 per)

In 12 wins: 257 for 369 (69.6%, 31 attempts per), 3048 yards (254 per), 29 TD, 3 INT, 24 sacks (2.0 per)

Obviously, QB turnovers and losses tend to go hand in hand. Sacks too, to some extent, and QBs tend to throw more in losses, as when the team falls behind they abandon the running game and throw the football. Note that Brett Favre only threw more than 31 attempts in one of Minnesota's wins: 48 times in Minnesota's 36-10 victory over Chicago on November 29, and Favre largely took over in that game because the Bears have a poor secondary and were playing a soft zone that contained their running game. It made sense to throw every down in that situation. However, with the book out on Sidney Rice, Percy Harvin and Favre's other weapons, opponents finally keyed on Favre's receivers and it's unlikely the Vikings get a window like that again.

As the Cards found out the hard way, the Saints are a good ballhawking team and can generate turnovers. Favre has gotten much better at avoiding turnovers, but on a bad day he's still good for a couple picks. Add in Adrian Peterson's penchant for the big fumble, and this could get away if the Saints get three turnovers and capitalize on at least a couple of them. The Vikings don't generate as many turnovers and generally have to rely on avoiding those mistakes, while hoping the other team does something stupid, to win the turnover battle.

Saints Special Teams:

Kicking: D- (Kickoffs: C)
Kick returns: B
Punting: D
Punt returns: D

Rarely does the Saints' fate come down to their below average kicking game. However, the kick return game could chew up a few big returns against a below average kick coverage unit.

******

So who has the edge?

Neither team has much of a pass defense, and with the Vikings' pass rushers hurting, 800+ yards total passing is not out of the question. For the Vikes, it will come down to whether they can avoid turnovers and keep pace on offense. The Saints are going to hold serve on offense. Getting Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor going and being able to kill the clock and keep that Saints offense off the field will certainly help the Vikings. However, the Vikings can't afford to make more than one big mistake, or Drew Brees and Co will make sure this game gets away from the Vikes fairly quickly. Despite their best efforts, the Vikes are in trouble given the Saints defense's nose for the football and, more specifically, taking it away from you.

That said, the Vikings shouldn't fold vs the Saints the way the Cards did last week should they fall behind. They've got enough talent, and the Saints have enough defensive holes, to make a thing or three happen and stay in this game if things go wrong for them. One common denominator in the Vikings' losses, aside from all coming on the road, is that they came against teams with tough defensive fronts. The Saints, for whatever rep their defense may or may not have, aren't particularly tough up front despite a 4-3 front and can be pushed back. That lack of magic formula is good news for the Vikes, even if they are on the road in arguably the most hostile indoor stadium in the NFL.

My friends have money on the Vikes to make the Super Bowl, so that's who I'm rooting for. However, history and the numbers indicate that Minnesota's facing an uphill battle under sea level in the Superdome.

Working with our capacities for nonviolence

When we consider our natural human reaction to existential threat we often automatically think 'flight or fight.' Is this correct?
1. Do people believe that humans are violent by nature?
2. If people believe that humans are violent by nature, are they more likely to engage in or approve of violent behavior?

First in my mind is the Seville Statement, the result of a conference on this topic and the construction of an opinion on the question by lead academics and academic associations from around the world. While it is now old, it has not been refuted or rescinded. In a nutshell, they note that while humans are naturally potentially violent they have the ability to override that impulse too. From Wikipedia (which has links to strong documentation):

The statement contains five core ideas. These ideas are:

1."It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors."
2."It is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behaviour is genetically programmed into our human nature."
3."It is scientifically incorrect to say that in the course of human evolution there has been a selection for aggressive behaviour more than for other kinds of behaviour."
4."It is scientifically incorrect to say that humans have a 'violent brain'."
5."It is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by 'instinct' or any single motivation."
The statement concludes: "Just as 'wars begin in the minds of men', peace also begins in our minds. The same species who invented war is capable of inventing peace. The responsibility lies with each of us."

In his germinal book On Killing, Lt. Colonel David Grossman outlined the reponses to perceived mortal danger.
Flight
Fight
Posing (bluffing, like a cat puffing up)
Surrender (exposing our jugular vein--works for wolves, leaves other species dead)
Creativity (this is our hope in nonviolence)

There are also ongoing studies that show how we respond to threat and how we define threat both consciously and unconsciously. Further, there are studies at both Stanford and the Medical School in Hamburg, Germany, that examine how we are instructed to perceive threat and how we can create neural pathways that are even beyond classical Pavlovian conditioning. Various portions of our brains are involved, mostly mid-brain and below, all the way to limbic (reptilian). In short, the implications for society, war and peace are enormous. Here is a piece of that meta-study abstract:

"In classical Pavlovian fear conditioning, a neutral stimulus (conditioned stimulus, CS) comes to be evaluated as threatening due to its association with an aversive stimulus (unconditioned stimulus, UCS), and elicits fear. In a subtype of fear conditioning paradigms, called instructed fear or anticipatory anxiety, subjects are made aware of the CS–UCS association prior to actually experiencing it. Initial fear elicitation during this type of conditioning results from the negative evaluation of the CS as a consequence of CS–UCS contingency awareness."

A meta-analysis of instructed fear studies: Implications for conscious appraisal of threat..
Authors:Mechias, Marie-Luise1
Etkin, Amit2
Kalisch, Raffael1 rkalisch@uke.uni-hamburg.de.
Source:NeuroImage; Jan2010, Vol. 49 Issue 2, p1760-1768, 9p

You can see from the citation it is brand new. This is exceedingly helpful as we learn how conflict affects us and how we can manage it toward peaceful outcomes. One researcher, Dr. Jo Groebel, pointed out that, for example, the identification of an extra chromosome in some serial killers was interesting but not a predictor because the vast majority of men who are afflicted with this (which seems to produce far more testosterone and possibly more aggressive responses) have never committed a violent assault. Thus, even strong impulses toward violence that seem to be especially hard-wired can be overcome. We do have free will, as contaminated as that may be by both our hard-wired capacities and mediated (instructed) fear/violence capacities.

Without critical thinking and training, we are often at the mercy of our mainstream 'if it bleeds it leads' media. This is part of why peace education and nonviolent training are so crucial.

Whose Mascot Would Win In A Fight? Day 3 of a 7 day predictive experiment

Mascot fight results for Wednesday, January 20, 2010:

NBA:

Oklahoma City - WIN
Sacramento - LOSS
Washington - LOSS
Portland - WIN
Orlando - WIN
Charlotte - WIN
Detroit - WIN
Toronto - LOSS
New Orleans - WIN
Phoenix - WIN
Utah - WIN
Golden State - LOSS

Record: 8-4
Overall NBA: 9-5

NCAA:

Michigan State - WIN
Georgia State - WIN
UAB - WIN
Towson - LOSS
La Salle - WIN
Old Dominion - WIN
Duquesne - LOSS
Drexel - WIN
Lafayette - WIN
North Carolina - LOSS
Holy Cross - WIN

Record: 8-3
Overall NCAA: 14-11

Overall: 24-23

******

Now, WHOSE MASCOT WOULD WIN IN A FIGHT for Thursday, January 21, 2010. We're scaling back the NCAA picks again. Life is short. I'm sticking to interesting battles from the first few NCAA games I notice.

NBA Picks:

Los Angeles Clippers at Denver Nuggets. You know why the Clippers lose so many games? No mascot. No contest. The yellow rock wins. Pick: Denver

Los Angeles Lakers at Cleveland Cavaliers. Cavaliers have weapons. Dudes transplanted from a state with a bunch of lakes probably do not. Pick: Cleveland

NCAA Picks:

VMI Keydets vs Radford Highlanders: They're cadets... except with KEYS, with makes they KEYdets. Meanwhile, Highlanders are immortal warriors with swords. Um... how has Radford not won 12 national titles yet? They must think they have forever, since they're immortal and all, so why rush? Pick: Radford

Chattanooga Mocs vs UNC Greensboro Spartans. 'Mocs' is shorthand for the team's original nick, the Moccasins. That's right, shoes. Comfort shoes vs ancient warriors that spear people to death for fun and profit. Pick: UNC Greensboro

Loyola Greyhounds vs Siena Saints. A saint would never hurt anyone, and to be honest, neither would most greyhounds. The greyhounds, probably hungry from a life of racing after a fake rabbit around a track so degenerates can place bets on which dog will run after the fake rabbit faster, think that since the saints are not bullying them into running after a fake rabbit around a track, must be much nicer and probably has food. So they'll politely whine to the Saints for food, and while the Saints certainly would never hurt these dogs, they do indenture them to a life of holy servitude in which the dogs spend the rest of their lives reasonably fed but enslaved in the name of the lord. Who do you think wins here? Pick: Siena

Samford Bulldogs vs Elon Phoenix. The bulldogs happen upon some ashes, which turn into a fiery bird that rises from the ashes and burns those dogs to a crisp. Ashes to ashes, life to life, and one rebirth is a dozen doggie deaths. Somebody call PETA. Pick: Elon

Arkansas Little Rock Trojans vs Florida Atlantic Owls. If we're talking about the ancient Trojans, those owls are dead meat because they're getting speared. If we're talking about Trojan Latex Condoms, those owls will simply use the lot of them as nesting material, ironically enough, and procreate into infinity. Since it's not 1200 BC, I can only conclude we are talking about the present. Pick: Florida Atlantic.

Ending our gun culture

On Tuesday, 19 January 2010, a rural Virginia man slaughtered eight people because, his neighbor speculates, he was worried that his sister and brother-in-law were planning to make him move out of the inherited rural home he and his sister inherited from their mother, who died in 2006.

How many of these mass murders must we endure—this one even included a four-year-old—before we address the painfully obvious logic that such events are almost always committed with legal firearms, and almost always would not have been nearly so deadly to so many if guns were not involved?

Yes, suspect Cris Speight could have conceivably attacked people with a vehicle, a knife, a baseball bat, or his bare hands. He might have murdered one or two in such a fashion, but it is far less conceivable that he could have slaughtered so many and then used—what, a spear, thrown in an unprecedented might toss?—to pierce the fuel tank of a police helicopter participating in the siege that eventually resulted in Speight’s arrest.

Guns exacerbate our national fascination with violence and reify the otherwise meant-for-entertainment violence in our media. Violent video games are, by themselves, relatively benign. Guns are used for hunting and, in the hands of some, as a deterrent to violence. But for those who are susceptible to mental breakdowns (isn’t that ultimately most of us at some point?), guns are literally massacres waiting to happen and our victims are out there, innocent and unsuspecting.

Ah, but there are those for whom guns are a harmless hobby, those who relish the history of the guns that won this land (for white people), that helped create our United States. Harmless? From the 21 January 2010 Washington Post story on this tragedy:

“Speight had collected at least 25 firearms, including black powder weapons, replicas of Old West era "cowboy"-style cap and ball six-shooters and many .223-caliber AR-15 semiautomatic rifles, which were among Speight's favorites.”

Ah, these quirky but responsible collectors of the cherished firearms that built this country.

Other gun lovers note that they support the need for gun safety training, which will make all these problems less likely or even non-issues. Again, from the news, referring to the future shooter’s application for concealed weapon permit in 1995:

"Roland B. Parris Jr. of Appomattox wrote to support Speight's gun application that year, saying that Speight had participated in a National Rifle Association high-powered rifle clinic and competition, which he excelled in. 'I can tell the character of a man after coaching him for two days on the rifle range,' Parris wrote."

Maybe two days of coaching shooters can show character, but perhaps the psychopathic tendencies are either not so apparent or are so deeply shared by fellow gun enthusiasts that they can sincerely approve. It is hard to tell, but it’s not helpful in either case.

All this may be true, but really, do we want a society in which sane, regular, law-abiding folks cannot arm themselves to protect against…against…against, um, other certified sane, regular, law-abiding folks with a legal permit to own and carry weapons that can, in moments, be used to massacre everyone in the room?

At what point will this circular logic shatter at our feet, to be rejected not just by pacifists but by those who don’t like to support conditions that lead to the senseless slaughter of children who happen to be in the vicinity of a person who is experiencing both an emotional meltdown and who has no prior criminal record but who is heavily, legally, armed? Will we ever grow enough backbone to take on and tame our self-destructive gun culture?

I suspect we will make progress toward this when we begin to share and catalog stories of unarmed de-escalation of those who are armed and threatening. I also suspect that once we begin to train our youth in these de-escalation techniques we will see some of that progress. These two steps are a beginning and others could make the journey swifter. May our best minds and most loving hearts help with these tasks and more. We clearly are in need.

References
Man is charged with murder in 8 Appomattox shootings, Washington Post, 21 January 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/20/AR2010012005139_3.html?wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2010012000922.

Education to end war

Peace education represents a celebration of life rather than a support for the death-bearing values implied in violent militaristic cultures. Peace education confronts the horrors of these images and presents a vision of a different, nonviolent world.
—Ian Harris and Mary Lee Morrison, Peace Education, p. 229.

The resources a culture directs toward conflict can often predetermine the range of options it feels it has. Currently, the US spends more than $1T annually on its military, which is approximately equal to what the entire rest of the planet’s nation-states spend on their combined militaries, or about half the entire discretionary budget that Congress can spend (trust funds like Social Security are not discretionary). These funds are such an overwhelming commitment to militarism that they work their way into every aspect of our society, into every subsystem of our culture, and therefore each piece of society is more militarized.

Education is no exception. The direct influences are numerous, including the requirement that all schools receiving federal funding provide access to military recruiters. This is written into the No Child Left Behind Act that describes all the strings attached to funding education. Since education is mandatory age 5 or 6 either through high school or until age 16, 17, or more normally, 18, the vast majority of our youth are directly, by law, exposed to military recruiters. This is not only high school students. There are programs that bring the military into schools at almost every level, including even the Starbase program that brings the military into grade schools and brings elementary school children to military bases.

Other military influences on education are found in the curricula. History books focus far more on wars than on peace. Major DoD contracts are awarded to universities to do military research, which thus serves to set up a brain drain from the technical side away from civilian applications to military technologies. Often our finest young minds are seduced into exotic big-budget research into devising more sophisticated methods of murder instead of learning to combat cancers, AIDS, flus, heart disease, diabetes or other human health challenges.

Like the plumber confronting a flooded and damaged home due to broken pipes, the first step is not necessarily to bring in the brilliant new items, but to turn off the water main, to stop the flow of funding toward teaching destructive conflict management. Peace educators who are operating on a Marine base school find it generally harder to overcome debilitating disbelief in students compared to those who are teaching conflict resolution to Amish children or Costa Rican children who are surrounded by civil society that handles conflict without the heavy military presence.

Every term I teach approximately 150 new students and much of what I teach is counternarrative peace education to students who have been exposed to very little of it and who have instead been educated in our militaristic society. Each term many students express chagrin that they are only just learning conflict management techniques that they rightly feel should have been taught to them literally decades earlier. Like other peace educators, my teaching begins with the assumption that we can learn the hypothetical methods of constructive conflict management, and then we proceed to the principles and self-reflection practices that introduce students to an adaptive self-management model of conflict management processing. What they do, then, is learn how to learn to manage more and more of the conflicts in their lives in more constructive and less destructive ways. They love it and they know they can use it forever.

Then I imagine all colleges and universities requiring students to take even one such course, then all high schools, and so forth. The skill levels would escalate, the engaged and informed public would see the dysfunction of our “do you want to bomb someone or do nothing?” false dichotomy, and we would expect a slow turnaround in the norms that lead to so much armed conflict. We would expect more depth of analysis from our mainstream media and we would get it as more and more journalists would enter the field understanding the dynamics and methods of constructive conflict management.

So when I tell classrooms full of my students that they are the seed crops, I get nodding heads of understanding. They know they can change mores, norms and practices. They develop an inevitable sense of human agency.
Eventually, peace education can be crucial to ending war. Our students will make it so as they become the leaders and policymakers.

References
Harris, Ian M., and Mary Lee Morrison (2003). Peace Education (2nd ed.) Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company.

Whose Mascot Would Win In A Fight? Day 2 of a 7 day predictive experiment

Mascot Fight Results for Tuesday, January 19, 2010:

NBA Picks:
Toronto - LOSS
Miami - WIN

Record: 1-1

NHL Picks:
Tampa Bay - LOSS
Columbus - LOSS
Detroit - LOSS
Atlanta - WIN
Chicago - LOSS
New York - LOSS
Buffalo - LOSS
Los Angeles - LOSS

Record: 1-7
Moral lesson: Hockey has too many ambiguous mascots in order to properly predict victory and therefore the NHL will be abandoned in this experiment.

NCAA Basketball:
Ohio State - WIN
Georgia Tech - WIN
Albany - LOSS
Chicago State - LOSS
George Mason - WIN
Alabama - LOSS
Vermont - WIN
Maryland - WIN
Oklahoma - LOSS
Indiana State - LOSS
Illinois - LOSS
Miami-Fla - LOSS
Northern Iowa - LOSS
San Diego State - WIN

Record: 6-8

Total record: 8-16

******

NOW, for Wednesday's edition, I'll make one slight adjustment. Due to the volume of NCAA Basketball games (as many as 75-100 in a given day), I'll be selective and pick ten interesting ones, i.e. ones that don't involve so many abstractions that a fight is impossible, because WE WANT HYPOTHETICAL BLOOD.

NBA:

Oklahoma City Thunder at Minnesota Timberwolves. Now, Thunder is just noise. However, even the most battle hardened Timberwolf is eventually going to flip the freak out over an excess of non-stop noise, eventually lose his/her mind, piss itself and/or eventually die from the neurosis. Pick: Thunder

Sacramento Kings at Atlanta Hawks. Kings have a wealth of resources at their disposal, including guns. Which they can use to shoot down birds. Pick: Sacramento

Dallas Mavericks at Washington Wizards. Wizards cast magic spells that overcome the laws of physics, and I don't care how much ammo a Maverick has in his gun. Pick: Washington

Portland Trail Blazers at Philadelphia 76ers. Traveling trail blazers happen upon a group of rich assholes who call themselves 76ers based upon the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 in Philadelphia. Hungry, pissed off and in no mood for this bullshit, the trail blazers proceed to kick the ever loving crap out of these blue blooded wanna be losers. Pick: Portland

Indiana Pacers at Orlando Magic. More inanimate concepts for the Pacers to face, as they wonder if they're ever going to face something, let alone somebody, that they can actually fight so that they can actually win something. Just be glad you're not in the NHL, race starters. Pick: Orlando

Miami Heat at Charlotte Bobcats. When heat collects in Charlotte, it can get rather muggy, but muggy's nothing to a Bobcat. No contest. Pick: Charlotte

Boston Celtics at Detroit Pistons. An angry Irishman walks into a bar in Detroit and is greeted by a pumping car piston, which he then smashes to smithereens before getting shot 35 times by the locals because you're in Detroit now you leprechaun bitch. Pick: Detroit

Toronto Raptors at Milwaukee Bucks. 10 out of 10 velociraptors agree: Deer tastes delicious. Pick: Toronto

Memphis Grizzlies at New Orleans Hornets. Large quantities of wasps will sting anything to death. Pick: New Orleans

New Jersey Nets at Phoenix Suns. Ever try to catch a giant star with a net? Ever wonder why nobody else has? Pick: Phoenix

Utah Jazz at San Antonio Spurs. "This next song is called 'lonely spur'" [Saxophone] Not much of a fight, is it? Pick: Utah

Denver Nuggets at Golden State Warriors. A solitary nugget and a warrior. It might take a few strikes to break it. Pick: Golden State

NCAA Basketball:

Iowa Hawkeyes at Michigan State Spartans. Spartans have spears. Hawks have eyes, and plenty of protein. Pick: Michigan State

UNC Wilmington Seahawks at Georgia State Panthers. We've had the bird vs wild cat argument before. Pick: Georgia State

Southern Miss Golden Eagles vs UAB Blazers. The Blazer mascot is in fact a dragon. A dragon. I don't care how golden those eagles are. Those gooses are cooked. Pick: UAB

Northeastern Huskies at Towson Tigers. Huskies are brave and strong dogs, but any old tiger will chew them up. Pick: Towson

La Salle Explorers at Penn Quakers. Quakers are mostly peaceful people, while there is a non-zero chance those explorers might have had to kill and eat one of their own. Pick: La Salle

Old Dominion Monarchs at Delaware Fightin' Blue Hens. I don't care how blue they are and how much fightin' they do. Monarchs are rich, armed, and eat birds for dinner. Pick: Old Dominion

Duquesne Dukes at Rhode Island Rams. Now, Rams pose a little more challenge to a Duke as game, but Dukes are also rich, also armed, and Rams also end up dead. Pick: Duquesne

James Madison Dukes at Drexel Dragons. Dragons don't. Pick: Drexel

Bucknell Bison at Lafayette Leopards. Bison are huge and tough to take down, but a team of hungry, angry leopards can eventually rip them up. FEAST. Pick: Lafayette

Wake Forest Demon Deacons at North Carolina Tar Heels. Here we have two popular but very mysterious mascots. Once known as the Fighting Baptists, Wake Forest was dubbed in the paper after a 1923 win over Duke as Deacons that "fought like Demons." Back in the day, you could change a team's shitty nickname by writing a clever passage in your newspaper that inspired a better one, and thus the nick Demon Deacons stuck. Meanwhile, the Tar Heel is simply a reference to locals of North Carolina, The Tar Heel State. Yeah, great nick for a state, you inbred geniuses. Meanwhile, we are saved by the presence of an actual mascot: Rameses the Ram. I don't care how demonic those Baptist Deacons are. They're gonna get rammed. By Tar Heels. It's gonna be sticky. Pick: North Carolina

Navy Midshipmen at Holy Cross Crusaders. Now, I'm not going to get into the whole Army vs Navy vs Marines pissing contest. But Midshipmen off their boat are no match for angry Christians with swords hell bent on killing and raping everything in their path in the name of God. Pick: Holy Cross

Whose Mascot Would Win In A Fight? A predictive experiment.

My mother leaned on this method in her pro football weekly picks contest (with a surprising degree of success) and, inspired by a post somewhere that mentioned this method, I decided as an homage to her to predict winners of games in the NBA, NFL, NHL and college basketball based on this expert analytical method:

WHOSE MASCOT WOULD WIN IN A FIGHT?

NBA:

Toronto Raptors at Cleveland Cavaliers. A Cavalier would last maybe three seconds against a carnivorous Raptor. Pick: Toronto

Indiana Pacers at Miami Heat. This one is a little more difficult. How much Heat are we talking about here? Are we talking about a warm room? A fire? A volcano? A slightly warmed down comforter? A Pacer's chance of survival is a matter of what he's up against: He burns to death in a fire, but a warm pancake isn't going to phase the man who determines how fast whatever it is he is pacing is going to go.

We must turn to the team's original logo for the answer. The logo features a flaming basketball. However, that by itself does not answer the question: A stationary flaming basketball or one moving slowly enough to be dodged or eventually doused isn't going to vanquish a Pacer, whereas one moving at meteoric speed right at the Pacer will eliminate him easily.

Eventually, we have to side with the inanimate production of energy, simply because its uncertain form makes too unpredictable an enemy for the otherwise one-dimensional Pacer: Pick: Miami

NHL:

Tampa Bay Lightning at New York Rangers. Lightning can never be defeated, but can kill in an instant with an accurate blow to the crown of a Ranger, especially if that Mark Messier looking loser is wearing his metal helmet. Pick: Tampa Bay

Columbus Blue Jackets at Philadelphia Flyers. A Civil War era soldier may have better weaponry, but the Flyer can... well, fly. The trump card comes in the fact that the Blue Jacket has a musket, and I don't care how well you can fly. You take some buckshot in the gut and you're gone. Pick: Columbus

Detroit Red Wings at Washington Capitals. Originally named for the Winged Wheelers that owner James E Norris was a part of in Montreal, the Red Wings may not be a city like the Capitals, but they sure as hell can run everyone over and eventually get out of their cars and take control. Pick: Detroit

Toronto Maple Leafs vs Atlanta Thrashers. Know why Toronto's the worst team in the NHL? Because a damn leaf off a maple tree can't beat anything in a fight. Duh. Pick: Atlanta

Chicago Blackhawks at Ottawa Senators. Aboriginal warriors in a fight with blue blood politicians. Right. Pick: Chicago

New York Islanders at Pittsburgh Penguins. It's dinner time on the Island! Who wants poultry? Pick: New York

Buffalo Sabres at Anaheim Ducks. No really, who wants poultry? Pick: Buffalo

San Jose Sharks at Los Angeles Kings. If this fight were in the Shark Tank, the King would be dead meat. Because the Shark is on land and in the Kings' house, game over. Pick: Los Angeles

NCAA Basketball:

Northwestern Wildcats at Ohio State Buckeyes. The Buckeye tree is mahogany, 15-25 feet tall, and impervious to the claws and teeth of a Wildcat, but if falling could kill that stupid cat in a heartbeat. Pick: Ohio State

Clemson Tigers at Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets. A tiger can maybe sway a wasp or two, but a hundred of the little buggers should be able to sting the big cat to death. Pick: Georgia Tech

Albany Great Danes at Boston University Terriers. A great dane fighting with a terrier. Right. Pick: Albany

Chicago State Cougars at Eastern Kentucky Colonels. Whether you're talking about the violent feline cougars or the fortysomething MILF cougars, an elderly colonel is no match for either one. Pick: Chicago State

George Mason Patriots at Hofstra Pride. Pride is a mental concept and a sin, so in essense the George Mason Patriots are at war with themselves, their own egos, their own hubris. And if Jim Larranaga has anything to say about it (and history shows he definitely does), his Patriots shall overcome. Pick: George Mason

Tennessee Volunteers at Alabama Crimson Tide. While a group of unknowing Volunteers stand around wondering what exactly constitutes a crimson tide, a herd of elephants answers their questions in a violent stampede. Pick: Alabama

Hartford Hawks at Vermont Catamounts. A catamount is a form of cougar. That Hawk can fly around and peck/claw away all day, but that lion's going to get his jaws on him eventually. Pick: Vermont

Longwood Lancers at Maryland Terrapins. A terrapin is a turtle. Yes, a turtle. A lancer can poke at that sucker all day but he'll just... well... turtle, and none of the blows will have any effect. The lancer will eventually stab at the ground in anger, snap his lance in half and end up impaling himself. Dumb lancer: No wonder your team's 3-14. Pick: Maryland

Oklahoma Sooners at Texas A&M Aggies. 19th century settlers of Oklahoma vs folks generally predispositioned to agriculture. The settlers are a bit more battle hardened from a long journey as well as a perceived need to kill Native Americans and take their land. The Aggies may have pitchforks, but the Sooners know how to use them. Boomer Sooner... and GIT OFF MAH LAND. Pick: Oklahoma

Indiana State Sycamores vs Missouri State Bears. Bears run into the same problems as the wildcats above when it comes to trees, but the Platanus Occidentalis are even bigger, growing up to 100-130 feet in size. Yeah, good luck with that, Grizz. Pick: Indiana State

Purdue Boilermakers at Illinois Fighting Illini. Let's see, fighting (and likely armed) Native Americans vs trained craftsmen who make steel fabrications. Uh huh. Pick: Illinois

Boston College Eagles at Miami-Fla Hurricanes. Gale force winds in a storm hundreds of miles wide. A bird. Pick: Miami-Fla

Northern Iowa Panthers at Wichita State Shockers. I'm SHOCKED. SHOCKED, I tell you. When Panthers get shocked, I hear they just get angrier and tear you up more quickly. But honestly, the nickname Shocker is short for Wheatshocker, a euphemism for students who harvested fields for pocket money. Yeah, they stand a chance against Panthers. Pick: Northern Iowa

San Diego State Aztecs vs Utah Utes. Now here's a tough question. Which Native tribe would win in a fight? The Aztecs invade as far north as they've ever gone, into colder, more mountainous Northern Ute territory. Ute history shows that their only military successes came when they allied (ill-advisedly) with the U.S. in wars against the Navajo and Apache during the 1860's. Their biggest solo effort? The Meeker Massacre. And the eventual loss of most of their land. A look at the history books, however, show that those Aztecs knew how to kick some ass. Pick: San Diego State

Images of US: Exceptionalism=fundamental negative attribution error

On 6 June [1982], I was given the opportunity of addressing the congregation of a conservative church on the subject of the European peace movement and our objectives. I was pleasantly surprised to see the minister and her husband, the pastor, wearing “Swords into Ploughshares” badges on their white robes.…I was constantly surprised to find peace the topic for discussion at church discussion evenings. The subject which most concerned these meetings was the way American arms policy causes deaths in the Third World every day, and is also one of the factors responsible for the catastrophes of famine and disease.
—Petra Kelly, Fighting for hope (p. 63)

Petra Kelly was a German Green. The image of the United States throughout the world is vastly different than our image of ourselves. Indeed, a chart:

groundtruth
#1 arms exporter, Most foreign bases ever, Largest military budget, Unilaterally invades

US self image
Aid to defend democracy, Protect and serve, Self protection, Sacrifices for others

World image of US
War profiteers, Global empire, Militaristic, Domineering

Some would call this the fundamental negative attribution error. That is, when we make mistakes they are all with honorable intentions and pure motives. Some would call this hypocrisy or a double standard or grossly patronizing. What is so dangerous is that we are failing as a nation to correct the facts that add up to the image of global hawk, planetary predator, militaristic corporate raptor.

How do we fix it?

• Close overseas bases. We have hundreds of military bases—probably slightly more than 1,000 of them—on the sovereign soil of other people’s lands.

• Stop exporting arms. We can earn income in other ways. We can earn loyalty with other methods. We will never be an honest broker of peace and a supplier of arms concomitantly.

• Transform the military from aggressive and offensive and violent to protective, deëscalatory and nonviolent.

• Never ever invade another country with violent forces.

Of course there are many other practices and principles that can help positively change the image of the US in the world, and many plans for doing that. I only offer the most basic, and most structural. Achieving these would dampen the damage worldwide and would lead to many other changes that would be just and sustainable.

Changing the image of a movement is hard work. Changing the image of a nation-state is even harder. But it is possible and desirable. The journey of 10,000 miles, says the Tao, begins with one step.

References
Kelly, Petra. 1984. Fighting for hope. Boston: South End Press.

Coaches can change. Is Pete Carroll a better coach today?

After being introduced as the Seahawks' new head coach, Pete Carroll owned the shortcomings of his first stints as an NFL head coach during the 90's. Peter King has the money quote:

"I didn't know who the heck I was as a football coach. What transformed for me, before getting to USC -- between New England and SC -- was really, I had an epiphany of what was most important to me as a football coach. In that process of putting those thoughts together, it kind of just solidified a mentality and an approach that now has been put in practice for 10 years.

"I feel like I'm bringing a very, very clear message to our football team when we get in our meeting room. When we start this thing off, they're going to know where I'm coming from, because I know where I'm coming from ... The whole challenge here is to get the whole organization on the same page, everybody understands where we're coming from, what we're all about, where we're going, what we're doing. I didn't know that then. I didn't know it. And I'm almost embarrassed to tell you that I [was] coaching an NFL club and I didn't have my act together."

Coaches changing their approach later in their careers and becoming better coaches than before is hardly unprecedented. The most famous NFL example is Dick Vermeil, a workaholic, high-strung taskmaster during his successful Philadelphia Eagles stint (1976-1982) and during the first two years of his comeback with the St Louis Rams before he mellowed out in his 3rd season (to the point of crying at times in front of the media and his team), and, admittedly with the help of great skill-position players at receiver and tailback along with the surprise discovery of an Arena League quarterback who it turned out could play at the NFL level, he found his greatest glory with the Greatest Show on Turf and won a Super Bowl in 2000. He retired after that season, but came back to coach the Kansas City Chiefs and managed a strong 44-36 record between 2001-2005 with the same revised approach.

Now, the misgivings are going to remain until Pete Carroll strings together 11-12 win seasons, until his teams sport competitive running games, until his defense shows up in the NFL's top 10-15 every season and only if the Seahawks team we see in 2010 and beyond show up every Sunday and play competitive games that either end in victory or, when defeated, remain in doubt until the final moments.

But people can change, and if not for that none of us in life would ever get a chance to learn new careers, develop relationships with new people or ever try anything new. While his track record arouses suspicion over his ability to succeed as an NFL coach, that Pete Carroll owned his past NFL coaching failures and asserts that his decade as USC's coach has helped him grow into a better leader and a better coach is encouraging enough for me to say wait and see, even in retaining legitimate doubt.