Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Donald Sterling a Sly Fox and Cunning Businessman


The following are my posts on Google+, soon after TMZ released an audio-recorded conversation between Donald Sterling and V. Stiviano at the end of April:

Kevin Johnson
As scores of us were shocked and disgusted with what Sterling said, Sacramento Mayor and NBA great Kevin Johnson cautioned us to hold judgment (i.e., until the NBA could finish its investigation) but acknowledged the challenge of doing so in a situation that demanded judgment.

Donald Sterling
Donald Sterling is clearly the lightning rod now for whatever prejudice, big or small, each of us may harbor.


There is deep jealousy mixed in with the ugly racism here. But this conversation sounds like a setup: Either she is clueless about that jealousy, or just baiting his racism to the surface. 


Three decades of incompetence were wiped away by three days of chaos. ~Bill Simmons

Clippers superstars Chris Paul and Blake Griffin
#Clippers: from $12.5 million (Sterling's purchase cost), to nearly $1 billion (estimated value). That's three decades of super-profitable incompetence!

Sterling clearly harbored malicious attitudes and apparently discriminated against minorities for a long time.  But I don't know think he was at all incompetent.  He under invested in the Clippers for years, and let team performance languish as a consequence, but as my friend and I acknowledged:  He's a sly fox and a cunning businessman.  

Sunday, June 22, 2014

Donald Sterling as Human Lightning Rod


Donald Sterling
Donald Sterling
I was on the go, and reading The sad last chapter of Sterling's life, by ESPN Ramona Shelburne, on my smart phone.  But I read only half of it, before I had to get going.  I tweeted it, so I could track it down easily and finish it later on.  But my friend responded to that tweet, and she and I launched into a Twitter conversation so brisk that we hardly had time to read each other's tweets, before responding.  The nice thing, though, about social media is that we could go back to all of our tweets and at least acknowledge them.  So, in a way, we didn't stitch together a perfectly patterned fabric, but we managed to close all the stitches we needed to close.
































I have been collecting articles and clips on Donald Sterling, since TMZ broke his fateful conversation with V. Stiviano at the end of April - Clippers Owner Donald Sterling to Girlfriend: Don't Bring Black People to My Games (Audio).  The Clippers were in the middle of the playoffs, and to say this news break was stunning is an understatement.  It rocked the NBA, and scores of analysts, fans and celebrities weighed in on one of the more ludicrous yet tragic stories we know.

Other than commenting here and there on Google+, I mostly kept reactions to myself.  I needed to get my arms around all that Sterling meant for himself, the NBA, and our society at large.  My thoughts and opinions were, and still are, very much inchoate.  But we don't, and can't, plan things out the way we want.  So when Ginger chimed in, I felt prompted to respond.  In our brisk conversation, we marked down a multiplicity of issues that I wanted to capture here and then add to.
  1. Racism was the centerpoint of that audio recording.  But I also heard a man who was terribly  envious of others with whom his mistress had photos with and had posted on Instagram.  A man who, I sensed, felt rather insecure and inadequate vis-a-vis the likes of Magic Johnson.  
  2. Some likened him to a plantation owner, who, as Clippers owner, lorded over African American coaches and athletes.  That's a very evocative, painful allusion to slavery in our history.  This issue alone warrants study, reflection and conversation.
  3. Apparently Sterling consented to the audio recording, but I'm not sure of this.  The conversation sounded stilted and set up on Stiviano's part.  Consent or no consent, this was a private conversation between two American adults.  I'm sure many of us have said far worse things in our own privacy.  
  4. I am curious about the estranged marriage between Sterling and his wife Shelly.  I wonder what this relationship was really like, and what Shelly's own issues, motives and shortcomings were.  She's a co-owner of the Clippers, and apparently was spared of the NBA wrath and punishment.  
  5. In fairly short order, several bidders came knocking to be the next owner of his hot franchise.  But it was Steve Ballmer, with whom Shelly inked a $2 billion conditional sales agreement.  So another issue was capitalism.  A man, roundly ridiculed by people and branded a racist, stands to gain in an enormous way for his racism.  My initial reaction?  Something is terribly wrong with this picture.  
  6. The manner and the route by which Shelly had license to ink a deal was yet another issue.  Apparently Sterling was deemed incompetent by his doctors, something to do with dementia, so his input and his signature were not needed for Shelly to move forward.  Besides this legal matter, however, I wonder about his state of mind.  
  7. Related to this medical condition, I wonder about the nature and depth of his psychological distress. Whether we hate him or not, he is still a human being, and is therefore prone to anxiety, regret and despondency at having been 'outed' for his racist remarks.  Moreover, there are reports that he abused his son Scott, but nonetheless what may have been a turbulent relationship doesn't preclude feelings of grief and remorse.  How much of his dementia is due to emotional turmoil, rather than neurological decline?
  8. If his concerns about his declining mental health weren't enough, Sterling is battling prostate cancer.  He's advanced in age already, and as I tweeted, he may not have long to live.  I can only imagine what the stress he's largely created and triggered is doing to his dementia and cancer.  
  9. After the NBA, his doctors delivered a major blow to his sense of dignity and capability.  So that prompted an angry tirade over voice mail, which ESPN aired two or three days ago.  According to reports, he was off-again, on-again as far as fighting these issues was concerned.  The NBA verdict on the $2 billion deal may not be delivered until mid-September, and Sterling risks losing a large windfall if he keeps the fight on.
  10. Others, and I myself, have wondered about his intelligence.  I don't follow the Clippers, but for the longest time, under Sterling's tenure, they were not on the radar for good teams in the NBA.  His apparent unwillingness to invest in the team was seen by some as an example of his mismanagement and incompetency.  But I wouldn't be so quick with that conclusion: More than 30 years ago, Sterling bought the team for two handfuls of millions.  Ballmer's offer sheet, notwithstanding, analysts have pegged the value of the Clippers at close to one billion.  As Ginger said, he's a sly fox, and as I said, he's a cunning businessman.
  11. The fact that malicious attitudes, such as racism and bullying, ran deep in some people was, to me, an indication that whatever society has done so far has, at best, not been enough, and, at worst, fallen terribly short of resolve the matter.  The NBA can, and did, lay the hammer on Sterling, but what did that really resolving or eliminate?  I have argued that control measures are a necessary but insufficient condition for resolving discrimination, prejudice and racism.  
  12. The beauty of social media and mobile devices is that many, many of us can weigh in on any issue, as we wish.  But even as Sterling is dead center in this tragic human drama, we are very much interwoven threads in that.  Whatever thoughts and reactions we have related are subject to judgment, that is, subject to having the large mirror held in front of us.  We can hate on him, for that is understandable given how despicable his remarks were.  But isn't hatred at the very essence of racism in particular?    
I would love to tell Sterling's story.  I am neither a journalist nor a novelist.  But I am a management consultant and a clinical psychologist, who grasps people well and writes about them well.  I want to tell a complete story, that accounts for his own viewpoint and experience and also accounts for everything else I noted in the foregoing points.  There are multiple corners to illuminate and multiple lessons to learn, so these points may just be the tip of the iceberg, as I continue to get my arms around all the issues and engage in many more conversations.  I want to tell a complete story, because I feel it would be significant steps forward in resolving an undercurrent of prejudice and malice among us, in relation to each other.

Friday, June 20, 2014

Understanding Phenomenology of Sugar


If you want to do one thing, and only one thing, get off of sugar.  Sugar is deadly metabolic poison.  It screws up all of your biochemistry. 
We know how to prevent cancer, and we know how to cure cancer, and it's fairly simple to do.  We're just not telling anybody about it.  You cannot be sick, unless cells malfunction.  When cells malfunction in a certain way, we get what we call cancer.
There is a lot that is so questionable and concerning about what Raymond Francis relates, let's step back and cover some of these things.

The profile on Francis' own website Beyond Health lists his degree as M.Sc., and his training as a chemist and as graduate of MIT.  Apparently producers at WREX station from Rockford, IL fed interviewer Jeannie Hayes wrong information, as Francis is not a doctor.  He didn't correct her, when she addressed him as such.  Perhaps it was just an innocent mistake.

After a very serious health scare at age 48, this gentleman turned his life around, after his own doctors showed little optimism that he could survive.  More than just survive, he thrived in picture-perfect health for 26 years, after two years of recovery.  Quite a bit of research and major lifestyle changes brought him to age 76, at the time of the interview on April 12th 2012.  

Let's take this profile at face value, and we can acknowledge that it must've been an extraordinary turn around in health.  Be that as it may, another questionable thing is how Francis generalized a personal experience into a prescription for health for people.  Technically it's a flaw of inductive reasoning: that is, one example becomes a mistaken representation of everyone in a group or everything in a situation.  It is also what I call the persistence of geocentric thinking (rf. Part 2 of The Core Algorithm - Making the Future).

There is also the phenomenology of eating sugar.  I admit to loving chocolates, ice cream, cookies and cakes.  I go through cycles when I crave sugary foods more than at other times.  I do not gorge on these, by any means.  In fact, my family and I have learned to buy mini-portions of chocolates, so after a meal I often eat two or three pieces.  Granted, Francis may know far more about sugar than I, but to call it metabolic poison is frankly ludicrous and hyperbolic.  I would think that if it were truly poison, we'd have hordes of children around the world dying off in recess, if not at lunch, at school.  Me, I'm obviously still alive and kicking.  I am in good health, and I exercise on a daily basis.  I have my tired stretches, but I am blessed to have a good amount of energy, alertness and focus.

An essential aspect of the phenomenology of sugar is that it's a tasty, pleasurable thing to eat.  My mouth is salivating this moment just thinking about a piece of chocolate.  Life is complicated or rough at times, and this little pleasure is among the things I am thankful to God for.  Chocolates do not solve problems, of course, but it takes the edge of whatever stress I may be feeling.  That little thing in itself puts me in a better position of doing my work and taking care of things.  It is a fundamental choice I make, and a fundamental choice that again scores of people make.

If Francis, or others, wish to help me with my diet or health in general, they first of all must determine if I, or anyone else, want to be helped.  If the answer is yes, then his next protocol is to understand my phenomenology.  He may draw on his knowledge and experience, including perhaps research studies.  But my phenomenology, or anyone else's, is not a scientific finding or a medical conclusion.  Who I am includes my palate, my preferences, and my culture.  So any lifestyle change that he might help me with has to account, as best as possible, for who I really am.  Not who he is, what he has done, or even what he thinks.  In brief, it's correcting that flaw in reasoning and turning from geocentric to heliocentric thinking.

Last year as I undertook my Algorithm for Disease, which was my effort to look at disease differently and to recommend an approach to curing it better than humankind has thus far.  After several weeks, I saw that it was a far more arduous, complicated task than I had initially thought.  I am still at it, but with no time frame for finishing it.  So for Francis to say it's a simple thing to prevent and cure cancer is to suggest that this gentleman is flat out naive.

All of the foregoing said, I encourage people to be mindful of what they hear or read about.  I don't suggest that they be categorically skeptical or dismissive of anyone that sounds just fractionally quacky. But they ought to weigh what they know about the subject, in relation to what they don't know, and decide how they want to go forward.  Of course they may decide to check with their medical professional, friends or family, or online resources.  But when it comes to sugar, or any other particular foods, they can make a choice.  

Finally, and sadly ironic, I wanted to find out a bit more about WREX and Hayes in particular.  I didn't see her among the news team.  So I Googled her separately, and learned that she had died.  Seven months after her interview with Francis, and just two days after being diagnosed with leukemia, in November 2012, she lost the short battle (rf. WREX Anchor Jeannie Hayes Dies and Jeannie Hayes: 1983 - 2012)



May she continue to rest in peace.  She was only 29.

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Understanding Phenomenology of Unsafe Sex


A hand with fingers crossed
(image credit)
'So… wait," I asked my friend Hayley, over some overpriced wine in my local one evening, "you don't use any contraception, at all?" "None," she said matter-of-factly. "I've had unprotected sex so many times with no results that I think I might be infertile." I doubt that she needed my judgment face at that particular moment, but she got it. She's no teenager, and I have to admit I'd thought she would know better.
Reference: Unsafe sex: why everyone's at it.

There is a lot to appreciate about this lengthy article, as Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett covers her bases well. She admits to being befuddled about why mature, responsible adults engage in unsafe sex.  Yet, she doesn't let her judgment face dominate her subject.  Instead, she investigates.  She cites studies, and she talks to women, managing to get them to share what they do, how they think, and what they experience.  Her approach to understanding her subject is not scientific, not in the strict sense of the term, but it is balanced and systematic enough as to illuminate her subject, arguably more effectively than would an obtusely-written, abstractly-conceived experiment.  In brief, she captures some epidemiology, but focuses on phenomenology.

In this little series, I look at so-called bad things we do, and work at lending new perspectives and better understanding of them: smoking, unsafe sex, and sugar.  What more about the second?  The notion of "unsafe" is a curiosity, really, when we think about one of the most natural, even sacred of human activity.  It isn't just a human activity, even, but sex, in one form or another, is an absolute imperative for the survival of any life on earth.  Having sex may not seem so vital to everyone.  After all, one must eat and drink, and breathe oxygen to survive, but one most definitely can live an entire life without any sex.  So "unsafe" sounds like a gross misnomer, in the survival sense.

But in modern-day parlance, we know what it means.  Somewhere in the progression of civilization, humankind shifted from procreation to recreation, when it came to sex.  Propagation of the species is probably the very last thing in our mind, when we're angling for sex and when we're plunged-deep into it.  It is an act of nature-derived impulse, it is an inviolable act of pleasure, it is an act of romance and love.  All this said, and risk of procreation (i.e., pregnancy) is part of what makes modern-day sex unsafe.  The risk of disease is part of that, too.  If you might buy into the notion, even just a bit, that disease is a form of intelligent life, then it knows perfectly well how to propagate its own sort: that is, by weaving itself into the most compelling, frequent human activity.

We can level a critique at Cosslett and her editor.  She has dispensed with the stories (phenomenology) of those who, in contrast to people she interviewed, do practice safe sex, such as using condoms regularly and staying on birth control pills consistently.  The title, too, is unfortunate, as clearly not "everyone" is at it.  But it's an effective ploy, I imagine, at drawing readership.  So we don't quite get a complete picture of the subject.

But by focusing on phenomenology, Cosslett shows us that people who practice unsafe sex have very real, understandable, if not entirely agreeable, reasons behind it.  Not just reasons, but also wants and reactions that underpin unsafe sex.  If we are to help them practice sex more safely, then we are in a better position, I argue, for doing so, because we have a better understanding of their phenomenology.  I don't mean this in the abstract or generalized sense, however.  The algorithm, more specifically, is looking into, talking about, and understanding what a particular woman and-or a man think, want and do.  So if they're unhappy with their sex practice and its consequences, then we can work out solutions that make the most sense to them.

For those of us who don't understand, or are perhaps unwilling to accept, the reality and phenomenology of unwanted, bad behavior, there is bound to be failure in changing that behavior.  Whether we like it or not, whether or not we think it even exists, people have an inviolable freedom to choose what they do or not do.  Some of these women, whom Cosslett spoke to, are fully aware of the risks of unsafe sex.  But getting pregnant is indeed not always a terrible thing to happen, and coming down with a sexually-transmitted disease isn't so awful either when they can go to a clinic for treatment.

Finally, at the risk of ending on a morbid note, I want to acknowledge that cigarettes will hasten death for smokers and that unsafe sex will kill partners, if they come down with virulent, incurable diseases.  Again if people who engage in these activities want to change, and if we have a complete enough grasp of why they do what they do, then we have all sorts of remedies at our disposal.  But those who may not want to change deserve our empathy and understanding, more than our censure, aggravation or dismissal.  They will die, and they will die earlier than they would have otherwise.  But that is their choice, and that is their stake in some meaningful, pleasurable life.

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Understanding Phenomenology of Smoking


(image credit)
Corina Marinescu posted A few smoking facts a few months ago on Google+, and it triggered quite a lengthy, very thoughtful discussion among friends, including me:

The epidemiology of smoking is quite compelling and disturbing to me +Corina Marinescu. So I'm very glad I don't smoke. But there is clearly a fundamental, maybe deep-seated need for smoking among scores of people. The fact that so many still smoke, decades after it's been proven to be harmful is a remarkable human commentary, I'd say. I really appreciate what you've shared +Nicodin Bogdan. Besides the epidemiology, I think we need to do more to understand the phenomenology of smoking. Not so much in the aggregate (scientific) vein, but more on a person by person (idiographic) basis. I anticipate that with such a deeper, more personal understanding, (a) we will know better how to help a person who truly wants to quit and (b) we will appreciate, though not necessarily agree with, any person's choice to keep smoking.

What Nicodin Bogdan said resonated very well with that phenomenology many people overlook:
Some people just want to see the world burn +Sam Collett . For example , I've been smoking since I was 14. I couldn't care less about lung cancer , to be honest I'd much prefer it than some other types out there. In the meantime I've been a vegetarian for 15 yrs , buy only locally produced greens , don't support big agro business that takes advantage of poor workers , contribute to charity , work out 3 times a week and I'm generally a nice guy. It doesn't always come down to 'health'. I love smoking as much as the next obese guy that loves to eat. It's disputable who does more harm to the world.
p.s. I also ride motorcycles , so .. ya know .. once you pick too many poisons worrying about death is pretty much wasted time , you may as well enjoy life.
He added:
+Jussi Lahtinen Meh , a lot of self-loathing people out there thought I would imagine a big chunk of smokers would like to quit but can't. The rest just figured out it isn't cool these days and use addiction as an excuse. That has never been a problem for me. I usually quit for 2 weeks every year or so just to test my willpower. I never failed to quit for that amount of time but I will admit that it's a powerful drug and argue that people should not smoke if they don't like it. But if like myself , they enjoy it , I see no harm in that as long as they don't puff in front of their pregnant wives or give cigarettes for free in front of schools. Chances are I'm going to die from it. Hopefully a heart attack but with my life style I doubt it. If it's gonna be the big C I hope it's a small cell lung cancer so that I go quickly and don't bother anyone unnecessarily :) Than again I could live to be 100. I would hope not but who knows ? 
Who knows? is quite right.  Chances are those who smoke habitually are not likely to live as long as those who don't.  But in the complexity and variety of life, there is absolutely no scientist or seer who can predict exactly how long each of us will live.  In the meantime, regardless of government ideology, all of us have an inviolably freedom to make choices in our lives.  Maybe one choice isn't so available, such as being impoverished and not having access to housing comforts.  But another choice is bound to be available, and it could very well be smoking cigarettes.

But like many, Marinescu seems to have difficulty appreciating the more holistic context here, and admits to a particular perspective:
Well...I do like +Ron Villejo point is nice...but unfortunately I see smoking from my point - which is medical. I also like +Nicodin Bogdan 's explanation it's real and just pictures his life choices......but still, I see this from medical point. After so many people I've seen dying of lung cancer (including members of my own family) all these nice words and options etc etc are just that words. Lung cancer KILLS and more than that is a slowly painful death (for some). In the end you'll look like a cadaver asphyxiating yourself, if your dying from respiratory failure.
When lung cancer spreads to other regions of the body, it can interfere with the normal functioning of those organs. For example, if lung cancer has spread to the brain, it may interfere with normal brain functions such as the ability to walk, talk, and swallow, or even result in a hemorrhagic stroke, so get ready to wear a diaper and get feed like a baby. Or simply look like a vegetable staring at the ceiling.
You should consider yourself lucky if the lung cancer has spread to the liver or pericardium...at least you're going to die faster.
So, I'm sorry but all I can do is laugh at smokers and at the "smoke philosophy". Also I have a request....please all of you out there who smoke and which one day you'll end up in the hospital "shocked" that you have cancer after 40 years of intense smoking, at least smile. Desperation and prayers to invisible entities are not going to work, also doctors are not magicians...be responsible for your own life and try to live healthy!
But this is her human algorithm.  This is what she sees, what she believes, and what she chooses to say.  In that holistic context, we may choose what part, or parts, to focus and bank our ideas on.  We ought to acknowledge and understand that as well.

Zorean Dean was very kind to compliment my comment:
+Ron Villejo you are extraordinarily articulate and i very much enjoyed reading what you have to say. I also have to agree. though i will say i am a smoker.