 To all the father's of daughters out there, let me say this... Stop making all the "I got my shotgun" comments about your daughter with boys. It only causes harm to your daughters, and is not a deterrent to the boys. Each of your daughters are beautiful, smart and has the potential to be anything they want to be. So what guy wouldn't want to be with them? But thanks to you making all these shotgun comments since they are infants, your daughters feel ashamed and afraid, like they are putting their boyfriends at risk by being attractive. And if you think your daughter and a boy getting hot and heavy with teenage hormones is going to suddenly stop because you threatened to shoot, you should know better. You were that boy once so you know what they are thinking (as you always say to justify yourself when the shotgun comments make your daughter uncomfortable). You may think you are showing your love and reinforcing healthy boundaries to your daughter by making these comments. You are not. All you are doing is making your daughter feel shame over her sexuality and her womanhood.l You are literally creating "daddy issues." You are hampering the relationship you may have with any future son in law who might love your daughter as much as you do someday, You are disrupting your own relationship with your daughter. (Would you trust someone who always makes comments about shooting people close to you?) You are teaching your daughter she has to be protected and even "managed" by a man. And she will be more likely to engage in a relationship with a guy who will try to "manage" her, as a result. So keep your guns. By all means, Use them if you have too! Teach your daughter to shoot them herself. Then shut up about it. Teach her she gets to decide what she does, and with whom she does it. Let your daughter be the one to threaten a too-handsy date with a firearm. And then tell her how proud you are of her and that you trust her. Then you will know you have protected your little girl to the very best of your ability for the rest of her life. 
0 Comments
This past March I had the pleasure of attending the American Counseling Association's annual conference in San Francisco California. The American Counseling Association or ACA for short is a professional organization that represents and advocates for Counselors from all different fields from mental health to school to career and rehabilitation counseling. It also represents and advocates for counselor educators and helps to shape the values of the counseling profession through it's code of ethics. Ethics were a particularly popular subject this year. This year's ACA conference was initially planned to be held in Nashville Tennessee however Tennessee passed house bill 1840 which asserted the right for counselors to refer clients to other professionals based on conflicting values or deeply held spiritual believes which might be in opposition with those of the client. This is in direct violation of the ACA code of ethics which holds that counselors have an ethical obligation to serve their clientele to the best of their abilities in spite of conflicting values and only to refer when it's a question of competence or expertise for a client's particular issue. Debates both within the ACA and in the media across the nation and particularly within the state of Tennessee ensued. Ultimately concerns of a partisan conservative legislative bill opening the door for possible exclusionary if not prejudicial practices by counselors in Tennessee led to the 2017 ACA conference being held in what might be the most liberal place on earth, San Francisco California. However the typical celebratory revelry of the conference on the backdrop of the recent polarized political climate in this country turned the focus of this year's conference towards a shared vision of counselors as advocates and agents of change in their individual communities and in society at large. It was noted on more than one occasion that an organization with 56,000 members, such that The ACA is, can have tremendous influence on the world. Political leanings aside, counselors both as individuals and collectively with a shared vision of unity can wield great power in the world if each Counselor acknowledges and embraces the influence they have. What many people don't realize is that counseling is more than just compensating for mental health issues. This became very apparent at the ACA conference as Counselors versed all different types of psychological theory and therapeutic techniques mingled with Counselor educators advancing evolving ideals of what it means to "be a Counselor." The picture that emerged for many attendees is that Counseling is a means of improving the world by better individuals forming better relationships with each other, strengthening communities and everyone else that those communities impact. Counselors have a role and mission that transcends the day to day focus on reducing psychosis or depression symptoms. As a counselor I personally appreciated this sentiment. I didn't always feel comfortable with the natural political bend that gets exerted by a setting such as San Francisco (I tend to be a pretty moderate guy and sometimes people's passion can pull them towards the extremes). I none the less whole heartedly endorse the broadened scope of influence counseling and counselors can and should have in the world. Counselors can and should advocate for the change they want to see in their communities. Some of the notable ways suggested at the 2017 ACA conference that counselors can perform such a broader mission were; Counselors can provide outreach education, and skill building opportunities in the form of classes, workshops or groups, they can provide expertise and contribute to the discussion of issues through the media via op-Ed pieces in local newspapers, blogging, hosting or even sponsoring events, going into schools, businesses and organizations to teach, inform and advocate, creating Counselor groups and networks to support each other and the industry at large, and most importantly exemplifying the ethics of inclusion respect and tolerance that we would show to our own clients to the whole wide world. This is indeed a tall order for those of us counselors who tend to appreciate and enjoy the solitary, almost apart from the greater world, one on one nature of our individual counseling sessions. None the less, the challenge and call to action was made, and it remains to be seen how many of the over 4000 counselors and educators in attendance at the 2017 ACA conference will accept that challenge. Not a Counselor? No problem! There are several ways that you can contribute to counseling and this broader mission, and none of them require you to be a counselor yourself or even go to grad school. For example; you can attend counseling yourself, to grow, to change, to learn about your self or others, or to improve a skill set or just to see what it's like. Then if you're comfortable you can share your counseling experience with others inspiring them to possibly take action to improve themselves and their relationships with others. You too can ask questions about how you want the future of your communities to be, and then you can organize your own groups of like-minded community members to advocate for and promote this vision. Then you can even partner with us counselors to address the concerns and needs your group has for the community. By sharing your stories and visions of the future with people that you know and trust you're helping to break down barriers and stigma associated with counseling and mental health. This will make it easier for future individuals to find, obtain, and get the most out of a counseling experience for themselves. And, just like throwing rocks in a pond, the ripple effect of Counseling continues to grow and expand into the ever deepening waters of the world we live in. www.counseling.org/conference/sanfrancisco2017  Trickle down economics works. But it works like a play in football; Only if every player does their job right. If any one player messes up the play can go horribly wrong for everyone. The Rich have to spend extravagantly, investing in new ventures, creating jobs, upgrading at every opportunity, etc to pour the money into the economy to trickle down. They only do this when they see more money coming down the pipeline from the businesses they profit on by the masses in the lower classes. Basically they are a QB that can't take a hit, and won't stay in the pocket long enough to let the play develop. If they can stand in the pocket, deliver a strike down the field, and take the hit, it could be a TD. But instead they get happy feet, roll out of the pocket, sprint to the sidelines for loss, and complain about tax cuts all the way back to the huddle. The middle class have to be content with their middle class status and be fiscally responsible with savings so that they can maintain their comfortable middle class lifestyle even in the case of an economic downturn. If they do not, the rich see the middle class's lack of spending capital and will stop spending themselves, drying up the economy. If the middle class becomes too ambitious and not satisfied with their status then they over extend themselves with risk and the middle class shrinks as the risk either booms and they move up or busts and they move down. The middle class has to stay strong to justify the role of the poor. They are an injured and taken for granted offensive lineman that doesn't have much loyalty to the QB, so holding blocks that split second longer isn't a priority. The poor have to be upwardly ambitious. They need to be hustling in the streets, and taking advantage of the fact that already being in poverty they have nothing to lose by taking big financial risk with big reward. As weird as it may sound, the poor doing things like being frugal, and trying to save up what little disposable income they have, violates the play in trickle down economics. Its like a receiver who runs routes all game, and never gets a ball thrown his way, only to get discouraged. And then he get blamed for being lazy for not selling out to make the impossible hail mary catch at the end of the game.   In a 2 party political system that basically encouraged gridlock, corruption (bribes, kickbacks, back room deals) is how you grease the wheels to keep the machine of government moving.
In a monarchy, there is not gridlock, so there is no real need for corruption. And if there is corruption, you call it treason and eliminate it like people dream of , but can't, stamp out corruption.  Wins above replacement, Player efficiency rating, DVOA and any other analytic that is supposedly a measure of a player's value over the average guy you'd have to play if that player weren't playing are inherently misleading, as they essentially penalize players with obvious weaknesses by comparing them to a mathematical "avg player." But in reality there is no avg player, all players are a combination of strengths and weaknesses.
Team building is about weighing respective players strengths and weaknesses and playing them in complimentary positions and situation to maximize their strengths and limit their weaknesses. Value is very much dependent on context. A new smartphone can be as much as $900, but it's worthless without service. And a old clunky landline phone will let you call anywhere I the world as long as there's a dial tone. Analytics are selling smartphones, but as long as you can make calls, you can win games.  I'm a hater. I hate Lebon James. Always have. I remember his draft night 13 years ago and being depressed because I felt like I couldn't look up to a kid that young. I had graduated from college the past December and after failing on my secret desire to go back and play Juco ball, I was desperately trying to find myself in life and was insanely jealous of anyone who had meaningful basketball games left t play. Lebron became the target of all my jealousy. I was adamant Dwayne Wade should be the first pick. DWade had gone to college and was basically a peer to me. I could watch and learn from him just like I could from a teammate. I looked up to college players, because that was what I was still trying to become. I could root for guys in my graduating class even current college players, but how could I root for a high school prodigy? How could I admire and emulate a kid 4 years younger than me? I was trying so hard to move forward and all I really wanted to do is go back to high school to play basketball again. Now that I think of it, this is when I started to dream I was back at Desales every night. Up until last night I could justify my hatred of Lebron on the grounds that he was physically the best and skill wise the best, because I knew I could never compete with him on either. Seeing Lebron James get drafted intimidated the hell out of me. So I gave up on ball inside. He had God given talent I could never have. But I could still argue he didn't have some intangible that would allow him to be truly great, and lie to myself that deep down I might have the one thing Lebron lacked. I justified this too myself by his lack of championship rings and attributed his 2 with Miami to Wade whom I had been arguing was a better player from day one. It all was perfect and could sit smugly and ignore the last decade of NBA basketball, dismissing it entirely as a collective delusion perpetrated on the masses by the powers that be to create a Colossus, only the Colossus wasn't quite as good as advertised. He had an achelies heel, that couldn't really be defined and I exploited that vagueness telling myself I had what he didn't. That is until last night when Lebron led the Cavs to the NBA title with a game 7 triple double as the cherry on his own MJesque "I'm Back" return he had manufactured by returning to Cleveland. Now I have to accept Lebron is the Greatest. As a basketball fan I have to appreciate him. I can no longer pretend to live in the world before King James. King James was the guy who told me I was a has been. The moment he was drafted was the moment I knew my basketball career was over. I might have been wrong. But in a weird way it was avoiding the basketball world ruled by King James that has kept me from growing up. Maybe?   Thoughts As I read about Kobe after his final game... Kobe is most like Jordan because of his ruthless competitiveness do anything to e the best at basketball. Basketball was everything to Kobe. Nothing else mattered. That was his secret. That was his power. Total focus. Total certainty. I wish I could take that attitude now. I had it once. But everyone in my life told me otherwise. School was more important. Family is more important. God is more important. Money is more important. Girls were more important. Graduating college fast is more important. Job is more important. I never did make the game my top priority. Or when I did I never stood up to the people who said otherwise. As I have said before I gave in on my priorities and gave up on myself as a result. Kobe became Black mamba after Colorado. He embraced the villain role. He had been more of a golden boy prodigy up to that point. I hated him up until Colorado. When he became a villain I liked him. As a hero, golden boy prodigy with the bling dynasty I hated him. I don't know why. I think I was jealous because I wanted to be golden boy Kobe, but couldn't empathize with him at all. The mamba I felt I could empathize with, but didn't want to be him anymore. Kobe was criticized for hogging the ball his whole career until the end when all anyone wanted was to see him shoot every time. Fans want wins first, but they want a spectacle as 1a. They prefer both. The only way to truly please everyone would be to equate winning with Kobe scoring as a direct correlation. This is essentially what Kobe was doing for much of his career, and he took criticism from both sides every time he failed at one or the other. He wins his 5th title but gets blasted for going 7 for 26. He refuses to shooting a game to make w point and Gris accused of sacrificing wins for his own ego. For all the times Kobe has said he didn't care to please anyone, he seems to have spent his career single-mindedly attempting to do the one thing that would please everyone. Kobe was intentionally aloof or a loner so he didn't have relationships complicating his focus and drive. He seemed intentional about it. He knew he had to walk the road alone or he might get side tracked. Jordan didn't seem to be concerned that others would side track him. Kobe practiced making ridiculous shots. He expected to take them in games. He expected he would continue to take them even when he missed. Kobe always was the first to the gym and the last to leave. He would be early and late tone alone. With all the former players saying they wish Kobe would have let them in and been more open to them, the obvious route into Kobe's trust would have been to put in those extra hours in the gym with him day after day. Did anyone try this? How did Phil Jackson not try this? After all he would send Steve Kerr out to party with Rodman to make sure Dennis was part of the team. He probably did with some rookies and Kobe made them cry. Did the Lakers ever try bringing in a player from a former championship team to try and get through to Kobe? A John Daley from the Pistons type? Robert Horry might be the closest as he could have said, hey this is how we won titles with Hakeem in Houston. My guess is Bob tried and he is probably as close and respects by Kobe as any other teammate has been. Kobe made reference to having created mythologies in his mind that he hopes to make into movies and books. I have to believe mythology creation goes hand in hand with walking alone. All the experience Kobe never shared was internalized as an epic mythology. That's probably how it's always gone. It's as if the creative impulse that has been suppressed due to the pursuit of other things builds up and has no choice but to exist in the ultimate for of creative expression: Kobe created a whole new world. The thought of Kobe and Michael Jackson bonding over being child prodigies blows my mind yet makes perfect and even poetic sense. Kobe's last 3 seasons were ruined by injury as his body slowly gave out a piece at a time. He, along with KG and Tim Duncan are pulling off the fast rise slow demise that really had been unheard of until now. Usually the demise just springs up on you like it did Peyton Manning. Especially when you are a child star like all these guys were from the moment they touched a ball.   Baseball didn't lead the revolution. Again, moneyball was about finding the little inexpensive things that contribute to winning and spending less money to shore those up instead of huge money on the big things because it was more cost effective. It was never like Billy Beane discovered some knew secret formula to winning no one else could decipher without the right math. Smart teams have always found players to do the little things and then pair them with the big money players in the most competitive combos possible . The best teams at doing this have always been successful. The salary cap actually has been the impetus for this development, which means football and basketball have actually lead this movement. It was less important in baseball with no cap because you could always overpay for everything to win (hence the Yankees). Moneyball was simply a team deciding they couldn't compete financially and therefore couldn't overspend so they started budgeting very tightly and searching for bargains and shopping 2nd hand. In a capped league the concept of not being able to compete financially doesn't exist as much so the concept of "Moneyball" was meaningless. But the evaluation of talent and the balance of team building has been a major part of football and basketball for decades. The technology to better measure physical aspects of sports has improved the ability to judge the value of players.  The math on 3pt shooting has been known forever. I went to basketball camps in the 90s and watched videos from the 80s explaining how if one team takes 10 2point shots and makes 6 they score 12 points, but if the other team takes 10 3point shots, they only have to make 4 to get 12 points. We always knew that math. The problem was we expected a team could make 5 out of 10 2 point shots, but probably only about 3 out of 10 3point shots consistently. That would mean the 2point shooting team wins 10 to 9. But now 3 point shooting has improved across the board and teams can expect to shoot 40% from 3 on the law of averages so 12 beats 10 4 to 5. Why? Because now streaky shooters can bomb away through 5 straight misses and then make 4 out of 5 and be shooting 40 % consistently. Previously there was a taboo that if your deep 3 point shots aren't falling, get closer 2 point shots. The rest of the world thought this way since the 80s with the shorter international 3 point line. But the USA could still beat those teams with superior athletes able to close out on shooters.  System based coordinated mental health services work by forcing the client into a more structured lifestyle as a function of accessing the services.
Yes, people living chaotic lives will function better when organized. But employing that as a service model means essentially Imposing beauracracy on a family. "Imposing beauracracy" is probably a good definition of therapy. Of course most therapists would object to that connotation, and that's why they often bristle against this kind of thing. But if they could just be transparent about it, it might not be so bad. The truth is all the legislation that has given parity to mental health has been passed on the basis of the argument that mental health is in the public's best interest not necessarily the individual's best interest. So all the programs are serving the public good not the good of the clients. Conflicts of interest arise all the time. Tying individual to the public interests is the real motive of treatment planning. |
ThinkTank
|
RSS Feed
Photos used under Creative Commons from Free For Commercial Use (FFC), franchiseopportunitiesphotos, Dalekwidow, xmodulo, vhines200, Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com
